Shocking verdict in Kate Steinle case. Illegal immigrant acquitted of everything but gun charge.

Kate Steinle and Jose Zarate. Fox News

In a shocking verdict, the illegal immigrant accused of killing Kate Steinle has been acquitted of most charges. Fox News. Jose Ines Garcia Zarate was found guilty of possessing a firearm but was found not guilty of 2nd degree murder and assault with a weapon. The case ignited a firestorm about immigration because Zarate had been deported before but was in the country because of San Francisco's sanctuary city laws. The jury did not hear any evidence about Zarate's status as an illegal immigrant. Zarate claimed that the incident was an accident and the gun went off after he picked it up, ricocheting off the ground and killing Steinle. 

My Comment:

Awful result in this case. People are furious with this verdict and with good reason. Zarate should have never been in this country and should have been deported a long time ago. Indeed, he should still be deported now, after he serves his time for the gun crime he was convicted with. 

It's unclear why the jury gave this verdict. I think there are a couple of possibilities. First, this may have been a case of jury nullification. The case made national headlines and was a major part of Donald Trump's campaign. People in San Francisco like their sanctuary cities laws and despise Trump. Though I am sure the jurors were screened for knowledge of this case it would only take one jury with a grudge against Trump to convince the others that an acquittal here would be a middle finger to Trump. 

Such acquittals have happened in the past but if that is what happened here than it is fairly disgusting. Whatever your thoughts on Trump it shouldn't have any effect on this case. Just because of who Zarate was and who Trump is doesn't mean you should let him off. If this case turns out to be jury nullification than we will need to have a major discussion about the role of juries. The idea that people could hate Trump so much that they would let a murder walk free is beyond the pale. 

It's possible that something else is going on though. I guess it is conceivable that the jurors could have bought the defenses argument that this was nothing more than a tragic accident. Doing so would extend more charitably that I am willing to grant at the moment, but it is certainly possible the verdict wasn't politically motivated. In California 2nd degree murder requires "malice aforethought" which means a truly accidental murder would not count. Believing this to be a tragic accident is possible I guess, but requires quite a bit of faith in the defendant. 

I think the prosecution made a major mistake in not charging Zarate with manslaughter as well. Manslaughter doesn't require intent and the defenses argument would have had no merits on a charge of manslaughter. If the jury really did believe that this was an accident, at least Zarate would have gotten some justice. It would be a hollow victory but it would be better than Zarate getting away with only a gun charge. I know many prosecutors like to avoid including lesser charges to force a longer sentence but this is the risk you take. People would still be mad at a manslaughter conviction but not nearly as mad as they are now with an acquittal. 

Speaking of guns, I think the general ignorance of firearms may have played a role in this case. Even if you buy the argument that this wasn't intentional, which I don't, Zarate was still breaking all the rules of gun safety. He shouldn't have had his finger off of the trigger and not been pointing the gun anywhere near people. The fact that he didn't shows that he was criminally negligent at the least and acting in malice at worst. Also, I doubt that Zarate was so unfamiliar with guns that he didn't know this. 

I think this will become a rallying cry for the anti-immigration right. Steinle was already regarded as a martyr by the right, even if her family wasn't quite comfortable with that role. I am guessing there will be a lot more pressure on sanctuary cities to back down and start sharing info on illegals. Already there is talk about boycotting San Francisco, though I would say that most people who disagree with sanctuary cities are already doing so. 

I am hoping that this pressure will allow something to happen on immigration. Though the push to punish sanctuary cities has failed due to activist judges, the wall could still happen. I am guessing a lot of people are going to be calling their representatives and pressuring them to fund Trump's wall. Hopefully it will be enough to get funding passed for it. Something good has to come from this...  

Egypt's President Sisi calls for ISIS to be defeated in Sinai in three months.

Egyptian President Abdel Fartah al-Sisi with his Minster of Defense. Reuters. 

Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi has called on his army to defeat ISIS in the Sinai in three months after the massive terrorist attack that killed 300 people. Reuters. Though ISIS has not taken credit for the attack, an ISIS flag was found at the scene. ISIS has a strong presence in the Sinai Peninsula and they have conducted several terror attacks and raids in Egypt. Sisi has said that his forces are allowed to use any "brute" force necessary to defeat militants in the Sinai. Egypt's military has had difficulty battling the ISIS fighters in Sinai as their army is better suited to conventional warfare as opposed to counter insurgency. The Sinai is one of the few remaining ISIS strongholds after their defeats in Syria, Iraq and Libya. 

My Comment:

I didn't get a chance to cover the horrible terror attack in Egypt that killed 300 people. I wasn't around that weekend but I can at least cover the follow up from al-Sisi. 

This is exactly what needed to happen in Egypt. ISIS has been running amok in the Sinai for far too long. They have mostly been battling the local security forces but they have conducted some spectacular terror attacks as well. The latest one, the one that targeted a mosque and killed 300 people, was the most spectacular but hardly the only one. ISIS in Egypt has targeted many Coptic Christians, has executed a westerner and even destroyed a Russian jetliner. Indeed, ISIS in Egypt is one of the most dangerous ISIS affiliates and is well known for pulling off major terror attacks. 

The terrorism threat is reason enough to target the militants in the Sinai, but they are also a backup base for ISIS. With their holdings in Syria and Iraq mostly liberated, ISIS needs new bases to operate from. Given that the other options, like Afghanistan and Nigeria, are quite a long way from Syria and Iraq, Egypt may be one of the major destination for Jihadists. And since Egypt has many thousands of Western tourists and can threaten Europe and Israel as well, it is not a good thing to have them running around in the country. 

ISIS cannot be allowed to regroup in the Sinai, but so far Egypt has failed to destroy them. Why? I think part of it is that their military is poorly suited for counterinsurgency. They are mostly a conventional force and they don't have much experience in fighting rebels groups and insurgents. 

A conventional force is largely limited in what it can do against insurgents, especially those like ISIS that has some support from the local civilians and can blend in with them well. A less conventional force can integrate with the civilians but the Egyptian Army doesn't seem to have that option. Sending an armored column into a village isn't the best way to win hearts and minds.

That explains al-Sisi's comment that he is authorizing "brute force". That's about all they can do. Instead of counter insurgency, they will likely just blow everything up. That's a simplification of course but essentially all they can do is just attack everything without much worry about civilian casualties. 

Such a strategy can work but it has some very serious downsides. The most obvious is that high civilian casualties is very bad press. Though the national news media probably won't care, the crackdown might not play well in the international press. 

Second, a crackdown can backfire due to the impact on the civilians themselves. Obviously if a crackdown starts killing civilians, those civilians might join up with ISIS under the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" theory. ISIS has a long history of trying to gain the hearts and minds of civilians in areas they capture, despite their brutality. If ISIS can get social services up an running in territory they control in Egypt, they might make the civilians switch sides. 

That being said, going the opposite way with it has major downsides. That was our policy in Iraq and Syria against ISIS and it failed pretty miserably. Critically when Trump was elected we switched our policy and not very long after ISIS was routed. If a country only sticks to trying to prevent civilian casualties then they can't win on the battlefield. 

It's hard to balance between saving civilian lives and actually trying to win a war. Through most of history nobody cared about civilians but the western powers at least have swung the other way. I don't know for sure which side of that balance Egypt is going to come down on, but I hope ISIS is defeated either way. 

Has the tide turned in Afghanistan?

Soldiers on patrol in Afghanistan. The Hill/Getty.

Army Gen. John Nicholson, the top US general in Afghanistan has said we have turned the corner in the fight against the Taliban. The Hill. He touts a change in leadership and additional international participation in the war against terrorism. In addition he says that the raids targeting Taliban opium production is working and has already cost the group between $7 and $10 million in revenues. 3000 more troops will be sent to Afghanistan, including 1000 combat advisers. Such claims have been made in the past 16 years. 

My Comment:

I am not as optimistic as General John Nicholson. We have been at war with the Taliban since 9/11 and we haven't won yet. They have been very tough to defeat and have proven to be very resistant and strong. I don't see what changes that, at least in the short term. 

And the general consensus is that we are losing in Afghanistan. The Taliban have taken back much of the territory they have lost over the past 16 years. They have also inflicted unsustainable casualties on the government troops in Afghanistan. If something doesn't change it's very possible that the Afghan government could fall and 16 years of war could have been all for nothing. 

The Taliban have also been helped by the rise of ISIS in Afghanistan. Though ISIS and the Taliban have fought each other as well, most ISIS terror attacks have been directed at the Afghan government. Those attacks have killed hundreds of people and greatly weakened the Afghan government. 

The Afghan government could barely handle a war against the Taliban, let alone a 2nd war with ISIS. Until now ISIS has been our major priority as well. We have been targeting them extensively but they still exist. And now that ISIS has been largely defeated in Syria and Iraq, Afghanistan may be their new base of operations. Despite our attacks against them, they aren't going away and will allow the Taliban to become stronger by weakening the Afghan government. 

So is there any reason to hope at all? I think there might be. The new strategy of targeting the Taliban's economy is very smart. It helped to destroy ISIS in Syria and Iraq by targeting their oil fields. Doing the same in Afghanistan with the Taliban's opium production might cripple them. Costing them a huge amount of money will weaken them and could change the outcome of the war. 

Still, it's a tall ask to defeat the Taliban economically. Afghanistan is a tribal country and right now the Taliban have quite a bit of tribal loyalty. Money buys some of it, but you have to wonder if that money is cut off that the tribes will automatically support the Afghan government instead. The fighters are tough and motivated as well, though nobody wants to fight for free.

At the very least it seems as though we are finally taking the war against the Taliban seriously. We never really tried to defeat them. In the first phase of the war we were more focused on getting al-Qaeda instead of them, and once Iraq happened it was always the major focus. More recently we have focused on ISIS and other terror groups. Perhaps now that we are targeting the Taliban directly we will actually accomplish something. I'm not hopeful, but I do think this change of course might at least preserve the status quo if nothing else. We were headed to total defeat in Afghanistan and right now even a stalemate will be an improvement...

Senator Lindsey Graham says war with North Korea is possible if things don't change...

Senator Lindsey Graham. Politico/AP.

In the wake of yet another ballistic missile test, Lindsey Graham claims that war with North Korea is possible if things don't change. Politico. Graham says that every nuclear test brings North Korea closer to war and that President Trump won't tolerate much more. Graham says that he hopes Kim Jong Un will back down but if he doesn't and there is war it will be his fault. The United States is unlikely to allow North Korea to have a nuclear missile capable of hitting the United States. South Korea launched missiles of their own to remind the North that they are capable of response as well.

My Comment:

Lindsey Graham is one of the biggest warmongers in the Senate and he hasn't met a war he doesn't like. The man seemed like he wanted to go to war with Russia for crying out loud, so it's no surprise that he wants war with North Korea. He just wants to fight for some reason. 

So should we listen to Graham? Is war more likely? I am not sure. I do know that the relationship between Graham and Trump has been repaired. They used to be bitter rivals during the presidential campaign but recently they have both made overtures to each other. The might not be friends but they are at least civil to each other now. 

Part of this is that Trump has been fairly aggressive with North Korea. He hasn't gone as far as Graham would have gone, we would be at war with North Korea if he was in charge, but he hasn't ruled out war with North Korea. That will make Graham happy. 

But is war likely? I still maintain that war probably won't happen. We have had much worse crises with North Korea before and we have always avoided war. They have had skirmishes, terror attacks, assassinations and even sinking of ships but diplomacy has always succeeded. I doubt that these missile launches will be enough to start one now. 

There is a difference now though because North Korea could potentially send a nuclear weapon our way. That hasn't really been true before since they didn't have the missile technology to hit the United States. Still, it's not like their nukes weren't a threat before now. They always had the potential to hit South Korea and if they used unconventional tactics they could have hit the United States as well. I don't think that much has changed. 

I still think diplomacy is the name of the game and Trump's Asia trip was a big part of it. He was able to improve relations with local powers including South Korea, Japan and, most importantly, China. These countries will put a lot of pressure on North Korea and I am guessing they are starting to worry. 

I generally think that these tests and threats from North Korea are a sign of weakness, not strength. They are feeling the pinch from all the sanctions and have to understand that their only ally in the region just let out the red carpet for Donald Trump. They see the writing on the wall and realize that they are probably screwed. These tests are just a last ditch effort to get the United States to back down. And they know it won't work. 

My guess is that North Korea will probably back down. They don't have much of a choice. These statements from people like Graham and Trump show that they may face even tougher consequences if they don't. Kim Jong Un is a loser and a jerk, but I don't see him as someone that wants to die. If he doesn't back down he probably will. 

I do have to say that our previous president did a lot to encourage Kim's behavior. Ignoring all the times he backed down to North Korea alone, he also showed what could happen if a regime gave up its weapons. Muammar Gaddafi famously gave up Libya's WMD's programs but it didn't save him from an US led intervention. Seeing Gaddafi get raped to death by rebels will likely give Kim Jong Un pause for giving up his nuclear weapons. Obama and Clinton will have a lot to answer for if a war comes with North Korea...  

A sign of the times. Germany decorates anti-terror barriers protecting Christmas Markets

Gift wrapped security barriers in Germany. DW. 

I don't have much time for a normal post but I wanted to share something I have seen in a couple of outlets. Apparently in Germany, they have taken measures to protect their famous Christmas Markets by using large barriers. This is necessary because of all the jihadist terror attacks that have rocked Europe. ISIS has threatened these Christmas Markets and has attacked them in the past. 

None of that is surprising. What is surprising to me is that these barriers have been decorated in Christmas paper and other decorations. It really seems that Germany is just trying to normalize the reality they live in. They are trying to downplay the fact that there is a major threat for German citizens and that their is a high chance of an attack on these Christmas markets. It just goes to show how far Europe has fallen in just a few years. As little as five years ago such security measures would have been unthinkable. But now they are so common place that they need to distract their citizens from them. 

The threat is real though. ISIS is likely driven to conduct a major terror attack in Europe. They did have the huge one in Egypt but even that one won't have the impact that an attack in Europe would have. These Christmas Markets are a major priority for them and I wouldn't be surprised if there was some kind of attack this year against them. They need some kind of win after their de facto defeat in Iraq and Syria. 

These security barriers will probably work to prevent any ramming attacks, even if they are decorated. They will be able to slow or completely stop all but the largest vehicles so a ramming attack is probably out. But they would do nothing to stop a mass stabbing, shooting or bombing. 

It's really sad that it has come to this though. Had Angela Merkel and the other European leaders had a different reaction to the refugee crisis these barriers would have never been necessary. Had they just not let any refugees in, none of this would have happened... 

Al Franken vs Roy Moore. Is it hypocritical to support one over the other?

Al Franken's Senate Photo.

The current leftist rallying cry is that Republicans are all hypocrites for supporting Roy Moore while condemning Al Franken for their respective sex scandals. I would say that right away there is a large flaw in their argument. Many people on the right have condemned Roy Moore and Al Franken alike. Others think both accusations are false or not a big deal. Finally, there are even a few that support Franken and condemn Moore. I don't have numbers for each group but I have seen Republicans that fall into each group. There are also others who don't have an opinion either way or refuse to pass judgement on cases that have never been brought to trial. Some people really believe that "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" is something worth defending and we shouldn't just get rid of it for political reasons. 

 I would say that the "neither side is wrong" camp is probably larger than people realize. There is a large group of people that are suspicious of all political sexual assault and harassment claims. After all, the attacks against Trump were widely seen as an obvious hit job and more than a few people remember all the recent scandals, like the Duke Lacrosse team, the "Rape on Campus" debacle and "Mattress Girl", all of which fell apart under proper scrutiny. These people see the accusations against both Franken and Moore to be not credible because the media has lost all credibility pushing scandals that turned out to be false or at least contested. And there all also others that believe the claims but don't think they actually did anything all that bad. 

But what about those of us who do condemn Franken and not Moore? Are we hypocrites? There is certainly an argument to be made if the only reason for doing so was the respective parties of the candidates. Al Franken is of course a Democrat and Roy Moore is a Republican. 

And it is certainly easier for the left to condemn Franken that it is for the right to do so with Moore. Franken is in a safe blue senate seat. If he were to resign, and he won't, he would just be replaced by another Democrat. His replacement might lose election, but so might Al Franken if and when he runs again. Moore, on the other hand, is in a critical red state and him losing would cost the GOP control of the senate. If his opponent were to win, we would be stuck with him for 6 years with no hope of him being removed. 

That being said, there are non political reasons to support Moore over Franken. The first and most obvious is that Franken hasn't contested the claims. He does say that he never kissed his victim but there is photographic proof of him grabbing her breasts and, to his credit, he admits his behavior is wrong. There is little doubt in the facts of the case in the Franken situation. You can argue that he may have consent to kiss the victim and may not have been touching her actual breasts, but there is no doubt that something happened and that Franken shouldn't have done what he did. 

The claims against Moore are contested, to say the least. He denies everything and there is very little evidence on either side. It really has been a "he said she said" situation, with no real eyewitness accounts or physical evidence. 

The main physical evidence, a signature in a yearbook, has been hotly contested and widely denounced as fake. Gloria Allred won't let outsiders examine it to confirm it is real, which is evidence enough to disregard its value as evidence.  And even if it is real, all it shows is that Moore knew one of the accusers, not that he did anything inappropriate with them. Other than that it's just Roy Moore's word against the words of the alleged victims, with only hearsay and innuendo to back up their claims. 

There is also the fact that much of what Moore has been accused of was and is legal in the state of Alabama. Most of the accusations against him were of him dating teenage girls. Not rape or sexual assault, just dating, with only two cases saying he did something more. That's completely legal in the state of Alabama as long as the girls are 16 or older, especially considering that the alleged encounters were all consensual and mostly non-sexual in nature. One of the girls was even 18, which is legal everywhere! Sure, a lot of people think it is wrong for an older man to date someone who is under the age of 18, including myself, but we can't punish people for something that is legal. If people have a problem with it, they should change the law. 

We also have to consider that the person that has been pushing the Roy Moore accusations, Gloria Allred, is a notorious leftist woman's rights lawyer. She has a long history of taking cases where the facts were in doubt and has targeted conservatives before. She was involved with accusations against Donald Trump (well her daughter, Lisa Bloom was), Herman Cain and Arnold Schwarzenegger, all Republicans, and has a long history of taking up controversial cases for the sake of publicity. Nobody on the right trusts her at all. If there was ever someone that people would think would make up facts of a case from thin air, it would be Gloria Allred.

I don't think it is hypocritical at all to believe the admitted wrongdoing of Al Franken while disbelieving the contested accusations against Roy Moore. If you do so just because of the (D) or (R) after their names, you can be. But if you look at the evidence and agree in one case and disagree in the other you shouldn't be considered a hypocritical. The  two cases aren't that similar and even if they were, there is a world of difference when one essentially admits wrong doing and the other vehemently denies it. 

As for myself, I tend to believe the accusations against Franken while dismissing the ones against Moore. One seems like a substantiated case and the other seems like an obvious political hit job. It's not a political thing either, I completely believe the accusations against George H.W. Bush, for example, while at least having an open mind about some of the Democrat's scandals. I just don't think the evidence is strong enough to condemn Moore while it is for Franken. 

I'd also like to say that even if the accusations against both are true, I don't think either of them should be removed from office. I think that should be reserved for people who are convicted of crimes, not merely accused. If criminal convictions occur than by all means kick them out, but not until then. If all of the allegations are true, I would support the resignation of both, but only after any current elections. Otherwise, we still need to keep the standard of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" standard, even if there is evidence of wrong doing. We can still condemn bad behavior but we shouldn't punish people without giving them a day in court. 

I'm back!

After a short trip, I am back home. I was spending the weekend doing family stuff so I didn't have any time for blogging. Things should be returning to normal soon.

I did miss a major news story in Egypt while I was gone. That bombing/gun attack was horrible and I would have covered it if I had been at home. It was proof that I was probably right about ISIS not going away anytime soon even as they are defeated in Syria and Iraq. It also shows that the security situation in Egypt is not good at all.

Woman arrested for sending letter bombs to Barack Obama and Texas Governor Gregg Abbott

Governor Abbott meets with Barack Obama. Washington Post/AP.

A Texas woman has been arrested for sending letter bombs to former President Barack Obama, Texas Governor Gregg Abbott and the Social Security office. Washington Post. The woman, Julia Poff, mailed the packages last year while Obama was still president. Governor Abbott actually opened the one mailed to him but it failed to explode because he didn't open as designed. Had any of the devices exploded, they could have caused severe burns or even death. Poff disliked Obama and was upset with Abbott because she blamed him for not receiving support from her husband. She was also angry at the Social Security Administration because she was denied benefits. Poff was captured due in part because of cat hairs found on the letter for Obama. 

My Comment:

This was an extremely serious situation that could have killed Governor Abbott. It was pretty much luck that it didn't go off and the only reason it didn't because he opened it in a way she didn't expect. Had he done it like she wanted him to, he would be dead or severely injured right now. 

The threat against Barack Obama wasn't as severe. The President of the United States is better protected than the Texas Governor. All of his mail is screened and he has the secret service to protect him. Plus, I doubt he opens his own mail, he has staffers for that and this is a major reason why. Still, one of his staffers could have been killed or injured which is also horrible. I also have to say that even though I never liked Obama as President, I would have been furious if this attack against him had succeeded, just as I would with the Governor or any of the workers at Social Security. 

I'm kinda surprised that Abbott was opening his own mail though. Doing so has risks, as this incident shows. Abbott might want to take that risk in order to better serve his constituents, and if so that speaks to his character, but that might have to change after this incident. Abbott's a good governor and it would be a tragedy if something like this were to happen again. 

As far as the suspect goes, she's pretty strange. In this age of hyper-partisan politics, it's rare to find a bipartisan attempted assassin. She attacked a Democratic President, a Republican Governor and a neutral government office. That's fairly surprising these days. Her political alignment hasn't been released, but either way, if she was a Democrat or a Republican, she was attacking both sides. Everyone should agree that we should throw the book at her. 

She also seemed like a very entitled person. Though she just seemed to dislike Obama for whatever reason, she was mad at Abbott and the Social Security office just because they wouldn't give her what she wanted. In both cases that was money. And when she didn't get it she tried to murder people. She's an extremely dangerous person and was likely to end up killing someone eventually if she hadn't been caught. 

From my reckoning this is the third or fourth major assassination attempt on a political official recently. We all remember the Steve Scalsie shooting and the attempt on Donald Trump's life as well. I think the assault on Rand Paul probably counts as well considering how critically wounded he was. It is very disturbing to me how close these nuts are getting to actually killing one of these politicians. Sooner or later one of these people is going to get lucky or one of our politicians will not be. 

I don't think that this particular case is due to the high amount of discord in the country right now. Instead it just seems like this woman was angry in general and would have been angry regardless of the political parties involved. She was a danger to everyone around her and it is very good that she is likely to go to prison for a very long time. She also got a couple of charges for fraud so she's not likely to get out of prison anytime soon. 

UN releases footage of the North Korean defector that crossed the DMZ.

The above footage is dramatic CCTV video of the North Korean defector that crossed the DMZ and got shot several times. I originally wrote about the case a while back but until now there wasn't any footage to show of the soldier.

The video shows the soldier driving by a guard post in a truck. He manages to get to the border but his vehicle gets stuck in the dirt. He starts to flee but the North Korean soldiers shoot at him. More footage shows the North Koreans rallying near the border and finally, night vision footage shows the soldier being rescued by South Koreans.

A few thoughts. First, the North Koreans couldn't shoot all that well. They were within a few feet of him and though they were able to wound him quite severely, they weren't able to kill the defector. People are harder to kill that most people realize but with a couple of guys shooting they probably should have been able to take him down.

Second, even despite the poor aim, this soldier was very lucky to escape with his life, despite being wounded. He got extremely lucky to make it across the border and survive long enough to be rescued. That was always true but to see it first hand really heightens it. Also, the South Koreans were taking no chances and approached the soldier with extreme caution, which was obviously justified by the circumstances.

Third, this could have caused a greater incident. You could tell that the North Koreans wanted to cross the border to catch and/or kill this defector but they barely held back. Indeed, South Korea accuses them of violating the border, but to this layman's eye I can't tell for sure. Either way, it looked like the North Koreans wanted to fight. Given how poorly this incident is likely to be received by their commanders, I don't blame them. Something tells me that the border guards involved in this case will be liquidated... if they are lucky.

Finally, we have gathered some intelligence from this defector. Though he is still wounded and just recently regained consciousness, we did find out something interesting. The man was infested with parasites. That isn't too uncommon in North Korea as they use human waste as fertilizer, but the fact that an NCO was so infested goes to show how poor their medical resources are. The military is relatively privileged and yet the North can still not afford clean food and medical treatment for their men. That is good information to know.

Editor's note: Thanksgiving.

Like most Americans I will be celebrating Thanksgiving this weekend and will be traveling. Things should be normal until Friday, when I go out of town. I doubt I will be posting on here while doing family things but it's possible. Things should be back to normal next week.

ISIS affiliate Boko Haram blamed for major bombing in Nigeria that killed 50 people.

Damage to the Mosque targeted in the bombing. New York Times/AP.

ISIS affiliate Boko Haram is being blamed for a major suicide bombing in Nigeria that has killed at least 50 people. New York Times. The bomber was a teenager and set his bomb off inside a small crowded mosque. Boko Haram hasn't taken credit for the attack but it follows a wave of similar bombings in Nigeria committed by the group. The attack occurred in Mubi, near the border with Camaroon, which was controlled by Boko Haram three years ago before being defeated. Boko Haram has not been defeated in Nigeria, though it has lost much of its offensive capabilities. They often use teenagers of both genders as suicide bombers. 

My Comment:

This attack serves us as a reminder of two things. First, though ISIS has largely been defeated in Syria and Iraq, they still exist in Nigeria. Boko Haram has been a long time ISIS affiliate, though they are often thought of as the "black sheep" of the terrorist group. That may be literal considering the respective races of Boko Haram and core ISIS. Though ISIS claims to be beyond race, there has been evidence that suggests they don't think much of their Black affiliate, Boko Haram. Very few if any White and Arab fighters have joined up with Boko Haram. 

Second, Boko Haram remains one of the most depraved and evil terrorist groups in existence today. They tend to go even further than even core ISIS does when it comes to depravity, which is really saying something. Boko Haram specializes in using children as suicide bombers. Many times those children are tricked or forced into doing so by Boko Haram. I shouldn't have to point out that is one of the evilest things a person could do. Of course, attacking a house of worship, is also a horrible thing to do, but even the most pious among us would admit that using children as suicide bombers is probably worse. 

This attack is another example of that tactic and it shows why it works. Most people wouldn't suspect a teenage boy to deliver a suicide bomb in a mosque. He probably wasn't as suspicious as an older man would have been and was likely able to slip by any security this mosque had, assuming it had any at all. Once he was in all he had to do was detonate the bomb. Given the highly packed conditions, it is not surprising that so many died. 

Such an attack is hard to defend against and puts defenders in an impossible dilemma. If they discover an attacker is a child, they are forced to choose between killing a kid or letting that kid kill a bunch of other people. That's an impossible choice and one that might cause people to hesitate, allowing the bomber to succeed in his mission. Again, I shouldn't have to point out how evil this is. And that assumes that the defender is even looking for kids. I know that I wouldn't expect a child to blow him or herself up.

As for Boko Haram itself, the group seems to have a roller coaster ride of defeat and resurgence and it appears we are in the resurgence cycle. Though Boko Haram no longer controls very much territory, they are still a very active terrorist group and are able to pull of raids and bombings. They are still a major threat even though they aren't at the height of their power. 

Indeed, Boko Haram and Nigeria might be a preview of how ISIS is going to operate in Iraq and Syria. Though ISIS has largely been defeated in both countries, Iran claims that they are completely defeated, I fear that the same situation will happen again in Iraq and Syria. Just as Boko Haram continues to launch terror attacks throughout the region, ISIS will continue to do so in the Middle East. 

It just goes to show that even as ISIS has been routed on the battlefield, it doesn't mean the war is over. Far from it. We will see these kinds of attacks in all the countries where ISIS has been pushed out off. And we also have to remember that ISIS still holds territory in Afghanistan, Yemen, Egypt and The Philippines. They are far from done, and their African affiliate serves as a warning for the rest of the world...  

Long overdue strategic shift in Afghanistan as we begin to target Taliban's opium production.

Afghan farmers collect raw opium. VOA/AP.

US and Afghan forces have begun their first operation targeting the Taliban's opium production. VOA. The operation is designed to hit the Taliban's pocketbook as they are funded through the opium trade. The bombing campaign has already destroyed opium production in Helmand province. Experts have long asked for the United States to target Afghanistan's opium markets. The Taliban makes $200 million from opium production and the drugs spread throughout the world. 

My Comment:

This move is long overdue. The Taliban get the vast majority of their funding from the drug trade and that is a major reason why they have been able to survive as long as they have. They also have other sources of income, but none of them are as large as the opium trade. Taking out that stream of income could cripple them. 

Indeed, this is very close to what was done in Syria and Iraq. ISIS got much of its income from the illegal oil trade. They pumped the oil and sent it to Turkey and other regional partners raising millions of dollars. Under Barack Obama, that oil trade helped ISIS expand. Indeed, it's a major reason why ISIS was able to do as well as it did, to the point where they were even threatening Baghdad. 

Until Russia joined the war and bombed the hell out of the truck convoys and oil wells, cutting off the ISIS funding cold. Trump continued this policy and pretty soon ISIS ran out of money. It was one of the turning points in the war and was highly effective in stopping ISIS from expanding. It wasn't the only factor, not by a long shot, but going after their income stream certainly helped. 

I think the same thing could happen in Afghanistan. Unlike ISIS, the Taliban do not have a diversified economy. Even after ISIS lost their oil money, they still had taxes, selling artifacts, slave trade, farming and hostage taking to make money. Plus they looted money from banks and stole from civilians. 

The Taliban doesn't have all of those options. Their economy is far to reliant on drugs, so any sustained campaign to deny them of that income stream will be devastating. Since Afghanistan is fairly poor, they can't even rely on looting. They may not have the money to pay their troops and provide services to areas under their control. This could cause a complete collapse. 

Donald Trump is essentially waging economic warfare on the Taliban, which is not surprising considering his background. Trump is a businessman and he doesn't think about warfare conventionally. He understands that money makes the world go around and that destroying the Taliban's economy might accomplish something that hasn't been acomplished for 16 years of warfare. 

Of course getting rid of opium has other benefits. Though very little Afghani opium makes it to the United States, it does make it to Europe and it causes major problems there. Heroin is a scourge and people become addicted. Destroying the opium production will help our European allies.

Indeed, one of the ways the Taliban wages war on the west is by exporting drugs across the world. Even though use of recreational drugs is forbidden in Islam, apparently the Taliban justify selling it to infidels. It is a fairly good way to damage the western governments with the high cost of addiction causing massive problems. 

So will this work? I am not completely sure. The Taliban are like cockroaches, no matter what we do we can't get seem to get rid of them. But even if it doesn't work, a new strategy was needed. In 16 years of warfare we never really came close to completely eliminating the Taliban. 

And I think it has a chance to work. Hitting people in the pocketbook helps immensely, as the war against ISIS has shown. At the very least it might create an opening for the Afghan government to regroup after a brutal campaign against the Taliban and ISIS, which they happen to be losing. At the very least this campaign may give the Afghan government more time, which is what they need the most. 

Millennials most likely to oppose assault weapons ban.

AR-15's for sale. AFP/The Guardian. 

A new survey has found that Millennials aged 18-34 are the most likely to oppose any new assault weapons ban. The Guardian. Support for the ban went up as the age went up, but Millennials are mostly divided. Experts speculate that support for "assault weapons" is due to video games and the fact that Millennials grew up around AR-15's and other rifles instead of the wood stock ones from previous generations. The assault weapon ban expired and was widely agreed to do very little to stop violence as rifles are rarely used in crime. 

My Comment:

I don't believe for a second that support for an assault weapons ban is anywhere near the level cited in this survey. Gun control is dead nationally and most people don't want it. Support for gun control does tend to spike after mass shootings, but I don't believe for a second that people actually want more laws. Maybe a ban on bump stocks, but nothing else, if people are told the truth in these surveys. 

Part of this is due to the way these surveys are produced. When people hear the words "assault weapons" they think something like a fully automatic M-16 or AK-47. They often don't realize that those weapons aren't assault weapons but are in fact assault rifles, which are de facto banned anyways. 

I also looked at the survey and the polling company didn't reveal the demographics of those polled. Without that information it is impossible to know what percentage of people were Republican or Democrat. It's also important to note that Qunnipiac mostly polls in blue states which will obviously change the results. My guess is that this was a very biased survey demographically, but without the information we can't know for sure. 

I am guessing if people were given an actual description of what an assault weapons ban would actually entail, very few people would actually support it. "Do you support and assault weapons ban?" has a totally different impact than "Do you support a ban on cosmetic, safety and utility features on rifles?" The survey never explained what an assault weapons ban actually is and what it actually would entail. 

Part of this too is just general ignorance on guns. People don't understand terms like "assault weapon", "semi-automatic", "suppressor", or even "magazine". People see an AR-15 and just assume that it has the same abilities as a M-16. The media usually doesn't do anything to educate people either. 

All of this is preaching to the choir for gun rights supporters. So why cover this biased survey? Because even it couldn't hide the fact that younger people are more into guns than older people. This survey confirms suspicions about younger people. They are more in favor gun rights.

I don't know if I buy the arguments that The Guardian tried to push to try and explain that. I do think that first person shooters have helped with younger people liking guns. Game series like Call of Duty and Battlefield do feature military weapons and a lot of people play these games. But just playing games doesn't really effect much of anything. Just like they don't make people more violent, I doubt they make people like guns.

I do think that living in a gun culture is part of it though. Unlike older generations, the mental image of what a gun has changed. In older generations when people thought of guns they thought of something like a hunting rifle. Now people think of AR-15's or handguns. They are extremely common and almost everyone has seen one in person now. 

But I think there is more to it than that. I think that younger people today are much more distrusting and savvy when it comes to the media. Unlike older people, the young do not just trust the media to tell them the truth. They actually look into things and understand that if the media is lying to them about everything else, they are probably lying to them about guns as well. 

I also think that mass shootings aren't that shocking to young people. Unlike older adults, we never remember a time where there weren't crazy people shooting up schools and concerts. For me, Columbine happened when I was still in school. The kids growing up today also happened to come to age at a time when ISIS was running amok throughout the world. 

I think that has changed the young psychologically. Instead of an aberration, they see mass shootings as just something that happens that you need to be prepared for. They also see mass shootings as a sub category of terror attacks in general. We have all seen bombings, stabbings and ramming attacks as well so we know damn well that banning guns won't stop the violence. 

Finally, I do think that people realize that owning guns can stop mass shootings. There have been several high profile cases that have been stopped by good guys with guns. The most recent one was stopped by a guy with the same rifle that would be banned by an assault weapons ban. Young people understand that terrorism will happen and they want to be able to defend themselves. 

None of this means that gun rights supporters can rest on their laurels. Gun rights will forever be threatened in this country and we can't just rely on the younger generations to preserve them. We will continue to have to work hard at educating them so we can defend our rights. 

Iraqi forces liberate the last major ISIS controlled town, Rawah.

A file photo of the ISIS flag flying in Rawah. LA Times/AP

Iraqi forces have liberated Rawah, the last major ISIS controlled town in Iraq. LA Times. The pre-dawn assault only lasted five hours. Rawah was the last major town under control of ISIS after the border town of al-Qaim was liberated earlier this month. US forces assisted in both battles and will continue to help the Iraqis with clean up operations, with ISIS still controlling a few towns and villages in the vast western desert of Iraq. ISIS has largely been pushed out of Syria as well, but they were able to recapture the border town of Abu Kamal after Hezbollah briefly liberated the town. 

My Comment:

This was the last major holding ISIS had in Iraq and it fell in five hours. The once formidable army that raped and pillaged its way across Iraq is now nothing more than a few disorganized survivors hiding out in the desert. ISIS has largely been defeated and I am guessing that the remaining clean up operations will move quickly. Rawah was their last stand, but instead of a glorious battle, they went out with a whimper.

Indeed, the fight against ISIS in Iraq has gone much quicker than I thought it would. This is due in large part because of the massive increase in competence by the Iraqi military. This is not the army that broke and fled in Mosul back in 2014. They are now a professional, battle hardened, fighting force that is more than a match for the few remaining ISIS fighters. 

And it's not just Iraq either. Across the border in Syria, ISIS has almost been defeated. Though the declaration of victory there was obviously premature, they really only have a few patches of territory left, with Abu Kamal being the most important. Abu Kamal already fell once and it will happen again. Though the Syrian military, and their Hezbollah allies, lost it once already, it's not like ISIS has the men to win a war of attrition with them. Almost all of their soldiers have died on the battlefield and they are completely cut off from any reinforcements. 

The war in Iraqi will now move into a new phase of more traditional insurgency. ISIS as a state is gone. But as a terrorist group, it is far from defeated. They will move underground and operate like their former organization, al-Qaeda in Iraq, did. Expect more terror attacks and raids as opposed to operations where ISIS takes and holds territory. 

As for Iraq, they have to make sure that they don't fall into the same traps they did last time. After the defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq and the rest of the insurgency, Iraq let its military fall apart and they pushed away their US ally, with a large amount of help from the militarily incompetent Barack Obama. Corruption set in to the point where they had fake soldiers drawing salaries and few of the real ones felt like fighting. They have to make sure that their military stays as professional and corruption free as it is now. That's a lot harder to do in semi-peacetime than it is during war. 

They also have to do something about the potential for Sunni and Shiite conflict. One of the reasons that ISIS was able to advance as much as they did, remember just a year or two ago it was feared that Baghdad itself could fall, is because sectarian tensions were so high. The Sunni cities and towns of the west did not trust the Shiite led government of Nuri al-Maliki and many of them greeted ISIS with open arms. Given how appalling ISIS had behaved to that point, even back then they were a pack of murdering monsters, that is really saying something about how bad things were between Sunni and Shia. And, as always, you can't expect the Saudis and Iranians to keep out of that potential tinderbox. 

We are also seeing a potential conflict erupting between the Kurds and the Iraqi government. Though the brief skirmishes have settled down, we also have to recognize that the Kurds have tasted quite a bit of freedom. Their desire for an independent homeland could cause the region to further spiral out of control.

All of these things could give ISIS an opportunity to rise from the ashes yet again. They have survived such defeats before and to give them any opening to do so again is foolish. The Iraqi government must make sure that they are ready for any regrouping of ISIS and keep their various sectarian and administrative problems under control. Because if they give ISIS a chance, you better believe that they could come back. 

And ISIS is still not defeated globally. Though ISIS is a spent force in both Iraq and Syria, they are still active in many other countries. Even though they lost their main bases in Libya, they have been regrouping their. And they have yet to be defeated in Egypt, Afghanistan, Yemen and The Philippines. Though the biggest battles may be behind us, the fight against ISIS is far from over.    

My thoughts on Al Franken being accused of sexual abuse.

Senate picture of Al Franken. 

Unless you have been living under a rock, you probably know that Al Franken has been accused of sexual assault by Leeann Tweeden, a news reporter and model. Franken and Tweeden were overseas with the USO and Tweeden accused Franken of two separate incidents. First, Franken allegedly forcibly kissed Tweeden over her objections. Later Franken was photographed grabbing Tweeden's breasts. More background, along with the picture of the second assault, can be found here. I don't really want to post that picture on my blog, even if it is everywhere. 

There is no doubt in my mind that Franken is guilty of something here. Without knowing the exact jurisdiction and the status of the statue of limitations, it's speculation that he could be in legal trouble. I do know that in my state groping an unconscious person is 2nd degree sexual assault, a major felony. The forced kissing would be something else, but still a crime. 

The fact that there is photographic evidence of this incident makes it impossible to defend Franken. Unlike accusations against other politicians, this one has rock solid evidence and isn't just a he said she said situation. That doesn't mean that those other situations are fake, but it does mean that people won't be able to defend Franken for his actions. Though you could potentially argue that the forced kiss didn't happen, you would be hard pressed to do so after seeing that picture. 

This is fairly disgusting behavior all around. Obviously both assaults are unacceptable behavior but the context is even worse. Leeann Tweeden was overseas entertaining the troops with the USO. Doing so is obviously a good thing and before this happened it was one of the few things I admired about Al Franken. To attack someone who is trying to help the troops is just vile. 

It doesn't seem like the accusations against Franken are over either. Melanie Morgan, a reporter, also accused Franken of stalking her and harassing her. This appears to not have been sexual though. 

Yes, it’s true. I was stalked and harassed by Al Franken. I will have details @MediaEqualizer shortly.

— Melanie Morgan (@MelMorgan1350) November 16, 2017

So what happens to Franken? He has already apologized for the picture but denies the forced kiss. The apology probably isn't going to fly. He said that the picture was meant to be a joke, but I doubt people will see it that way. I am guessing for a normal person anyone using that excuse would be laughed at... as they were convicted for sexual assault.

I don't know if he remains a Senator. There are investigations going on but I don't see him being removed. That almost never happens and would be completely unprecedented. What happens more frequently is a resignation. He is probably being pressured already. I'd be surprised if he doesn't end up resigning and we get a new Senator over this.

What are the political implications of this? We should keep in mind that if Franken does resign, he will be replaced by Minnesota's governor, Mark Dayton, a Democrat. He will almost certainly pick another liberal Democrat to replace him, so the short term nothing much should change.

But there will be a special election. Though a blue state, Minnesota was in play during the presidential election. It's certainly possible that a Republican could win. It's not a lock either way and I think it's very possible that Democrats won't be enthusiastic to vote for a replacement for a Senator who resigned in disgrace. It will all depend on who the candidates are and who can get people to turn out.

Still, I haven't heard anything indicating that he is going to resign. Not doing so isn't unheard of but if he does stay on, I can't imagine he wins when he is up for reelection.

The whole thing has probably spawned from the Harvey Weinstein situation. People are much more likely to come forward to accuse people who did something in the past now that they are likely to believed. The incidents have now spilled over to the political world. First it was Roy Moore and now it is Al Franken.

Some people are accusing Republicans are being hypocritical by still supporting Moore while at the same time demanding Franken resign. I don't think the situations are that similar. For one thing, there is actual psychical evidence of what Franken did. Not so with Roy Moore. There is no doubt what Franken did, but we still don't know if Moore did what he was accused of, much of which is legal anyways. Also, the timing of this accusation against Franken makes it a lot less likely to be politically motivated, unlike the situation with Moore. That doesn't mean what Moore did was correct, but it also doesn't mean that he is actually guilty of anything either.

I don't think that this is the end of accusations against politicians. I doubt that Franken is alone. We already know that there is a multi-million dollar fund for paying off victims of sexual harassment. It will only take on of those victims to come forward to end someone's career.

And I think that this is probably a bipartisan issue. I won't be surprised if the next person is a Republican or a Democrat. It's also very possible that the next person to be accused could be a woman as well. Perhaps they won't all have pictures like Al Franken did, but I doubt this is the last we have heard about sexual abuse in Washington...

Journalism is dead in this country...

I admit defeat. I was attempting to write a follow up post on yesterday's topic of Trump making a major announcement today. There was a lot of speculation as to what that announcement could be, but I was completely unable to find anything illuminating out about the speech at all except for one thing. 

What is it? Well apparently Trump had to stop and get a drink of water and that is literally the only thing the media wants to talk about. Trump did make fun of Marco Rubio for doing the same thing, a very long time ago, but is that really newsworthy? 

Absolutely not. Nobody should care at all that Trump needed to take a drink. He's a human so of course he is going to get thirsty once and awhile. The whole thing is about as stupid as things could possibly be. 

But there is something worse going on here. I haven't been able to find any news articles at all from mainstream sources. Even conservative media is dropping the ball. They aren't covering the content of the speech either, they are just complaining about the fact that people are complaining about the water drinking. 

To be fair that's what I am doing as well. But in my defense, I am a non-professional blogger. I rely on the media to sum things up for me because I don't have time to actually watch Trump's speech. I don't have an hour to spare to watch his speech but I can spare a couple of minutes to read an article and then a few more to type something up. Now I can't do that. 

And it's pretty clear why. The few minor bits of information I have been able to gleam about this speech is that it was Trump touting his foreign policy wins he had on his Asia trip. I figured that was the most likely outcome and it is a major story that needs coverage. It's a good story for Trump as it's clear that his trip was momentous. 

The media, however, will never give Trump a fair shake. They won't cover the fact that he was well received by all the countries he visited. He has been warmly embraced by President Xi of China and there seems to be real progress being made on North Korea. That's a huge foreign policy win for Trump but if you listen to the media you wouldn't know that at all. 

So instead of covering the major foreign policy win, they cover the fact that he drank some water. Anyone that wants to know what Trump actually said has to either watch the speech themselves or try to gleam whatever information they can buried in these stupid water articles. The truth gets buried once again... 

It would be different if this was just a light ribbing of Trump. Had there been actual articles about what Trump had said I wouldn't mind a few articles about this. But a decent portion of these articles are so over the top that i'd say they were parodies. They are seriously arguing that Trump is disqualified from office just because he drank some water. 

At this point it can't be argued that the media isn't the enemy of the American people. Even when they aren't lying about what happened, they are doing crap like this where they cover a complete non-story in order to ignore real stories. It's just completely disgusting and I am so sick of this behavior.

EDIT: I finally found video of Trump's speech. I don't have the time to watch it now unfortunately, but I figured I should post it so others can. You know, do actual journalism.

What major announcement does President Trump have planned?

President Donald Trump.

President Donald Trump posted a cryptic tweet saying that he has a major announcement to make once he returned to the United States from his Asian trip. The tweet can be seen below:

I will be making a major statement from the @WhiteHouse upon my return to D.C. Time and date to be set.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 14, 2017

There have been very few clues about what this statement will be about, or even when it will be made, though people suspect it will be Wednesday afternoon. I haven't seen too much indicating what it could be about. There are several theories though.

The mainstream one is that Trump made some deals while in Asia and will be announcing them to the United States. Trump certainly likes to talk about deals and he seems to have had a successful Asian trip, but I am not sure this is what he is going to be talking about. Breitbart seems to think that this is what the announcement is going to be about.

I am not so sure. Though Trump's trip seems successful, I don't see anything that would justify a major announcement. He met with a lot of world leaders and may have brokered something and made some plans, I doubt it would require an announcement. Still, the safe money is on this, but what are the other options?

Fox News has raised the possibility that the announcement could be on North Korea. Trump met with all the non-North Korean players in the region and may have found a new way forward. That could be anything from further sanctions to actual war. It's possible that Trump got China, Russia, Japan or South Korea on board and may want to announce that fact to the world.

I think this is very plausible as well. North Korea had to be a major part of this trip and likely was the number one issue discussed. They are getting very close to having nuclear missiles capable of hitting the United States and something will likely be done about that fact. It's very possible that Trump's announcement will be about the issue.

There are other possibilities as well. Given the strong hints that Jeff Sessions was giving it's very possible that there is going to be action on the Hillary Clinton cases. It's possible that Trump will use this announcement to expose her and/or the crimes of the Democrats.

This seems rather unlikely though. Not because action on the Clinton issue isn't coming, but because Trump really doesn't have a whole lot to do with those kinds of criminal investigations. That's Sessions show and he would be the one that would make that announcement, and he wouldn't be doing so unless arrests were being made. I guess it's possible that arrests are coming, but that would make little sense considering Sessions was just now talking about issuing a special prosecutor.

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention what is happening on 4chan, as stupid as that sounds. There has been a long running series of posts that reportedly come from high ranking government official with Q level clearance. Supposedly, this "Q Anon" has given info saying that a counter-coup is happening and that everything is going to be public soon.

I don't give a lot of credence to that. Even if an insider was posting on 4chan, which they have done before, any real information would be drowned out by idiocy, LARPers, filth and shills. That being said, supposedly "Q" has made some accurate predictions, but again, I doubt something so dramatic is happening.

Finally, it's possible that there was a major breakthrough with a different case, such as the Mandalay Bay shooting. If there was such a breakthrough it might warrant a statement, but I doubt that anything like that is happening. We haven't even been hinted that something will happen like that.

My guess is that it will just be a run of the mill boring statement on a trade deal. Don't get me wrong, any new trade deals will be a win for a America, but it won't be as interesting as the other options.

I think that people are, on both sides of the political spectrum, are looking for the silver bullet that will put down the other side forever. For the left it's the endless Russia speculation that will likely lead nowhere. For the right it's thinking that a Hillary Clinton prosecution will bring down the entire party. In reality, I doubt there is going to be a silver bullet. I would love for Trump's statement to be one, but I doubt it will be.

Jeff Sessions may form a 2nd special counsel to investigate the Clintons.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The Hill/Getty. 

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is considering forming a 2nd special counsel to investigate several Clinton family issues. The Hill. The probe could cover several different issues, including the Clinton Foundation, the Uranium One scandal, the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's e-mail server and the Obama unmasking scandal. The Justice Department is already looking into these issues and more and may set up prosecution. The 2nd special council will have a different mandate from Robert Mueller's special counsel which has focused on supposed election interference. 

My Comment:

Very big news if true. And news that is likely to boost the opinions of both Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump. One of Trump supporters biggest complaints was that nothing was being done about these obvious stories of corruption and graft. Sessions went from being one of the most beloved of Trump's supporters to being one of the most disliked. Finally doing something will silence Session's biggest critics. And it will of course help Trump as well. One of his campaign promises was to "Lock Her Up". 

Why is a 2nd special counsel necessary? Well, Muller's only covers election interference. Though a special counsel can go outside of their mandate, see Paul Manafort, the Clinton and Obama administration scandals are pretty far away from his mandate. Even though Muller's investigation trended towards Clinton lackeys like John and Tony Podesta it seems that the major players aren't going down from that investigation.

A 2nd special counsel would be able to investigate these scandals. And they are all huge scandals. The Clinton Foundation was basically a giant money laundering and corruption scheme and needs to be broken up. The Uranium One scandal is a huge deal and James Comey did some pretty shady stuff as well. Worst of all was the Obama unmasking scandal that violated Trump and his family's civil rights. 

Still, we should temper our hopes. I think that we can't assume that everyone is going to go down. Former presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton will almost certainly be spared. It would be unprecedented to arrest a former president and I doubt that Trump would want to sully the name of the office of President by sending two of them to prison. Much like Ford pardoned Nixon, I think that Trump will give the former POTUS's a pass. 

Other people won't be so lucky. It would be very unlikely that Hillary Clinton doesn't at least get charged with something. It might be a slap on the wrist and she probably won't serve any time but I expect her to get charged and plead guilty to something. 

James Comey is likely going down as well. His handling of the Clinton e-mail scandal was, by all accounts, horrible. It might even have been criminal and I wouldn't be surprised if he gets charged too. I also expect quite a number of Obama administration and Democratic workers to go down as well. 

I am almost expecting a big announcement tomorrow when Trump returns from Asia. There have been rumors flying for awhile now that there would be an earth shaking announcement from Trump on criminal prosecution of high ranking Democrat officials. A lot has been made of the high number of sealed indictments in Federal Court and people are trying to connect the dots. This statement from Sessions isn't quite there but it does give credence to those rumors. Time will tell if those rumors are true or not. 

North Korean soldier defects to the South despite being shot.

A surgeon talks to soldiers at the hospital where the defector was treated. Reuters. 

A North Korean soldier defected to South Korea by crossing the DMZ despite being shot. Reuters. The solider was found in Panmunjon with gunshot wounds to his shoulder and elbow. He was treated for his wounds and there was no exchange of gunfire between the North and South. More than 1000 North Koreans defect each year to South Korea but it is extremely rare for them to cross the DMZ. The vast majority of them defect via China. It is unclear what rank and the status of the defector.

My Comment:

Interesting story out of South Korea. This isn't the first time this has happened but it is fairly rare for defectors to cross the DMZ. For one thing it is much more closely guarded by both sides and it is not easy to sneak across. Getting shot at is predictable. The Chinese border is a lot more porous and open. 

So why did he go via the DMZ? My guess is that he was stationed in the area. As difficult as it is to cross the DMZ it would be much more difficult to go AWOL and try to flee to the northern border with China (or perhaps Russia). Remember, North Korea is a police state and a single soldier traveling alone would be suspicious. 

We don't know much about the soldier. My guess is he was fairly low ranking, so I doubt we will find out much intelligence. I am guessing if he was higher ranked, he could have been able to find away to the safer Chinese border crossings. I think that it is very unlikely that he was ranked higher than a junior officer, with it being much more likely that he was an enlisted man. I guess it is possible that it was a rouge general or something, but that would be surprising to say the least. 

Why would this guy defect in the first place? Well, if he was close to the DMZ he might have observed how much nicer South Korea is than the North. That's certainly possible but I think it's just as likely that he had screwed up somehow and he needed to get out of the country. We all know how horrible it is to be on the wrong side of the North Korean regime and he may have wanted to escape from them. 

The sad thing is that his family is likely to pay the price. Defectors families are not treated well. There have been reports of children of defectors being forced into hard labor after their parents fled. I wouldn't be surprised that this man's family could meet a similar fate. 

Why would North Korea punish the families of defectors? Well they have a vested interest in not letting people escape. If North Korea suddenly stopped caring and let people leave they would face a major brain drain and labor shortage and they can't risk that. They disproportionately punish the families of defectors so that they don't encourage others to escape. 

It just goes to show how awful it is in North Korea. Even during good times it is a despotic hellhole police state where people are punished for the "sins" of their grandparents. And during the bad times people starve to death en mass. North Korea is so bad that people are willing to risk getting shot just to escape from it.  It's truly a horrible country and I hope one day that somehow, someway that things improve in North Korea... 

Donald Trump trolls Kim Jong Un of North Korea...

Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me "old," when I would NEVER call him "short and fat?" Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 12, 2017

Just wanted to point out that this was some pretty hilarious trolling by our commander and chief. Trump hit back at Kim Jong Un who insulted him by calling him old. Trump is old, but Trump is also correct that Kim is short and fat. It's a classic case of trolling, but this time by a world leader. And I think Trump is really, really enjoying this presidency.

As usual people tend to freak out about this. I see it as harmless saber rattling. As long as the war of words stays a war of words, I don't see any harm of it. North Korea has been insulting and belittling our leaders for pretty much my entire lifetime and I don't see why we can't give it back to them a little bit. Generally speaking a personal insult is a bit more refreshing that "we are going to blow each other up" kinds of insults that actually are worrying.

I also like to point out that Trump's Twitter account is an official government statement and we should also note that there might be some carrot to go with the stick. After all, Trump said that he wants to be Kim's friend and that could mean that if he gives up his nukes he could end up being treated better by the United States. Trump wants the world to know that he is still attempting diplomacy even as he is rattling North Korea's cage.

Overall, I think that the actual message is being delivered elsewhere. The Trump snark is mostly for his supporters and for the media to tear their hair out about. The actual work is being done on Trump's foreign policy trip to Asia.

That's the important story. Trump is meeting with the leaders of China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and Vietnam and given the red carpet welcome the President is getting I am guessing that they are all working on a solution to the North Korea problem. Tweets are fun and give a public face to the dispute, but it's important to not read into them too much.