OOPS! NOT CLOSE TO 150 FBI AGENTS WORKING ON CLINTON'S EMAILS

From TalkingPointsMemo:

After The Washington Post published a lengthy investigation into the origins of Hillary Clinton's email scandal, including the bombshell revelation that 147 FBI agents were looking into her private server, the newspaper corrected its report late Tuesday to note the number of agents looking into Clinton’s emails as actually fewer than 50. 

The recently edited version of the 5000 word article by Robert O'Harrow in the WP has the following correction at the very end for those who have the stamina to read that far.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article incorrectly said that Clinton used two different email addresses, sometimes interchangeably, as secretary of state. She used only hdr22@clintonemail.com as secretary of state. Also, an earlier version of this article reported that 147 FBI agents had been detailed to the investigation, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. Two U.S. law enforcement officials have since told The Washington Post that figure is too high. The FBI will not provide an exact figure, but the officials say the number of FBI personnel involved is fewer than 50. 

When I read about the nearly 150 FBI agents in the original article, the number sounded incredible to me. Since the article has been linked several times, the number 150 will stick despite the correction. My guess for the anonymous source in the original is a GOP congressional staff member who had incomplete information or who passed on incorrect information to Robert O'Harrow, and - surprise! - the reporter fell for the story.  (Added note: I did not need to guess about the anonymous source; the statement "a lawmaker briefed by FBI director James Comey" appears in the article and in the correction.)

What those who hope for an indictment don't understand or don't care to understand is that Clinton would have had to knowingly send classified emails on an insecure server. Emails that were classified after being sent would not lead to an indictment. Who knows but that Clinton's server was more secure that the State Department server? Colin Powell said he set up a private server when he was Secretary of State because the Department's server was so old and clunky.

Chris Cillizza could not resist chiming in on his WP blog, and, as of now, his blog has not been corrected.  Cillizza noted the following:

Both stories make clear that, according to legal experts, Clinton is very unlikely to be punished for her exclusive use of a private email server during her time at State since the practice was not forbidden. (Worth noting: Lots of other secretaries of state used private email accounts to supplement their official accounts; none used only a private email account and server.)

But then Cillizza goes on to add:

Potentially more problematic for Clinton is her insistence that she never knowingly sent or received any messages that were marked classified at the time. It’s been shown in the year-plus of investigations into her server that there were a number of items on Clinton’s server that were classified after the fact, but there is no evidence to make her initial statement untrue.  (My emphasis)

If there is no evidence that Clinton's initial statement is untrue, why is her insistence that she never knowingly sent classified emails problematic?  It is a puzzlement.

Full disclosure: I skimmed through most of the article in the WP, because I've already read so much about the email "scandal", and I watched much of Clinton's 11-hour grilling in which she made fools of the six Republican members of the Benghazi!!! committee. 5000 words was just too much of the same old, same old.  How unfortunate that with all that work, the reporter made such a mistake.   A source who will not go on the record is problematic, too.

Update from NBCNews:

But a former federal law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the Clinton investigation tells MSNBC an estimate anywhere near 50 agents is also off base.
"There are currently about 12 FBI agents working full-time on the case," says the source, who would only speak anonymously about an open investigation.

More anonymous sources, and the plot thickens.

"THE PRIZE WINNER OF DEFIANCE, OHIO" - MOVIE

The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio, was pulled from theaters soon after its release in 2005 in only a small number of venues because of early negative reviews.  How sad.  Because my first viewing was interrupted several times and because I loved the film. I watched it twice.  Evelyn Ryan (Julianne Moore) is the mother of ten children, married to alcoholic Kelly Ryan (Woody Harrelson).  Kelly spends much of his wage as a machinist at the liquor store, which sometimes leaves the family with no money to buy food or milk before the next paycheck.

The running thread of Evelyn's (and Kelly's) humiliation is highlighted throughout the movie by Evelyn pleading and bargaining with Ray, the milkman, (Simon Reynolds) to leave milk for the children when she has no money to pay the bill.  The desperate and embarrassing plight of the family leads Kelly to despair and turn even more to the bottle for relief.

The story is true (allowing for artistic liberties) and is based on the book of the same name by "Tuff" Ryan (Jordan Todosey), one of the daughters of Evelyn and Kelly.  Set in the 1950s and 1960s, when the traditional role of a woman was to be a wife and mother, Evelyn is expected to put up with the lack of money and Kelly's occasional drunken rages and try harder to make the best of the situation.  Julianne Moore's performance is splendid.  Evelyn carries on, mostly cheerfully, against enormous odds for the sake of the children and for the sake of maintaining her own sanity.  With ten children, her options are few to none.

Prizes for sending in lyrics for jingles for TV commercials were in their heyday at the time, and Evelyn has a gift for finding the right words to match the jingle melodies.  Her family urges her to send in her lyrics, which she does, and she begins to win.  The prizes get larger and larger, and she goes from toasters, to freezers, to trips, cars, and money.   Usually, the trips have to be exchanged for funds, and the cars cars sold to make ends meet.

Before my review becomes too much of a spoiler, I'd better stop.  I'd only add that I recommend this sentimental, bittersweet movie highly.

HAPPY ST PATRICK'S DAY!

 

Ha ha.  Where, indeed? 

From nakedpastor.

AT THE CLOSE OF DAY

It is not ourselves that we proclaim; we proclaim ChristJesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants, for Jesus' sake.For the same God who said, "Out of darkness let lightshine," has caused his light to shine within us, to give thelight of revelation--the revelation of the glory of God in theface of Jesus Christ.
(2 Corinthians 4:5-6)

"THE GUARD" - FILM

The other night, I watched The Guard on DVD. Often the movies from Netflix have been on my list for quite a while, and, when I look at the title, I wonder why the film on was on my list in the first place. As soon as the movie started, I remembered why. The wonderful Brendan Gleeson stars in the leading role as a sergeant in the Guarda (Irish police), and the equally wonderful Don Cheadle plays an FBI investigator gone to Ireland to help with the investigation of an international drug cartel. The movie, which is an Irish police whodunnit/comedy, is excellent, and I recommend it highly.

I'd seen Gleeson in the role of an Irish priest in Calvary and praised the actor and the film on my Facebook page. Because I enjoyed the Gleeson's moving performance immensely in the previous film, a few of my excellent FB friends recommended The Guard. Thank you. The movie was a treat.

Because I live in a small town, movie theaters near me seldom show independent films or well-reviewed films that play to less than blockbuster audiences. Later, local movie rental outlets often did not stock the less popular films, so, unless I purchased them (which can be quite expensive), I'd never get to see them. Three cheers and more for Netflix, because now I watch movies that I never expected to see in my lifetime.

THE DONALD AND THE DUKE

Our own Louisiana treasure, Stephanie Grace, on Trump's handling of his endorsement by David Duke.

Given the ascent of Donald Trump, whose arena-size angerfests are kind of like [Pat] Buchanan’s 1996 rally on steroids, was there ever any doubt?

Keying in Trump’s anti-outsider rallying cry to build a wall on the Mexican border and ban Muslims from entering the United States, Duke, who rarely misses an opportunity to emerge from obscurity and grab a headline, declared that white people who didn’t back Trump were committing “treason” to their “heritage.”

Pat Buchanan was savvy enough to know that though he might get away with coded, racist language to attract supporters, association with David Duke crossed a line that would not play well and would surely come back to bite.

While Buchanan, a political communications pro by trade, knew just what to say in a similar situation, Trump has flailed and flopped all over the place. He first disavowed Duke’s support, then on Sunday reversed himself during a genuinely shocking ABC News interview.

“Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke, OK?” Trump said. “I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists.” (My emphasis)

David Duke?  I never heard of the guy.  OK, Mr Trump, you'd have to be living in a cave cut off from all communication not to have heard of Duke, the former leader of the Ku Klux Klan.

After a day of denunciations from the press and rival Republican candidates, Trump backtracked again, claiming that he hadn’t heard the question despite the specificity of his answer. (My emphasis)

And there it is - Trump's denial that is quite obviously not true, because he repeated Duke's name. Tomorrow is primary election day in Louisiana.  Only registered Democrats and Republicans are allowed to vote for their candidate of choice in each party.  My guess is that Trump's botched response to the endorsement of Duke will make little difference in his totals in Louisiana.  His performance in the Republican debate last night, which I thought was his worst, may affect the vote - or not.  Thus far, Trump's die-hard supporters have remained unaffected by reports of his stumbles, misspeaking, and denials of statements that are on record.  

ATTENTION MY FELLOW LOUISIANIANS!

The next time your right-wing family member or former high school classmate posts a status update or tweet about how taxing the rich or increasing workers' wages kills jobs and makes businesses leave the state, I want you to send them this article.

The reason Gov. Dayton was able to radically transform Minnesota's economy into one of the best in the nation is simple arithmetic. Raising taxes on those who can afford to pay more will turn a deficit into a surplus. Raising the minimum wage will increase the median income. And in a state where education is a budget priority and economic growth is one of the highest in the nation, it only makes sense that more businesses would stay.

Here in Louisiana, we can only dream of such actions by the governor and legislature in our state. Our new Gov. John Bel Edwards is trying to lift the state out of the mire after 8 years of plunder by former Gov. Bobby Jindal and a compliant legislature, but he faces resistance from the legislature even in his attempts to fill the budget gap to keep the state functioning this fiscal year. No governor of Loulsiana would dare aim so high as Gov. Dayton, because we all know nothing like that will happen here any time soon.

Note that the headline at Huffington Post indicates Mark Dayton is a billionaire, who cares more about the people of Minnesota than about increasing his billions.

ABOUT THE DEATH OF JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA

One of my "wicked" Facebook friends said:

De mortuis nil nisi bonum.
Of the dead, speak only good.
Antonin Scalia is dead.
Good.

And wicked me, how did I respond? I laughed.

After my first reflexive thought that I was relieved Scalia was dead, I collected myself and wrote the following on my Facebook page:

What I think and what I feel about the death of Justice Scalia is not entirely within my control, but what I say publicly is. My private and now my public prayer: May Antonin Scalia rest in peace. May God give comfort and consolation to all who love him.

My statement after I collected myself was genuine, as was my first thought and my spontaneous laughter at my friend's post. Sometimes we just do the best we can.

DEMOCRATIC DEBATE - THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2016

The debate tonight was the best thus far in the presidential campaign, in no small part due to the excellence of Gwen Ifil and Judy Woodruff as moderators and that the sponsor was PBS.  The two asked intelligent, probing questions without venturing into easy gotcha territory.  The contrast between Democratic and Republican debates is stark.  What I saw on the stage were two adults engaged in a civil debate.  I admit that with only two candidates in the race, the appearance of a free-for-all is easier to avoid, but, even if the GOP narrows the field down to two, I doubt we'll see a debate of this caliber.

To me, Clinton looked strong and won the debate, though Sanders got in a few good licks about her vote in favor of the Iraq war and her reference to Henry Kissinger's compliment on how well she ran the State Department.  By now, Clinton probably hopes young people don't know who the hell Kissinger is.

Once again, Sanders answered a number of questions by turning away from the substance of the question to commentary about Wall Street, thus reinforcing the impression of a Johnny One-Note.  Of course, he is not, but, with the Wall Street repetitions, he's beginning to remind me of Young Marco Rubio and his repetitions about President Obama.  Clinton scored with the reference to Sanders' votes on gun regulations and his recent and not-so-recent criticisms of President Obama. Though Sanders often caucused and voted with Democrats, he remains a newly-minted Democrat.

Clinton appeared calm and composed, while Sanders seemed impatient and even agitated at times, waving his hands with his face turning red.  A number of people call Clinton cold, and I understand how calm can translate to cold, but I'm not looking for a BFF for president, and I prefer calm to agitation. When Sanders repeatedly raised his hand as a signal that he wanted to speak, I couldn't help but think, "Teacher, teacher!  Call on me!"

Both candidates favor health care coverage for everyone, but they have different approaches to get there.  Of Sanders' plan for a single payer plan, economist Paul Krugman notes that the numbers don't add up.

Also, while Sanders calls his plan "Medicare for All", it is no such thing because on his campaign website, he says:

As a patient, all you need to do is go to the doctor and show your insurance card. Bernie’s plan means no more copays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges. 

Sounds great, but Sanders' plan is not "Medicare for All".  I know because my health insurance coverage is through Medicare, and I pay deductibles and copays, even with a supplemental insurance policy. So, is it "Medicare for All" or something entirely different?  Also, as Krugman notes, getting a single payer plan through the House of Representatives is likely to be a non-starter, even if Democrats regain a slim majority in the Senate.  The GOP will retain a majority in the House after the election because so many hold safe seats due to gerrymandered districts.

Clinton's health plan takes a more gradual approach, building on Obamacare to universal coverage, rather than replacing it and starting from scratch. Though there is no guarantee that her plan will pass in Congress if Clinton is elected, it seems somewhat more possible and definitely more realistic.

Clinton's closing statement was powerful and served to define her campaign.  A quote is below:

We agree we've got to get unaccountable money out of politics. We agree that Wall Street should never be allowed to wreck main street again.

But here's the point I want to make tonight.  I am not a single-issue candidate and I do not believe we live in a single-issue country. I think that a lot of what we have to overcome to break down the barriers that are holding people back, whether it's poison in the water of the children of Flint or whether it's the poor miners who are being left out and left behind in coal country, or whether it is any other American today who feels somehow put down and depressed by racism, by sexism, by discrimination against the lgbt community against the kind of efforts that need to be made to root out all of these barriers, that's what I want to take on. 

Below is a quote from Sanders' closing statement, which also defines his campaign.

This campaign is not just about electing a president. What this campaign is about is creating a process for a political revolution in which millions of Americans, working people who have given up on the political process, they don't think anybody hears their pains or their concerns.

 Young people for whom getting involved in politics is as, you know, it's like going to the moon. It ain't going to happen. Low income people who are not involved in the political process.

 What this campaign is not only about electing someone who has the most progressive agenda, it is about bringing tens of millions of people together to demand that we have a government that represents all of us and not just the 1 percent, who today have so much economic and political power.

Yes, "like going to the moon."  In the real world, the only revolution we're likely to see in the near future is if Republicans take the presidency, the majority in the Senate, and the majority in the House (which is certain), and it will not be pretty.

Keep in mind that when Sanders first entered the race, I favored his candidacy and contributed to his campaign, but, over the course of time, I've come to favor Clinton.  I still believe that having Sanders in the race is a net positive, but I hope the supporters of the two candidates don't tear each other apart before the election.  From my experience, Sanders supporters have been much more intemperate in their criticism of Clinton and her supporters than the other way around, even to the point of declaring that if she is the nominee, they will not vote, or they will vote for Trump.  That, in my opinion, is madness.  The stakes in this election are high, and the country will be in a very bad way with Republicans in control of Congress and the presidency.  Make no mistake: If Sanders is the nominee, he will surely have my vote.

'INDOCHINE" AND "THE LAST METRO"

Two recent films from Netflix, Indochine (1992) and The Last Metro (1980), both starring Catherine Deneuve, were enjoyable and well worth watching.   As a side note, from the first time I saw Deneuve in a film, I longed to look like her, and I was well past my teen years.  I still want to look like her.

Indochine is long and sometimes moves at a rather slow pace, which I don't mind, so long as the movie holds my interest.  Scenes throughout Indochine interrupt the slowness to startle, sometimes with violence and nearly always with a rush of events taking place in a short space of time.  The setting is French Indo-China during the 30s and 40s when the seeds of rebellion against colonialism were already sprouting.  I remembered very little of the film besides the gorgeous scenery and cinematography, Deneuve's usual beauty, and her romance with the younger French naval officer, so it was a bit like seeing the film for the first time.  Little had I realized what a beautiful country Vietnam is before I saw the movie the first time.  The story is well-scripted and directed, and the actors, especially Deneuve, are excellent.

It's still a mystery to me why the powers-that-be in the US ignored the recent history of the French war in Indo-China that lasted 15 years and foolishly decided to launch a war in the country, which resulted in deadly, tragic consequences.  The domino theory of the threat of the spread of communism in Asia, along with our hubris in imagining we could stop the movement and impose our version of democracy in the country produced a folly beyond our imaginings.  Colonialism is always cruel, but our attempt to "fix" the country was no less cruel.

The Last Metro (1980), written and directed by François Truffaut, takes place during the occupation of Paris by the Nazis during World War II.  Along with Deneuve, a young Gérard Depardieu, appears in the film.   A number of the scenes in the movie are dark, literally, because they are set outside at night or in the basement of a theater, where Deneuve's husband (Heinz Bennent), the owner and producer of the theater, is hiding from the Nazis because he is Jewish.  The darkness is quite appropriate as the occupation of Paris was indeed a dark time.  The title refers to the curfew when Metro service was cut off at a certain time in the evening, and Parisians could not be out and about. As is often the case, Truffaut leaves us in the end with surprise and ambiguity.

Both films are in French with English subtitles, for which I'm grateful.  I hate dubbed foreign language movies.  I'll never forget the dubbed Italian film during which I could hardly keep from laughing out loud in the theater, as I watched the Italian actors speak with Midwestern American accents.   I intended for the reviews to be short and sweet, but I'm too much like The Long-Winded Lady, Maeve Brennan, who wrote for The New Yorker some years ago, except I don't write nearly as well.

The Netflix DVD mail program is a treasure trove of fine older films, which will probably end sooner or later as the company moves exclusively to streaming, but I will be very sorry.  One plus for the DVD program is that new movies are usually available on DVD sooner than for streaming on the internet.   Also, once the company owns the DVD, it is theirs, whereas streaming rights can be withdrawn at any time.