If the game Trump was playing was obstruction of justice (not collusion) then it’s Mueller and Comey who have the legal problems.
And I assert this with confidence as one who has – and who will continue to in this article – argued all along the FBI has created a legal fiasco for itself.
And all this superb content done without myself bothering to give you, the reader, analysis of the convoluted legal facts.
As I predicted back in May of 2017, Comey never had evidence of collusion with Russia. His real plan to threaten Trump with impeachment (and then launch a Comey 2020 Presidential campaign which I also predicted in May 2017) was to provoke Trump into firing him and then later having a special counsel charge Trump with obstructing of justice because of Comey’s firing.
From May 2017:
Comey’s strategy was a variant taken from the playbook of his mentor and friend, Patrick Fitzgerald. The Fitzgerald strategy is to spend years kindling a media firestorm with limited, but carefully selected, leaks about a major investigation into the supposed crimes of a Republican White House, but only to end up nailing a few suspects on investigative crimes unrelated to the major felony the media was yearning for.
This was Fitzgerald’s approach to the bogus Valerie Plame “outing”; I believe it was Comey’s strategy in the bogus election investigation.
But with modifications.
Instead of being satisfied with exonerating the White House for the underlying crime but nailing advisers on unrelated charges as Fitzgerald did in “Plamegate“, Comey hoped to bring down Trump on an obstruction of justice charge; charges that could either leave his Presidency sandbagged with a large scandal or actually lead to impeachment.
Comey’s reported actions are consistent with passive-aggressive attempts to anger Trump in order to get him to make statements that could be construed as interfering with the investigation.
Based on what has been reported about their private conversations, Comey appeared very coy responding to Trump’s questions about what state the investigation was in, who was under investigation, whether the intelligence probe was being converted to a criminal case, or whether Trump himself was being criminally investigated.
Meanwhile, Comey quietly encouraged the media to speculate about the direction of the investigation (such as the urine soaked “dossier”) based on leaks strategically fed to them even though Comey himself had known for months there was no underlying crime.
In public testimony to the Congress, Comey was careful to give as little information as possible.
By keeping the true state of the investigation a very tightly held secret and letting it unnecessarily drag on despite most Congressmen and Senators admitting in public they had seen no evidence of a crime, he hoped to let Trump’s imagination and frustration grow wild in meetings Comey meticulously kept notes about.
Eventually, he planned, Trump would make enough small to medium size (or one obviously over the line) statements that bordered on obstruction for Comey to later argue collectively made for a true case of obstruction.
So much for that obstruction case.
The IG report gives extensive evidence Comey’s Directorship was so questionable that Trump will have no problem spinning (regardless of facts) that Comey deserved to be fired for gross mismanagement.
Wrong election models? There is no shortage.
For good election models (as with all good statistical models) we require good methodology.
Sound methodology in this field starts with anticipating what the election dynamic will be between dominant variables. If the right dynamic and dominant variables are chosen, we then sift through the results of the the model for useful information about the election. From this useful information we then determine what course of action (if any) to take in an election.
And, if you want to compare my c.v. on predictive analytics with others, I refer you to these examples –
From November 07, 2016:
IBD’s number today suggest R-D turnout levels will be even.
Early voting totals suggest IBD is right, but that state pollsters haven’t adjusted their turnout models correctly.
For example, in the CBS/Yougov poll of Florida, which had the state tied 45-45, their weighted sample had whites being only 61.7% of all voters, Hispanics 19.8 and blacks 13.7.
But according to early Florida vote results whites are 66% of the electorate, Hispanics 15% and blacks 13%. If the CBS turnout model is adjusted with these actual figures then Trump is ahead by over 1 point in Florida, and this before election day voting which will break strongly for him.
I’m now confident Trump will take Florida tomorrow.
For another example, most state polls of North Carolina have that state even despite early voting being disastrous for Democrats.
If state polls are generally built around 2012 turnout models and if IBD is right that Republican and Democrat turnout will be even, the state polls, which are very tight, are overestimating Hillary’s actual position.
From August 29, 2015 –
Actually, Trump is winning a plurality of Evangelicals and just about every other Republican demographic. Trump is also performing well enough in general election matchups that I’m now comfortable switching my support from Walker to him.
As for Ben Carson, his bump is probably a temporary result of the debate. I suspect Carson will fade and Cruz will pick up most of his social con supporters. But it won’t be enough for Cruz to stop Trump.
That last excerpt is from back in 2015 when Scott Walker was still in the GOP presidential primary, and when Ben Carson was in second place, ahead of Ted Cruz. Cruz, if you remember, did go on to pass Carson and finish second to Trump in delegates.
By the Condor Principle I mean the Hamiltonian foreign policy principle which, like every other diplomatic modus operandi of the glorious Party, had its fine details ironed out, and subsequently put into motion, during the Cold War.
The Condor Principle is named in honor of Operation Condor. The central idea behind that noble Operation was it does not matter at all if a foreign government is Dictatorial nor how many “human rights” violations it commits; it matters only if the dictatorship is aligned (or at least neutral) with American corporate-military-industrial interests or if it is hostile to American corporate-military-industrial interests.
If you comply, Hamiltonians ignore how many of your citizens were foolish enough to be in a village, town, or city when you firebombed it.
And if you do not, it is you who are firebombed.
Just call James Comey Spymaster.
And this spymaster has finally been hit with the investigatory knockout I’ve been expecting –
If they refer to criminal activity involved with the FBI’s monitoring of the Trump campaign that likely means they see particular violations of particular legal statutes.
If it turns out there is evidence of criminal use of FISA warrants then the investigation is likely cooked: Among other effects Comey and McCabe would potentially become targets of a criminal investigation, Mueller as Comey’s close friend and mentor would be too biased to remain as special counsel, the trustworthiness of the Russia investigation will suffer a decisive loss in public confidence, other FBI officials lower on the food chain may squeal on their superiors to save themselves, and so forth.
With his periscope videos about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I see Scott Adams making a common mistake foreign policy analysts make when they discuss how “rational” warring sides are in any given conflict. Indeed, misunderstanding the concept of “rationality” is a universal problem among foreign policy analysts – I have not seen one analyst other than myself ever use “rational” in the correct way used by game theorist statisticians. Maybe this should be blamed on the fact game theory is a mathematical field beyond the scope of our innumerate punditocracy, as all mathematical fields are to them starting with basic addition and subtraction. But the pundits all assure you they were “taught how to think” by their liberal arts “education”.
Nevertheless, Adams is the second best active policy analyst in the world (second only to myself), and it does no good to public debate for him to spin his wheels going nowhere.
Allow me to walk you all through what Adams is saying and why game theory says he’s on the wrong course.
The Israeli-Saudi strategy has been to support the removal of Assad. In my opinion this is the wrong strategy. The fall of Assad would have left a power vacuum that Iran could have filled with other terrorist proxies. Leaving a gravely weakened Assad in power is better because Assad’s weakness will be easier to leverage into concessions favorable to the Israelis and Saudis.
One of the concessions Israel, with American backing, should demand is removal of Iranian forces from Syria. In exchange, Israel would agree to recognize Assad’s government. Assad is already desperate to calm tensions with Israel and he has recently proposed to create a 40 mile buffer zone between Israel and Iranian forces. The Israelis should demand further concessions while making narrow strategic attacks against Iranian forces stationed in Syria.
To diplomatically bolster the Israeli negotiating position further the United States should also insist on the removal of Iranian forces.
There is no other way to spin this week’s exchange of fire between Iran and Israel other than my numerous predictions about how the conflict would play out were exactly right and that I laid out the best Hamiltonian Regional strategy for America to handle Iran’s misadventures – a Hamiltonian Regional strategy Trump himself is following to a tee, much to Tehran’s detriment.