A Faint Light Shines at the end of the Tunnel

by Jack

Dems won the House, GOP won the Senate and there was no discernable referendum on Trump’s presidency. Despite the hopes of democrats and the fears of Republicans, the blue tidal wave never got beyond a ripple in the pond. California became a little bluer; is that even possible? So, we have a divided House and CA where idiocracy reigns supreme. The House was already divided between the Trumpsters and the swamp dwellers before this election and yet we survived. We’ll survive the aging old dems controlling key House committees too. Maxine Waters is 80 years old, soon she may term limit herself out of office.

The GOP has failed to deliver for the last 8 years and that is the main reason democrats will be picking people like Maxine Waters to chair committees. Just think, without Trump’s presidential orders, the GOP would have nothing to talk about. They would have had no bragging rights to anything.

Voters know that virtually everything Trump tried to accomplish he had drag way too many House republicans along kicking and screaming. So yeah, I firmly believe they lost the House because they rested on their laurels. They were again too timid, too prideful, too oblivious and too uninspired. Look how they’ve failed to managed the soaring 23 trillion dollar deficit, comprehensive immigration reform, healthcare reform, and many other things of concern to the average taxpayer. Given the GOP performance, we’re lucky we didn’t lose the House by a wider margin!

What’s next? Well, the good news is, the dems want to introduce what could easily become bi-partisan legislation. They are looking at an Ethics and Campaign Finance Reform bill for starters. That subject resonates well among voters in both blue and red states, but we’ll have to see the details before we start cheering.

Locally, LaMalfa won re-election. He’s in a solid GOP district and there is just no way a democrat is going to oust him short of a major scandal and even then I’m not so sure. Long term Congressman Dana Rohrabacher-R 48th District, lost to a politically unknown. His constituency has been leaving the state and replaced by a browner population who told Rohrabacher it was his turn to take a hike. Rohrabacher’s father held that seat before him, but as the song goes, times they are a changing.

Nevada voters chose to elect a dead pimp instead of a democrat. Check this out: PAHRUMP, Nev. (AP) 10-16-18 — Dennis Hof, a pimp who gained notoriety for an HBO series about his brothel business and who fashioned himself as a Donald Trump-style Republican candidate for the state Legislature, was found dead hours after his extended-weekend 72nd birthday bash, authorities said Tuesday. On Nov. 6th, voters elected him to the assembly, despite his demise. However, if they had elected him to Congress he probably could have served out the next 2 years without his fellow GOP’ers even noticing.

And now from the Enterprise Record, election results for Chico. It appears the city council has flipped back to the liberals. There are still thousands of votes still to be counted — including late provisional and mail-in ballots that were dropped off at the polls Tuesday — but liberals were leading for two of the three spots available on the council. That would give them a 5-2 margin, replacing the 4-3 conservative edge of the last four years. As of 1:30 a.m. Wednesday, with 38 of 38 precincts counted, Kasey Reynolds was leading with 12,758 votes. She was followed by Alex Brown with 12,128 votes; Scott Huber, 11,521 votes; Andrew Coolidge, 11,380 votes; Rich Ober, 10,409 votes, Matt Gallaway, 10,288 votes; Ken Rensink, 3,691 votes; Jon Scott, 2,462 votes; and James Aguirre, 721 votes.

Of course Gavin Newsome won election as our new governater. His GOP challenger, John Cox, ran a bizarre campaign. Cox seemed to disappear from the stage in the last two weeks of the election. Newsome was out there stumping, content to smile and do handshaking. Heck, no need to get into the nasty business of political details. It worked too. CA voted for the pretty face absent any substance and they’ll probably run him for president.

Now for the CA Propositions (warning, this is terrible news if you have a brain, otherwise enjoy):

Proposition 1 – Housing Assistance Bonds – Passed

Proposition 10 – Remove Rent Control Limits – Failed

Proposition 11 – Expand EMT On-Call Time – Passed

Proposition 12 – Farm Animal Space Minimum – Passed

Proposition 2 – Mental Illness Housing Bonds – Passed

Proposition 3 – Water and Environment Bonds – Failed

Proposition 4 – Children’s Hospital Bonds – Passed

Proposition 5 – Property Tax Base Transfers – Failed

Proposition 6 Gas Tax Recall – FAILED!!!!!

Proposition 7 – Allow Daylight Saving Change – Passed

Proposition 8 – Regulate Dialysis Charges – Failed

Proposition SF C – Tax Fund Homeless Services Passed

Do you actually think any of this new bond money will show demonstrable improvements in the coming years? If you do I have a bridge to sell – contact me. N

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to A Faint Light Shines at the end of the Tunnel

  1. Libby says:

    Never mind all that. Trump has sacked Sessions ! Now the fun REALLY begins …

    So what do you think? Panic or Pissedness? Our Dear Leader can’t really think he’s able to bulldoze Mueller’s report … can he?

    And I wonder … ol’ turtle head … Mitch … is he dreading or relishing the prospect of that walk across Pennsylvania Avenue? “Mr. President, you have to go.”

    • Post Scripts says:

      Libby, I’ve done a fair number of investigations, so I have some slight insight into how the process works. Digging up confirmation of wrong doing and witnesses usually has a very short time allowance because its just not that hard. Either you have something or you don’t. 30-60 days is a normal time frame.

      Consider, I can fly anywhere in the world in 24 hours. If the evidence exists, if there are witnesses, hey it’s almost certain I will have it nailed down in 90 days. If after a 6 months I still don’t have it, something is very wrong somewhere. But, if after a year it still hasn’t surfaced and I’m still asked to beat the bushes, it almost certainly doesn’t exist. And worse, the people pushing me to keep looking are up to something. I would begin to be worried. There’s something suspicious with the investigation itself. My best guess would be there is a hidden agenda in play, a political setup most likely. However, if after 2 years of investigating and the original allegation is still without confirmation, there’s still nothing to report – the investigation and those pressing it have gone completely off the rails! Investigators would be left to conclude that whatever is going on now, it has nothing to do with the original investigation or justice. I wouldn’t want anything to do with such an investigation – it would be unethical.

      • Pie Guevara says:

        Of all the indictments Mueller has produced not one person has been found guilty of collusion with Russia to corrupt the 2016 election. It is a ridiculous farce.

        • Tina says:

          Since we now have a stronger position in the Senate, the investigations into corrupt practices within the FBI and Justice can continue. A new AG could result in the release of that classified information in the investigation. The indictments that have already been issued will go on.

      • Libby says:

        Would that this were some 7-11 heist. Alas, it’s a little more involved than that. I’m impressed that Manafort was dealt with as quickly as he was. It can take years to nail these “white collar” felons.

        Junior is telling people he expects to be indicted. That might rattle a father into just a little bit more obstruction of justice. I mean, what the hell?!

      • Chris says:

        Libby, I’ve done a fair number of investigations, so I have some slight insight into how the process works. Digging up confirmation of wrong doing and witnesses usually has a very short time allowance because its just not that hard. Either you have something or you don’t. 30-60 days is a normal time frame.

        The Watergate investigation took over two years.

        However, if after 2 years of investigating and the original allegation is still without confirmation, there’s still nothing to report – the investigation and those pressing it have gone completely off the rails! Investigators would be left to conclude that whatever is going on now, it has nothing to do with the original investigation or justice. I wouldn’t want anything to do with such an investigation – it would be unethical.

        Is it your position that the Watergate investigation was unethical?

        • Post Scripts says:

          Chris, please don’t be obtuse, I’m not in the mood. You’re mixing apples and oranges again. Need I point out the obvious? The Watergate investigation opened with hard evidence and arrests. The development on that makes it a whole other kind of investigation and that takes time. In the Trump investigation it began as one thing and finding nothing it morphed into another. Now it seems to be meandering all over the place looking into anyone connected in any way to Trump. They want something that they can indict on and smear Trump. That’s exploratory at best. It’s started out as looking for one thing and when it was not found it went off looking for another thing. That’s wrong. Eventually this witch hunt grew into looking for anything is fair game. I wonder what we would find if we investigated your life this way, with no boundaries, just probe wherever and lets see what we can find and we’ll do the same to your friends and family too? No limits… just investigate and find something.

          • Chris says:

            The Mueller investigation also started with hard evidence that Russia meddled with our election. Many arrests have been made of Russians who did just that. More were indicted.

            The evidence that members of the Trump campaign assisted in this meddling was and remains more circumstantial–which is why this has been a secondary goal of the investigation since the beginning. (The mainstream media, admittedly, has not done a very good job of making this clear, largely because their obsession with Trump has crowded out news of the indictments of actual Russians while emphasizing his role in the investigation.)

            But evidence of the Trump campaign’s assistance arrived very quickly after the investigation began. Only two months later, Don Jr.’s emails were released showing that he attempted to gain information on Hilary from the Russian government. Whether any such information was obtained, or whether Trump knew about it, is yet to be seen.

            Then there were the other Trump campaign officials who were asked by the FBI about their contacts with Russia, and lied about them. That they lied is a matter of fact, hence the indictments and guilty pleas. Why they lied is still not clear.

            But in investigating those lies, the FBI found a plethora of other crimes they were attempting to cover up. Was the FBI supposed to just let that go? Of course not. Pursuing criminals is their job, and if they find one crime while investigating another, they don’t just call it a freebie.

            And they are still investigating the Trump campaign’s role in the Russian interference. Trump’s position throughout the campaign, and into his presidency, was to alternately ignore, accept, deny, and express gratitude for this interference. Members of his administration have had to resort to trickery to get sanctions implemented, much to Trump’s fury. This stance could be explained by Trump simply being deferential to anyone who helps him succeed, but it is still worthy of investigation.

            They are also still investigating Roger Stone’s connection with WikiLeaks–formerly a darling of the left before it became little more than a Russian propaganda outlet–and Don Jr. is reportedly worried he will be indicted soon over allegations that he lied about not telling his father about the infamous Trump Tower meeting. Ken White, a former prosecutor and former Republican who is an expert on constitutional law, says this special counsel investigation is actually moving quite speedily.

            It’s true that the investigation has gone through many issues and caught crimes that seem somewhat removed from its original focus. The fault for that lies on Trump’s staff members for being so corrupt, and on Trump for hiring people who were known to be so.

          • Tina says:

            Jack as one legal person put it let the government investigate anyone and see if they can’t turn up a crime, even if it’s just a process crime. This is not only wrong it likely involved criminal activity within the government.

            I believe it will all come out because the people looking into it are competent, credible, and dedicated to the rule of law.

          • Post Scripts says:

            Tina, my gut feeling says that you are right and we’re going to see justice…eventually.

    • Tina says:

      You were this snarky when Eric Holder had to go, right Libby? His leadership was a disaster and Obama failed to act for six years. Holder’s failure to adequately investigate the Benghazi scandal, his racist failure to prosecute the Muslim Brotherhood for intimidation at a polling place, his leaking of classified documents and his handling of the Fast and Furious case are just a few of the ways this man failed the people.

      Anger, resentment and hate motivate your comments and assertions…very little substance.

      Sessions has accomplished a lot in terms of reforming a broken Justice Department according to one employee that worked under him during his time in office. When he could have positioned himself to interfere in the Mueller investigation, he recused. Nobody has tried to interfere…Democrats have nothing to complain, or snark, about given the reality.

      None of us knows the reasons that this decision was made. Whatever they were, it is not an unusual thing to have happened in any administration.

      • Chris says:

        You were this snarky when Eric Holder had to go, right Libby?

        I’m sorry, did Obama fire Eric Holder because Holder recused himself from an investigation he was legally required to recuse himself from?

        Because if so, great comparison! If not, then that has absolutely nothing to do with what Libby brought up.

        his racist failure to prosecute the Muslim Brotherhood for intimidation at a polling place

        You can’t even keep your racist conspiracy theories straight. The “Muslim Brotherhood” didn’t intimidate anybody at any polling place. One member of the Black Panthers did, and he was prosecuted for it.

        Sessions has accomplished a lot in terms of reforming a broken Justice Department according to one employee that worked under him during his time in office.

        Welp, he sure locked up a lot of Hispanic children with no plan on how to reunite them with their parents, so that’s something.

        When he could have positioned himself to interfere in the Mueller investigation, he recused. Nobody has tried to interfere…Democrats have nothing to complain, or snark, about given the reality.

        How…can you be…this obtuse?

        Yes, Sessions recused. That was Trump’s entire problem with him. Trump has openly complained about Sessions’ recusal on Twitter and in interviews, because Trump believes the job of the AG is to protect him, personally, from investigation. That’s why he just appointed a flunkie who has openly trashed the Mueller investigation in public.

        None of us knows the reasons that this decision was made.

        My god.

        • Pie Guevara says:

          “I’m sorry, did Obama fire Eric Holder because Holder recused himself from an investigation he was legally required to recuse himself from?”

          Hmm, Chris seems to be implying that Jeff Sessions was asked to retire solely because he recused himself from the Mueller investigation. Among Chris’ many talents, he is also mind reader.

          • Chris says:

            Hmm, Chris seems to be implying that Jeff Sessions was asked to retire solely because he recused himself from the Mueller investigation. Among Chris’ many talents, he is also mind reader.

            Believing Trump’s own stated reasons for why he wanted to fire Sessions after the midterms is “mind reading” now. Got it.

        • Pie Guevara says:

          Sometimes you just have to laugh at these fickle progressive nitwits. Chris, you should be jumping for joy!

          1) Stoners: Mr. Sessions was adamant in enforcing federal marijuana laws even where states had legalized usage. A large part of the Democrat constituency and leadership was very unhappy with this policy. (Gee, I wonder why?)

          2) Russia Collusion: Democrats demanded that Mr. Sessions resign after it was revealed he had met twice with Russian ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak.

          You poor putzes just can’t make up your minds.

          • Chris says:

            Some of us can think in terms beyond “Me no like that guy,” Pie.

            Jeff Sessions sucks. That Trump fired Sessions for the one honorable thing he ever did also sucks. Both of these things can be true at the same time.

        • Tina says:

          “I’m sorry, did Obama fire Eric Holder because Holder recused himself from an investigation he was legally required to recuse himself from?”

          No he fired him because he had become a liability.

          YOU do not KNOW the reason/s for this resignation/firing. There may be many.

          “The “Muslim Brotherhood” didn’t intimidate anybody at any polling place. One member of the Black Panthers did, and he was prosecuted for it.”

          Actually it was at least two and one, Shabazz was a leader in the organization…and you are wrong about how the case was handled:

          Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) that provide new evidence that top political appointees at the DOJ were intimately involved in the decision to dismiss the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense (NBPP). These new documents, which include internal DOJ email correspondence, directly contradict sworn testimony by Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, who testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political leadership was involved in the decision. The new documents were obtained last week by Judicial Watch pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice (No.10-851)). …

          …The first report, entitled “Weekly Report for the Week ending May 8, 2009,” and sent on May 12, 2009, notes: “On May 15, 2009, pursuant to court order, the Department will file a motion for default judgment against at least some of the defendants” in the NBPP lawsuit. The report further notes that the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense “has been identified as a racist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League and the founders and members of the original Black Panther Party.”

          The second report, entitled “Weekly Report for the Week ending May 15, 2009,” and sent on May 18, 2009, demonstrates that the DOJ did an abrupt reversal on the NBPP issue: “On May 15, 2009, the Department voluntarily dismissed its claims” against the NBPP and two of the defendants, the report noted. The DOJ moved for default judgment against only one defendant.

          “It is now obvious to me why the Obama administration continues to be so secretive regarding the Justice Department’s decision to abandon its lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party. These documents show that not only was the Black Panther decision shamelessly politicized by the Obama administration but also that Obama officials lied to cover up the scandal. And these documents raise more questions about Attorney General Holder’s involvement. The American people need to know if racism and political favoritism are corrupting the nation’s highest law enforcement agency,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

          The DOJ filed its lawsuit against the NBPP following an incident that took place outside of a Philadelphia polling station on November 4, 2008. A video of the incident, showing a member of the NBPP brandishing police-style baton weapon, was widely distributed on the Internet. According to multiple witnesses, members of the NBPP blocked access to polling stations, harassed voters and hurled racial epithets. Nonetheless, the DOJ ultimately overruled the recommendations of its own staff and dismissed the majority of its charges. Current and former DOJ attorneys have alleged in sworn testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that the Holder DOJ’s NBPP and other civil rights-related decisions are made on the basis of race and political affiliation.

          The media did not cover this, of course.

          “…he sure locked up a lot of Hispanic children with no plan on how to reunite them with their parents”

          Like that’s never happened before! How you love to hate.

          “That was Trump’s entire problem with him.”

          Probably because it was unnecessary:

          Attorney General Sessions’s Recusal Was Unnecessary – The regulation he cited applies to a different type of investigation, By Andrew C. McCarthy

          I have argued that Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s recusal from the so-called Russia investigation was a mistake. The attorney general’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday afternoon bolstered this conclusion.

          Sessions says that he recused himself, on the advice of career ethics experts at the Justice Department, because he thought this was required by the federal regulation controlling “Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship” (28 CFR Sec. 45.2). But judging from the public testimony that former FBI director James Comey has given about the investigation into Russia’s election-meddling, the regulation did not mandate recusal.

          Section 45.2 states that an official is disqualified from “a criminal investigation or prosecution” if he has a personal or political relationship with a “subject of the investigation or prosecution,” or with a person or organization whose interests would be affected by the outcome “of the investigation or prosecution.” (Emphasis added.)

          The probe of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign is not a criminal investigation or prosecution. Moreover, when the reg speaks of the “subject of the investigation or prosecution,” it is using “subject” as a criminal-law term of art. A “subject” is a person or entity whose actions are being examined by a grand jury with an eye toward a possible indictment. There are no “subjects” in that sense in a counterintelligence investigation because the objective is not to build a criminal case and there is no grand jury.

          To make matters worse, over time we have learned that Rod Rosenstein, who took over, may himself be legally compromised

          “That’s why he just appointed a flunkie who has openly trashed the Mueller investigation in public. ”

          Lord you are behind the curve.

          • Chris says:

            Tina…citing Judicial Watch and Andrew McCarthy to argue that I am wrong on the law…is not going to convince anyone not already in your bubble.

            Try more objective sources.

  2. Joe says:

    Most of the local bond and sales tax measures passed, too, much to the delight of the local politicians, bureaucrats and other special interests.

    And I hope you like more tax increases because the Chico city council has already hired a consultant to figure out how to pull the wool over your eyes and get a sales tax increase passed just like what happened in Oroville yesterday. If it worked in Oroville it can work here too, unless people like you stand up and say NO MORE!

  3. Pie Guevara says:

    Meanwhile, another extremist progressive lunatic, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has been sent to run the Democrat controlled asylum in the House

    Ocasio-Cortez promises —
    Medicare for all.
    Free college tuition.
    The abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

    Ocasio-Cortez who, ostensibly, has a degree in Economics (!!!) from Boston University (that department must be a very bad joke if not the whole college) says unemployment is low “because everyone has two jobs” and the way to fund Medicare for all is to “just pay for it.” Medicare for all is estimated increase government health spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years. Just pay for it??? How?

    This goes way beyond making promises to raid the treasury for political purposes, it is totally nuts. How this half-baked “economist” who talks and sounds like, yeah, um, like yeah yeah a brain-dead like valley girl on like steroids ever got past the electorate in like, yeahNew York I cannot fathom. Are New Yorkers, like, that dumbed down?

  4. Peggy says:

    According to Rush this morning, and I agree, we lost the House because 43 republicans quit. They said they retired, but the truth is they didn’t want to work with Trump. Paul Ryan, Trey Gowdy and Daryl Issa are just three to decided to pack up their bags and go home instead of standing with the president and fight for the people they were elected to represent.

    With a 90% re-election rate we were almost guaranteed to keep the majority in the House and gain seats in the Senate. But, because of the largest retirement in modern history Trump will face constant attacks, less work will get done to benefit the country and an impeachment that won’t pass in the Senate.

    “House And Senate Incumbent Re-Election Rates Top 90%
    If you’re a Member of Congress, the odds are pretty good that you’re going to stay one”

    https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/house-and-senate-incumbent-re-election-rates-top-90/

    A positive note is the new republicans are all Trump supporters instead of resisters.

    House And Senate Incumbent Re-Election Rates Top 90%
    If you’re a Member of Congress, the odds are pretty good that you’re going to stay one

  5. Libby says:

    P.S. … love the new art on this post. People of color REALLY frighten the poop out of you, don’t they!?!

  6. Harold says:

    Well Chico, your in for a rough ride, The Liberals just have been waiting until the Conservatives bailed the city out of foreclosure (that the prior Liberal City Council caused).

    Now that Chico has some financial stability, resolved by the Conservatives, the new Liberal City council will raid the coffers once more until Chico is broke again, it is a pattern caused by their wasteful spend and tax ideology, why ?because they just can’t help themselves!

  7. Tina says:

    Chris, “Jeff Sessions sucks.”

    Wow…such an intelligent observation. Is it any wonder you see yourself as superior in these matters?

    • Chris says:

      My memory is that you’ve used the term “sucks” quite a lot…Google confirms.

      The point was not to give a thorough accounting of all the problems I have with Jeff Sessions. The point was to correct Pie’s incorrect view that it is somehow hypocritical to have a problem with both Sessions and Trump firing Sessions because he recused himself from the Mueller investigation. I think I made that point well, as demonstrated by the fact that you’re ignoring it.

  8. Tina says:

    Chris: “…citing Judicial Watch and Andrew McCarthy to argue that I am wrong on the law…is not going to convince anyone not already in your bubble.”

    Sounds like someone stuck in a bubble!

    The information from Judicial Watch is derived from Freedom of Information filings and represent actual documents.

    Andrew McCarthy is an attorney, former federal chief prosecutor whose notable work includes leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others and the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He’s also a writer (at least five books), contributing editor at National Review, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.

    These are credentialed folks who certainly deserve a hearing.

    “Try more objective sources.”

    Someone who calls a federal attorney, and now acting director of the DOJ, “a flunkie” for expressing his opinion on the Mueller investigation is definitely someone stuck in a bubble.

    Try harder Chris, your response lacks, ahem, persuasive powers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *