It’s Friday, May 10th, 2019…but before we begin, we present yet another sterling example of Socialist selective recall:

Really, Paul, REALLY?!?

If you’ve ever had the strength of will and mental toughness to endure one of his commentaries in its entirety, you know Krugman, who somehow…amazingly…won a Nobel Prize in economics, is proof positive expertise in one subject or field does not by extension confer even minimal knowledge in any other.  And why Progressives prefer a populace as ignorant of history as possible.

However, there is one prize Krugman inarguably deserves: the Rhah Memorial Never-Been-Right Award…

…for a conspicuous separation from anything remotely resembling reality or the truth.

Verily, as one wag observed, if you ever want to ensure you’re on the right side of any issue or question, take the polar opposite of whatever position Krugman supports.

Speaking of those utterly unfamiliar with the truth, Progressives’ favorite #2 Eberhard Faber is once again engaged in an ineffectual attempt to ratchet up the pressure on Team Trump: 

Adam Schiff Threatens ‘Inherent Contempt’ Charges Against Trump Admin

“Inherent contempt”: what’s next…

Or perhaps, just to show The Donald & Company this time he really means business, Schiff-for-Brains won’t merely object, but rather he’ll…

Meanwhile, Congressional Dimocrats’ sound and fury notwithstanding, Team Trump accords them the same level of respect Faber College undergrads granted Professor Jennings:

And even that is far more than they deserve.

Now, here’s The Gouge!

We begin this belated edition with a question, courtesy of The Washington Free Beacon: when is “spying” NOT “spying”?  Why, when Jim Clapper doesn’t particularly like the term, no matter that, by his own admission…

What Obama Admin. FBI Did to Trump Campaign ‘Meets the Dictionary Definition of Spying’

“James Clapper, a CNN contributor and former Director of National Intelligence, admitted last Friday that what the Obama administration did to the Trump campaign “meets the dictionary definition of spying.”

Clapper, who served as the DNI during the Obama administration, appeared on CNN’s Situation Room to discuss new revelations that the FBI sent an undercover agent to meet with George Papadopoulos in London in 2016, backtracking from his prior comments about there not being any spying.

“Was it spying?”asked host Wolf Blitzer.

“Well, yeah I guess it meets the dictionary definition of spying—surveillance or spying, a term I don’t particularly like,” Clapper said. “It’s not a term used by intelligence people. It has a negative connotation, a rogue operation, out of control, not in compliance of the law, and that’s not the case at all.”…”

So in Jim Clapper’s mind, “spying” has a “negative connotation”, associated only with rogue, out of control operations not in compliance with the law.  Clapper’s patent pretense is akin to another, even more desperate dodge:

Besides, what could be more rogue, more out of control and less in compliance with the law than: (1) an “investigation” based on a phony dossier, which was; (2) commissioned and funded by the subject’s political opponent, and; (3) whose author, The Hill reports, admitted prior to the investigation’s commencement “his research was political and facing an Election Day deadline“, that “his client ‘is keen to see this information come to light prior to November 8’“. 

Still, Congressional Dimocrats and their MSM shills would have you believe there’s nothing to see here, folks…

…please move along.

If Bill Barr is half the AG he’s made out to be, proven prevaricators like Jim Clapper, as well as a lot of other deep state serial liars, are about to find out what’s in compliance with the law and what’s not. 

In a related item, NRO‘s Andy McCarthy details Robert…

“In gross violation of Justice Department policy and constitutional norms, a prosecutor neither charges nor recommends charges against a suspect, but proceeds to smear him by publishing 200 pages of obstruction allegations. Asked to explain why he did it, the prosecutor says he was just trying to protect the suspect from being smeared.

This is the upshot of the Mueller report’s Volume II. It might be thought campy if the suspect weren’t the president of the United States and the stakes weren’t so high.

The smear-but-don’t-charge outcome is the result of two wrongs: (1) Mueller’s dizzying application of Justice Department guidance, written by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), holding that a president may not be indicted while he is in office; and (2) the media-Democrat complex’s demand that only laws they like — those that serve their anti-Trump political purposes — be enforced…”

From illegal immigration to Al Sharpton’s taxes, Hands Up/Don’t Shoot to drug enforcement, Progressives are nothing if not consistent…at least when it comes to enforcing only the laws they like.

Next, the WSJ‘s Kim Strassel reveals…

What Nadler REALLY Wants

His strategy clearly aims at provoking a confrontation for political purposes.

“Don’t think this week’s headlines about contempt of Congress and impeachment are about anything so serious as contempt of Congress or impeachment—never mind the “constitutional crisis” Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared Thursday. This is red-meat politics.

The House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines Wednesday to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt. It demands Mr. Barr turn over an unredacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, as well as “all documents obtained and investigative materials created by” Mr. Mueller’s office.

Chairman Jerrold Nadler also threatened to hold former White House counsel Don McGahn in contempt if he doesn’t testify. Mrs. Pelosi spent all week meditating on the prospect of impeaching President Trump, accusing him of “obstruction, obstruction, obstruction,” and even declaring him “self-impeachable,” whatever that means.

Mr. Nadler insists the point of his subpoena fusillade is to obtain “evidence” as part of his “investigation” into “abuses of power” by Mr. Trump. This is obviously untrue, as evidenced by Mr. Nadler’s dogged, daily efforts to make sure he does not obtain any information of value.

Already, on April 18, Mr. Barr made available to senior members of Congress the opportunity to view a version of the report more complete than the one released to the public. It contains the minimum redactions required by law—only 1.5% is redacted material, compared with about 10% for the public version. Mr. Nadler could have weeks ago obtained a flurry of new detail about Mr. Mueller’s investigations and evidence. But neither he nor any other Democrat has visited the Justice Department to view the fuller report.

Mr. Nadler instead issued a subpoena that included a poison pill, a demand that guaranteed noncompliance. Mr. Barr cannot provide secret grand-jury material; it is illegal. Mr. Nadler, a lawyer, knows this. (Which begs the question why no one in the MSM called him on this obvious dodge?!?) He could have issued a subpoena assuring him tons of new material; he instead deliberately issued one that assures him none.

He did it again this week, turning down offer after offer from the Justice Department to give him most of what he claims to want. Justice offered to expand the list of Democrats who may read the minimally redacted report. It offered to bring the material to Congress. It even offered to accommodate prioritized requests for additional documents, based on a committee review of the less-redacted report. Mr. Nadler said no each time.

Mr. Barr offered to testify last week in front of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Nadler insisted Mr. Barr be grilled by congressional staff members. No cabinet member has been subjected to such treatment in the Judiciary Committee’s 206-year history, and Mr. Barr rightly refused—as Mr. Nadler presumably wanted.

Equally revealing is Mr. Nadler’s focus on Mr. McGahn. The last place you go to ferret out information is the White House lawyer, whose work is protected by executive privilege. If Mr. Nadler were truly interested in new evidence, he’d grill people who were central to key events in the Mueller report but not subject to that exception…”

For more on the subject of deliberate Dimocratic dissimulation and disinformation, we turn to the latest installment of the Morning Jolt, in which Jim Geraghty asks and answers the question…

Congressional Democrats Cry ‘Constitutional Crisis’: WHAT Constitutional Crisis?

The big talking point among Congressional Democrats is “CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS!” In case you’ve lost track, Democratic leaders in the House want an entirely unredacted version of the Mueller report and underlying evidence. The Department of Justice redactions of the report were made in cooperation with special counsel Robert Mueller. The redactions are of grand-jury material, sensitive intelligence, matters that could affect ongoing investigations, and information that would violate the privacy of figures “peripheral” to the investigation. So far, no one has made any accusation that these redactions are improper or made in bad faith.

But the Democrats believe that they should have access to the full report with no exceptions. Attorney General William Barr offered an almost-entirely-unredacted version that could be read by senior lawmakers and committee chairs. The House rejected this offer. The Trump administration invoked executive privilege and [the House] declared Barr was in contempt.

You may recall the House of Representatives finding Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over documents relating to the “Fast and Furious” gun scandal; the Obama administration refused to enforce the contempt charge, contending that the documents were covered by executive privilege. Bill Clinton invoked executive privilege 14 times; George W. Bush, six. Executive privilege being a big factor in the Watergate scandal, with the Supreme Court ruling that it exists, but that Nixon had only demonstrated a general need for confidentiality in discussions, not a specific one related to that particular request.

In other words, presidents and Congressional leaders regularly fight over who gets access to what documents in the executive branch. Presidents and Congressional leaders fight over what is legitimately covered by executive privilege every few years. Sometimes they work out an agreement, and sometimes they hash it out in court, and sometimes it goes all the way up to the Supreme Court to resolve.

This process is just how these sorts of disputes are supposed to be resolved…under the U.S. Constitution — which raises the question of how this qualifies as a (dramatic voice) “Constitutional crisis!” if everyone is following the process set out under the Constitution.

Speaking of Progressives who cry “Wolf!”, The Washington Times reports on another lying deep state pot calling the orange-faced kettle black:

‘Not above the law’: Trump indictment in play after presidency, James Comey says

This from the man who concluded the evidence against Hillary wouldn’t lead any “reasonable” prosecutor to press charges.  We trust the disgraced former FBI Director will understand any “reasonable” American citizen, in turn, not trusting him any farther than they can throw Hillary. 

Which brings us, appropriately enough, to The Lighter Side:

Then there’s this classic from our sister-in-law Amy:

Finally, we’ll call it a wrap with a cross between the EnvironMental Moment and Other Than THAT, the Headline Was Accurate!, as one Brandon Specktor, Senior Writer at Live Science.com, offers an argument sans any supporting evidence:

Scientists Discovered a 2,624-Year-Old Tree in a North Carolina Swamp. Climate Change Could Kill It.

It was only after the item had been picked up and featured at FOX News that a Live Science editor inserted this sentence near the end of the article…

“According to the study authors, the swamp is located at 6.5 feet (2 meters) above mean sea level, and is at risk of being flooded by rising sea levels caused by anthropogenic global warming.”

…along with this “correction”:

Editor’s Note: This story was updated at 1 p.m. E.D.T. on May 10 to note that sea level rise due to anthropogenic climate change could cause ancient bald cypress trees to be flooded.

Again, it’s the EnviroNazis favorite dodge: not should or would, but could!  In other words, it just might, perhaps, possibly come to pass…meaning, then again, it might not!  More importantly, even if such a worst-case scenario were to unfold, only those living in the year 2100 will see even its minimal effects.  

In any event, let’s forget about the billions of Homo sapiens such a rise in sea levels would displace and prematurely mourn the highly-hypothetical demise of a single long-lived species of tree.

Here’s wishing every mom out there a very Happy Mother’s Day.  As for our own dear, departed Tickie, she was a game gal…

…and we miss her every day.

Magoo