It Just Keeps Getting Better and Better

…or worse and worse, depending on your perspective.  Not only is the Veterans Administration continuing to make bad/false/improper payments, they seem to be getting acceleratingly worse about it.  The Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General reported that the VA made $5 billion in “improper” payments in 2015, and then while that drew attention, the VA increased their improper payouts to $5.5 billion in 2016.

To show how terrible the rates can be, here are some data from James Clark at the above link:

  • the VA Community Care had 75% of their payments as “improper” payments in 2016
  • the Purchased Long Term Services and Support 69% of their payments as “improper” in 2016

You read that right: three out of four of the Community Care’s payouts were wrong, and over two-thirds of PLTS&S’ payouts were…erroneous, and they’re getting worse.  The prior year, those payout rates were “only” 54.77% and 59.14%, respectively.

Since the VA empirically no interest in cleaning up its act, since it insists on wasting money our veterans need for their care, it’s time to disband this miserable excuse for an institution and commit its budget to vouchers for our vets.

No more delay by Congress.

Veteranos Administratio delende est.

Stuff

Now The New York Times is jumping on the bandwagon.  The paper is claiming that a James Comey memo has it that President Donald Trump interfered with Comey’s investigation of Trump’s ex-NSA advisor, Mike Flynn.  The following is based heavily on a comment I posted on Grim’s Hall.

First, the paper doesn’t have the memo; it was read to them. By a deliberately unidentified source. If the memo exists.  If the reader exists.

Second, it is, in fact, likely that some such memo exists. Every participant in that sort of meeting (and phone call, come to that) writes up their notes in some form of MFR—those are great memory joggers as well as necessary records. Comey, an inveterate note taker, is not unusual in that regard. It’s also the sort of thing I did when I was in the USAF. It’s the sort of thing every officer does after an important meeting or telecon. Waiting on formal minutes didn’t happen for most of us.

Third, any obstruction of justice was committed by Comey. As a law enforcement officer and as an officer of the court—he is, recall, a University of Chicago(!)-trained lawyer—Comey is legally bound to advise law enforcement—in his case his chain of command up the DoJ as well as his seconds in the FBI—of any suspicion of criminal activity. If he didn’t think Trump was interfering with his investigation, there’s no problem, either for him or for Trump. If he did think so, it’s Comey who’s committed a crime by suppressing evidence of one.

Fourth, however intimidated Comey might have felt over his job security or the sanctity of his investigation—assuming the meeting went down as the NYT claims—that’s all gone now, with Comey free and clear. And he’s still not reporting a possible crime.

Fifth, assuming the memo exists in substantially the claimed form, it’s important to keep in mind the integrity of the leaker, who’s speaking out of turn, releasing stuff he has no authority to release and who hasn’t bothered with his own chain of command or complaint system—including his IG system that the Left thinks is so important in other matters.  How did he even get his hands on Comey’s memo?  What does he say Comey told him when he asked Comey if the latter thought it would be a good idea to pass the memo to the press? How is such a leaker himself believable?

The NYT‘s story is highly suspicious, coming as it does a day after WaPo‘s equally carefully unsubstantiated, equally hysterical claims about Trump’s handling of classified information in a meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister and a notorious Russian ambassador.

Neither paper is even pretending to journalistic standards of reporting—stuff like corroborating anonymous sources’ claims with two or more on the record, named sources saying substantially the same thing.  At least National Enquirer and Globe have some minimal entertainment value.

Payback

Recall that when President Donald Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, he allowed Russian photographers to take pictures but not photographers from the American NLMSM.

Now the Washington Post is claiming that President Trump “revealed highly classified information to [the] Russian foreign minister and ambassador” in that Oval Office meeting.

What’s being ignored in the manufactured hysteria over this is that WaPo very carefully used only anonymous sources for their claims: current and former US officials and officials and a US official familiar with the matter and a former senior US official and an official with knowledge of the exchange and a former senior US counterterrorism official and [a] former intelligence official and on and on.

The WaPo didn’t offer a single named, on the record source.  Not one.

The only personnel present in the meeting, besides the two Russians, were Trump, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, NSA Director HR McMasters, and NSA Deputy Director Dina Powell.

What’s being downplayed by the NLMSM is McMaster’s statement after WaPo published its (to repeat: wholly unsubstantiated) claim:

A brief statement for the record. There is nothing that the president takes more seriously than the security of the American people. The story that came out tonight as reported is false. The president of the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation. At no time, at no time, where intelligent sources or methods discussed. The president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known. Two other senior officials who were present, including the secretary of the state, remember the meeting the same way and have said so. Going on the record should outweigh the anonymous sources. I was in the room. It didn’t happen. Thanks, everybody.

Do WaPo‘s “sources” even exist?  Even if they exist, how would they know what was discussed when they were not present in the meeting?  Journalistic standards used to hold that anonymous sources were OK, but their claims had to be corroborated by two or more named, on the record sources.  No more, for the NLMSM.

This smacks of payback because the NLMSM was not included in the prior photo op.  Which demonstrates the uselessness of including the NLMSM in such opportunities.

More importantly, it illustrates the dishonesty and so uselessness of the NLMSM.

This is Why

…we can’t have nice schools.

Students at the University of New Hampshire [boycotted] final exams after a student uploaded a picture of another white student in what appears to be a bedtime facial mask, implying it’s “blackface.”

The university caved in to the students’ demands, and postponed the exams.

The right answer would have been to hold the finals as scheduled, let the pupils who skipped them—for whatever reason—receive failing grades on the exams, with attendant consequences for their course grade for the semester and for their graduation.

This should have been a teaching opportunity.  It isn’t civil disobedience unless the disobeyers suffer the consequences of the disobedience; that’s the only way civil disobedience can point up the absurdity of the thing being protested.  Absent those consequences, all that occurs is a toddler’s temper tantrum.  Or a riot.

But University of New Hampshire management (they don’t deserve to be called leadership) was too timid to do the right thing.  Instead, they’ve surrendered the university to the rabble.  In consequence, all this moment taught was that cry-baby temper tantrums get rewarded.

On top of this, the “outrage” was carefully manufactured.

Twenty-one-year-old Eric Buchwald, whose picture was posted without his permission, claims he didn’t depict blackface and it was just a picture of a clay facial mask he’s been using for the last few weeks.

A woman who owns the Instagram account that caused the scandal confirmed to NH1 News that Buchwald wasn’t aware his picture was being used; she said it was taken months ago.

A wasted major teaching opportunity combined with the overt racism of manufacturing a racist beef where it’s obvious none exists—a school doesn’t get much more useless than this.

Hysteria

FBI Director James Comey was fired by President Donald Trump, and the Left is waxing hysterical over it.  Never mind that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (only just confirmed after another example of Progressive-Democratic Party obstructionism in the Senate) laid out the case for Comey’s inability to function as the FBI’s leader.  Rosenstein’s memo can be read here as part of the document chain culminating in Trump’s letter to Comey.  Via Richard Fernandez:

Keith Ellison tweeted “we are witnessing a Consitutional [sic] crisis unfold before our very eyes.”

No.  A Constitutional crisis occurred when President Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court with is “Indian Relocation Project.”  A Constitutional crisis occurred when Franklin Roosevelt rounded up vast numbers of Americans of heritages of which he disapproved and moved them onto “reservations.”  A Constitutional crisis occurred in President Richard Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre.  A President firing an Executive Branch official in whom he’s lost confidence is ordinary business.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY):

Were these investigations getting too close to home for the president?

America depends on you [Rosenstein] to restore faith in our criminal justice system, which is going to be badly shattered after the administration’s actions today.

And (via the link just above):

Other Democrats attributed sinister motives to Comey’s firing, with two Senators, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, describing it in press statements as “Nixonian.” Another Democratic senator, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, said the firing “is disturbingly reminiscent of the Saturday Night Massacre during the Watergate scandal and the national turmoil that it caused,” later adding “We are careening ever closer to a Constitutional crisis.”

And

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said the firing “raises the ghosts of some of the worst Executive Branch abuses”

The shrillness of those three remarks speaks for itself.

These squawks come on the relative heels of some other comments by Progressive-Democrats.  Schumer on the occasion of Comey’s October 2016 reopening of the FBI’s investigation of then-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s email escapades:

I do not have confidence in [Comey] any longer[.]

And Pelosi:

Maybe he’s not in the right job[.]

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA), then Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, on the same occasion:

The FBI has a history of extreme caution near Election Day so as not to influence the results. Today’s break from that tradition is appalling.

Harry Reid (D, NV), ex-Senate Majority/Minority Leader, in December after the election results had settled in:

I think he should be investigated by the Senate. I think he should be investigated by other agencies in the government, including the security agencies[.]

In a non-Nixonian comparison, Slate (same link) cited Reid as making this one:

Reid went as far as to call Comey the “new J Edgar Hoover,” saying he had the information of Russian involvement in the election and kept it from the American public.

This is sad because this manufactured hysteria is all the Progressive-Democratic Party has left.  It’s unfortunate, too, because with this being all the Party has left, Progressive-Democrats cannot function as an effective party in the two-party system our Republic needs.