Rape Roundup

Stacy McCain reports on the latest insanity from Yale:

Brunch is the ideal time to do it. Dinner is usually too crowded, and lunch and breakfast are so rushed that I don’t have the time. On any given weekend, I arrive at a dining hall past noon, usually with leggings and a warm, knit sweater. I swipe my card.
Then I count the amount of rapists in the room.….
I can’t speak about other campuses because I know only this one, but Yale has an epidemic. Each day, students fear for their safety as they walk across campus. Whether stepping into the library or taking a seat in a classroom, they’re reminded of some of the most traumatizing moments of their lives.

I’ve spent some time in the Ivy League, and I can assure you that living in the land of the Old School Tie does not grant one magical rapist-spotting powers.  Plus, I’ve been to New Haven.  It looks like somebody set Oxford down in the middle of South-Central LA.  If there’s any rape happening, the membership of Skull and Bones should be about #602 on the police’s suspect list.

Speaking of the police… where the hell are they in all this?  Again, this is the Ivy League.  I have personally witnessed the daughters of very prominent people — people who could probably get Delta Force called out — wandering between off-campus bars in the dead of night.  Are we really supposed to believe that there’s a “rape epidemic” happening where half the political class of several dozen nations, not to mention CEOs, generals, etc., send their teenage daughters?

I think Matt Forney’s advice to those accusing him of rape is sound:

In the U.S., rape is not only illegal, it’s a felony. If you think someone is a rapist, you owe it to their victim(s) to contact law enforcement. Therefore, I have a challenge for feminists…

If you think that I’m a rapist, call the police.

I live in Chicago, as does my purported victim, so all you have to do is call the Chicago Police Department’s non-emergency hotline at 312-746-6000. In fact, if you live in Chicago, you don’t even have to go that far: just dial 311. Tell them that you believe that Rogers Park resident Matt Forney has raped a woman and you want the police to investigate and arrest him.

That’s it. If you’re convinced that I’m a rapist and you want to do something about it, all you have to do is call the cops.

It says here that there were 80 reported rapes in New Haven in the last reporting period — 0.61 per 1,000 people.  Which is still 0.61 too many, but the absolute fastest way to put that number at zero where it should be is to call the police.  If this woman really knows that the rapists she spots in the dining hall are guilty, why the hell isn’t she on the phone to the cops?  Instead of yelling at professors about Halloween costumes, shouldn’t they be out picketing the New Haven Police Department?


Another Pop Quiz

Why would anyone lie about having read these?

David Copperfield I get, I guess — if you’ve read Dickens, you’re “cultured” (everyone forgets that Dickens was the Stephen King of his day).  But what virtue-signalling culture points do you get from lying about Harry Potter?

For the record, unlike the Fascism quiz I don’t know the answer here.  I’m honestly curious.  And for the record, here are my answers:

  1. Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland – Lewis CarrollNope.  Victorian lit in general bores me stiff; I don’t see any reason to read it.  
  2. 1984 – George OrwellYes, and it’s great.  I hated it when I first read it (required reading in high school — imagine that!), but because I thought it was supposed to be sci fi.  As if any school would ever be that cool.  Hey, nobody said I was real bright.
  3. The Lord Of The Rings trilogy – JRR TolkienNo.  I tried three or four times, and it put me to sleep.  I assume it gets good after that cutesy dork’s birthday party, but since that goes on for like the first 400 pages….
  4. War And Peace – Leo Tolstoy — Tried, and failed.  You need a flowchart to keep up with all the names.  I don’t want to have to take notes on my pleasure reading.
  5. Anna Karenina – Leo Tolstoy — Ditto.
  6. The Adventures Of Sherlock Holmes – Arthur Conan Doyle — Can’t say I’ve read all of them, but a good amount.  I went through a detective phase back when I was 11 or so.
  7. To Kill A Mockingbird – Harper Lee — Required reading in high school.  It appears racism is bad. 
  8. David Copperfield – Charles Dickens — No. I never got the appeal of Dickens.
  9. Crime And Punishment – Fyodor Dostoyevsky — Cf. Russian novels, above.  I’ve given this one a go and found it good enough to probably come back to when I have time for deep, depressing, 800-page tomes….
  10. Pride And Prejudice – Jane Austen — High school required reading.  Even the chicks were bored by it.
  11. Bleak House – Charles Dickens — No.  Cf Dickens, mystified by the appeal of, above. 
  12. Harry Potter (series) – JK Rowling — I’m not a chick, I’m not a child, and I have no pressing reason to pretend to be either.
  13. Great Expectations – Charles Dickens — High school required reading.  This one is all the Dickens I’ll ever need.
  14. The Diary Of Anne Frank – Anne Frank — High school required reading.  Turns out Nazis are bad.
  15. Oliver Twist – Charles Dickens — No.
  16. Fifty Shades trilogy – EL James — No.  I wonder if this list includes folks who actually have read stuff, but don’t want to admit it. 
  17. And Then There Were None – Agatha Christie — I read some Agatha Christie back in my detective phase.  Definitely Murder on the Orient Express, but I don’t remember if I read this one or not.
  18. The Great Gatsby – F Scott Fitzgerald — Twice.  Once, as required HS reading, and hated it.  Then I read it again, to see how my tastes had changed since then.  It was pretty good on a second go.
  19. Catch 22 – Joseph Heller — Yes, and it’s hilarious.  Which is odd, because I normally hate surrealist humor. 
  20. The Catcher In The Rye – JD Salinger — Oh God yes, and I am eternally thankful to J.D. Salinger for it.  Since it’s one of those books certain people can’t help bringing up, it’s great for helping me avoid human toothaches.  If you liked Catcher, I hate you.  If you consider yourself “the Holden Caulfield of ____,” I want to strangle you with your school tie.  I thought Holden Caulfield was a pretentious little shit who needed nothing more in this world than a good beating, back when I myself was a pretentious little shit in desperate need of a good beating.  Luckily, I got mine; the folks who like Catcher never did.

Wil Wheaton is Not Leon Trotsky

Wil Wheaton, of Star Trek: The Next Generation fame, has been called out by other Progressives for being insufficiently Progressive.  Via Vox Day:

Like many of you, I’ve been aware of Wil Wheaton’s outspoken position as a Bro-Feminist for quite some time. Occasionally, he’ll retweet or even say something that might seem profound. But I’m also not alone in suspecting that, beneath his “yay, feminism!” facade, lies deep-rooted misogyny. Recently, he proved my suspicions correct when he attempted to brand Clinton supporters a rather disgusting sexist slur that I will not repeat.

And there was great rejoicing on the Right side of the internet, because we’re apparently as bad as Leftists about remembering what happened five minutes ago.

Yes, this is the inevitable consequence of “social justice.”  Eventually all the little micro-identities come into conflict with one another.

No, this will not change one single mind.  Remember 2008?  Hillary supporters called Obama supporters misogynists; Obama supporters called Hillary supporters racists.  Heck, there was even some talk on the right about the resurgence of something like “Reagan Democrats.”  Remember the Pumas?  Ace of Spades was big on them for a while, thinking that this — finally!!– might wake some folks up to the gross self-contradictions in modern liberalism.

Those folks are all rock-ribbed conservatives these days, right?

Sheesh.  C’mon, y’all.  These are the same people who claim to believe, with all apparent sincerety, that Bruce Jenner is a woman because he puts on a dress and does the Buffalo Bill tuck-under.  They’ll go back to loving Wil Wheaton 0.0000325 seconds after this election is over.  He’s a “feminist,” after all.  And isn’t that show just so funny?

Pop Quiz, Hotshots

Further to my “Defense of Fascism” post, below.

Since these days even educated people often think “Fascism” means little more than “something not desirable,” I though it would help to include a little pop quiz.

Here, for instance, is a Fascist economic proposal.  Are you clear why this is Fascist? Could you explain why, to a disinterested observer, in a short paragraph?

Here is a cultural one.  Same question (it’s a bit easier, but not quite the slam dunk it appears).

How about here — who is the Fascist in this little dustup?

There’s apparently a fight on the left about the following proposition:

Is Bernie Sanders a racist, white-priveleged, mansplaining monster for only pushing hardcore socialism rather than, as the Hillary Maenads would prefer, a toxic brew of both hardcore socialism and war-of-all-against-all identity politics?

See, the SJW set doesn’t want to talk about socialism; they really just want to talk about how they’re Aggrieved. (It doesn’t occur to them that socialism is nothing but butthurt economics for the malignantly aggrieved and economically useless.)

They don’t like how Bernie Sanders pushes socialism without adequately talking up Black Lives Matter and White Skin Priveledge.

Again, not quite a layup, if you haven’t been doing a little extracurricular reading.

None of this is meant to insult anyone’s intelligence.  I posted it because, given the woeful state of the American educational system and 70+ years’ preaching by Leftists (BIRM), most people don’t know what they don’t know when it comes to contentious topics like this.

Have fun!

In Defense of Fascism

Before we begin (1): This is one of those long, MEGO political philosophy posts.

Before we begin (2): Read this.

It’s a piece from a wonderful site called The Last Psychiatrist, whose archives are just filled with goodness (though TLP himself seems to have passed on).  It begins with the story of Keisha, a 27 year old woman who considers herself “retired” because she’s On Disability.  Most of the rest of the post details our — society’s — complicity in this farce:

The economy was a Ferrari and now it’s only a Honda, but either way, not much time for absences and no time at all for Keisha’s learning curve.  Keisha isn’t just unemployed, she is completely unemployable.   We can argue whether auto plants should pay $20/hr or $50/hr, but for certain there is no market for unskilled labor at all….The jobs employers would be willing to take a gamble on are jobs that pay too little for it to be worth her showing up at all.  Hence SSI [=”being On Disability”].


For fun, let me point that that another 10% of the unemployed in America are relabeled as “incarcerated”, so total you have a real rate of 15-20% unemployment, and this does not include the unemployable who have been relabeled as “military personnel” thanks to two endless wars, or those who manage ten hours a week at the Buy-n-Large who are relabeled as employed and thus are of no consequence;  all of which is good because if the unemployment rate printed higher than “9%” the credit rating of the US would have to fall to C-.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is one of the main problems Fascism is designed to solve.

Section break!

Section break!

Fascists accept Marx’s fundamental premise, that society is composed of three mutually hostile classes.  That’s why “Nazi” is short for “National Socialism.”  The difference is, while Marx thought this class antagonism would inexorably lead to international proletarian revolution, Mussolini et al thought it could be channeled — and eventually eliminated — by restructuring the institutions of one particular society.  Hence, National Socialism.

To the Marxist, our labor is all any of us really has.  Which is why Marxism became Marxism-Leninism after the Russian Revolution.  Lenin had a civil war to win and a country to run, and soon enough he realized that the Keishas of the world will never be generals or surgeons or factory managers.  It took him a little longer to realize that intellectuals make poor factory hands — early post-revolutionary Russia is filled with morbid stories of university faculties turned out as “shock workers” — but he eventually did.  And in typical commie fashion, he churned out a zillion pages of “theory” justifying why Communism looks just like Capitalism when you actually put it into practice, except nobody gets paid and nothing works.

Fascism skips all the squid ink and accepts the fundamental reality that people are different.  This is one of the main sources of Fascism’s appeal.  Unlike Marxists, who believe that the Proletariat is capable of all things (under the leadership of Marxists, of course), Fascists realize that there’s generally a reason for people falling where they do on the socioeconomic spectrum.  No amount of community college classes on Dialectical Materialism is ever going to make Keisha employable in a modern economy.  Keisha will always be “unskilled labor,” because she is [pick one: genetically, historically, congenitally] incapable of ever acquiring an economically useful skill.

Section break!

Section break!

Fascism also recognizes that Keisha is always with us.  Liberals and/or schoolchildren please take note: This is why George W. Bush wasn’t a Fascist.  Unlike Bush, Fascists realize that it’s mathematically impossible for everyone to be above average.  No matter how exotic and specialized the economy gets, there will always be someone who can’t keep up.  Something must be done for Keisha.

A truly capitalist society, like the one Rachel Maddow fans think America is, would simply let Keisha starve in the gutter.  On the other hand, there’s plenty of work at a living wage for her in People’s Heavy Tractor Manufactory #202 in Krasnoyarsk… and all she has to do is give up her land, her family, her people, and her traditions.  Become a faceless prole, interchangeable with all the others all over the globe, or starve — those are Keisha’s options.

And who’s to say that they won’t be your options someday soon, if the Communist revolution succeeds, or the Capitalists find someone to do your job cheaper?

National Socialism solves all that.  Keisha gets a decent job at a decent wage.  She gets the pride of working for a living, not a soul-crushing handout.  Meanwhile, her employer gets a willing employee.  True, his profits won’t be quite as large, but he, too, has his pride. He’s contributing to national success in a direct, highly visible way, since most jobs that could employ a Keisha — McDonald’s, let’s say, to stick with TLP’s example — are locally owned.  Indeed, the only people we harm by stopping outsourcing, offshoring, and automation are the very biggest Capitalists, i.e. the very same bastards who brought us here in the first place.

Section break!

Section break!

If you accept Marx’s view of life, then — if life is, at bottom, just economics — then Fascism is not only a viable alternative, it’s the best alternative.  For Fascists, State, Economy, Society, and Culture are synonyms — they’re three different descriptions of the same thing.  As Man is an economic animal, Society is the economic organization of human groups.  Culture is the expression of that economic organization, and the State provides its security.  Thus, the Fascist will preserve Culture by rejiggering Society and the Economy via the State.  The vast numbers of poor are helped, only a few of the super-rich are harmed… and they’re all internationalist parasites anyway.

Look closer

These aren’t my personal views, of course.  Fascism terrifies me.  But… can you find the flaws in this post?  Because a whole lot of people would be nodding along with every single word… and that number is growing by leaps and bounds, every day.  If you want have have any hope of heading American Fascism off, you’d better start digging.

My Iowa Prediction – UPDATED

Trump, of course.

Honestly, I hadn’t thought much about it, as the Iowa caucus is the most ridiculous, overrated political institution in America.  Loony no-hopers like Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum always do well there, because they can flog the gospel of Corn Socialism with the kind of lunatic conviction a viable general-election candidate simply can’t.

But recent polling suggests that the only obvious panderers to the “Jesus loves ethanol!” crowd — Carson, Huckabee, and Yeb! — are in single digits.  I’ve heard that Cruz told the ethanol lobby to have intimate congress with itself, which rules him out (though the Z Man makes a decent case for a Cruz victory here).

I don’t know what Rubio’s position on ethanol is, though I assume he’s fanatically for it when in front of farmers and adamantly against it everywhere else…. in short, he’s an Establishment cuck of the first order, and I don’t think even Archer Daniels Midland can save him now.  Though Ace of Spades makes an interesting case that it can — or, more accurately, that being the “safe” choice can, as it did Romney and all the other cucks who went on to crater in the general election:

A friend proposed to me that Trump would never win, as Cruz would never win, because, in the end, Republicans will do what Republicans have been doing for 30 years, settling, unenthusiastically, on a choice that seems “safe.”

The idea is that one should ignore all the particulars of a race — candidate personality, agenda, etc. — and focus on the structural underpinnings which decide most races.

Republicans, he reminded me, aren’t all bloggers or angry young men who can just shrug off the possibility of massive upheavals or political chaos. They own businesses. They have mortgages. They have, crucially, children.

All of these things make them more risk-averse in their political choices than they might be if ideology were their primary motivator.

Fair enough.  But, ultimately, I think this little factoid will be the deciding factor:

Over the past 15 years, the Latino population in Iowa more than doubled. And today’s population is expected to almost triple by 2050. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 40,000 undocumented immigrants live in Iowa, up from 5,000 two decades ago.

And they’re so blatant about it!  You’ll notice that these nine “undocumented Iowans” weren’t speaking anonymously, from a secret location, with ICE hot on their trail.  One charming abuelita, a Martin O’Malley fan, “has been living in Iowa for more than two decades.”

And that’s where Ace’s friend’s “structural” argument fails.  All those “safe choice” Republican voters won’t have businesses much longer, and their children will be growing up poorer, colder, and far less safe…. unless.

It ought to be interesting.  If I’m right about the national mood, and Iowans share that mood — two big ifs — Trump wins in a walk.  If he doesn’t, we’ll learn something interesting about the zeitgeist.

Either way, it ought to be a hoot.


Update 2/2/2016: His partisans are calling a 4-point Cruz win “commanding.”  Which it may be in the context of the Iowa caucuses, but… four points.  The media are already anointing Marco Rubio the winner for almost finishing second — which is, you know, technically third — but hey, he’s the only shot they have left.  I wonder if Yeb! even makes it to New Hampshire.  Meanwhile, Hillary won with a coin flip.  Who says we don’t have an informed, responsible electorate?

A Phrase that Pays

Nice: “The Obama generation associates staring at a glass pacifier with leadership.”

In my not-inconsiderable experience with Millennials, that’s true. If it’s not blinking at you from your smartphone, it’s not real.

As for the rest of his comments on Rand Paul, I have no opinion.  I’d honestly forgotten that he was even a thing, much less still running for President.  And “libertarianism” is just Unitarianism for evangelical atheists.  Still, if you want some fun shivving of the GOP nomination clown show, give the rest of Forney’s reportage from Iowa a look.

Megyn Antoinette

I’m trying to come up with a rationale for this brilliant move from Fox News:

Fox News and Google have invited three YouTube personalities to ask questions at the Jan. 28 GOP debate — including a Muslim advocate who describes Donald Trump as a bigot and who visually portrayed him as being in agreement with national socialist Adolf Hitler.

Here’s the visual portrayal in question, in case you’re curious:

Noor-Trump-Hitler-640x480If the candidates tell this loon to get stuffed, it’s wall to wall coverage about how the GOP is racist and sexist.  If they don’t, they’ll have to…. agree with this loon that the GOP is racist and sexist.  Basically, it’s “have you stopped beating your wife yet?”, but five times as long and without even the barest rhetorical form of a question.  This is the kind of cheap, bush-league shit MSNBC would pull if they hosted Republican debates… and the moderator was Rachel Maddow… and she had one night to live.

So why on Earth would Fox News do this to their own party?

I have two guesses, neither complimentary to the intelligence of everyone involved.  The first is something like “Trump chemotherapy.”  The Cuckservatives are so determined to bring down Donald Trump that they’re willing to torpedo their own to do it.  As chemo kills cancer cells just slightly faster than it kills healthy ones, they’re betting that the sight of their boy Marco Rubio slobbering all over this spastic towelhead will be slightly less damaging to him than the sum total of all the other attacks will be to Trump.  It’s stupid — the mere sight of that chick at a supposedly conservative event will probably bump Donald five points in the polls — but at least it’s a bit of strategic thinking.  Stupid, stupid strategic thinking — invading Russia at the end of the summer-level stupid, just to stick with a theme — but not utterly incomprehensible.

The other possible explanation is that the Media really do consider themselves the tastemakers.  That, despite all evidence, they think can simply tell us what we care about, and what this election is supposed to mean.  Their greatest fear is being called racist, so they figure — no, they know — that that’s our biggest fear, too.  On this reading, people who would otherwise be inclined to support Trump’s “deport ’em all” platform will see that being kind and caring and oh so accommodating to folks who want to rape and murder us is truly “who we are,” as that great Republican, George W. Obama, is wont to say.

Maybe it’s a little from column A, a little from column B.  Whatever it is, though, it’s damn entertaining.  I haven’t seen this much concentrated stupidity since nickel beer night at the frat house, or that one time a took a feminism seminar in grad school.  Send in the clowns.  No, all of them — we’re gonna need ’em.

Who is Caesar?

Nate Winchester suggested a logical followup to the “Who is Caesarism For?” post:

Who is Caesar?

Let’s use an illustration.  In the run-up to the American Civil War, abolitionist propaganda increasingly focused on a “Slave Power Conspiracy.”  Slaveholders were a small part of the electorate, they argued, yet every single political dispute seemed to go their way.  The Missouri Compromise, the annexation of Texas, war with Mexico, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act… all seemed designed to add to the number of slave states in the Union.  Slaveholders controlled the Democratic Party, and the few Whigs who won the Presidency, like Zachary Taylor, were slaveholders.  They dominated the Supreme Court, too, and with the Dred Scott decision, they effectively legalized slavery throughout the United States.

All of that is true.  In fact, it under-states the case — while the average slaveholder owned a midsize farm with ten or less slaves, the average slave worked on a plantation with at least 100 others.  Given that only a quarter of Southerners owned slaves, the math is clear: a very few slaveholders owned nearly all the slaves.  How, then, did this tiny fraction of the electorate come to dominate American politics for three generations?

In short, they controlled the discourse.

Take the Democratic Party.  I wrote that slaveholders controlled the Democratic Party, and that’s true… but it wasn’t blatant, and — crucially — most Democrats didn’t think so at the time.  There are countless detailed political histories sitting unread on a college library shelf near you.  Pick one up, and you’ll see all kinds of stuff about “soft-shells” and “hard-shells,” “barn-burners” and “hunkers,” the tariff question, the money issue, the Bank of the United States, Young America, Manifest Destiny…. you can read hundreds and hundreds of pages without ever seeing the word “slavery.”  But when the dust settled after every internal Democratic Party upheaval — and every general election — the slaveholders got their way.  Because Southern senators always closed ranks, something pro-slavery got thrown into every deal, be it an internal Democrat matter or a national issue….

….and nobody ever had to publicly say so, because that was just a part of doing business.  Southern planters (and their money boys in New York City) won all the victories, but the battles took place over the hills and far away.  Such that, by 1852, ridiculous nonentities like Franklin Pierce and Winfield Scott were battling it out over things like who looked prettiest during the Mexican War.

That’s caesarism.  The Elite gets what it wants — in this case, protection and advancement for slavery — while the passions of the potentially revolutionary classes are channeled into petty partisan squabbles.  Caesar, therefore, is the elite who does the channeling, and who — crucially — can’t impose his will without the sham.  The original Caesar, of course, was assassinated, and the caesar of the Slave Power Conspiracy was exposed in 1856… and destroyed by 1865.

“Working Towards the Fuhrer”

Y’all probably already know this, but for the amazingly large number of people who somehow think Hillary Clinton is going to be indicted, here’s a quick primer on how these things work:

One of Herr Hitler’s lasting legacies is a certain style of conspiracy masquerading as a government.  The History Channel gives one the impression that Nazi Germany was fearsomely efficient.  That’s so wrong, it’s almost completely backwards — in a very real sense, the Reich had hardly any “government” at all.

Hitler, like all autocrats, didn’t like to delegate.  Combine that with a philosophical commitment to Social Darwinism, and you’ve got a free-for-all in which the guy who claws his way up to Hitler’s ear gets his way, while everybody else is stuck killing time, waiting for orders that never come.  This applied all the way down the line — guys like Goering and Himmler got millions of men and limitless resources poured into what were, in effect, private armies, while some of the most basic functions of government like transportation languished.

Obviously, this is a terrible way to run a nation.  But it does have two distinct, interrelated advantages for the dictator.  First, it encourages innovation in the lower ranks.  Since it was impossible to get promoted the old-fashioned way, juniors had to resort to drastic measures to get noticed.  Despite the Teutonic “just following orders” caricature, then, low ranking Nazis were surprisingly out-out-the-box thinkers — this is how obscure, pen-pushing junior officers like Adolf Eichmann ended up presiding over programs that moved millions of people.  Senior officers ruthlessly encouraged this attitude, which Sir Ian Kershaw called “working towards the Fuhrer” — the only way to advance in the Reich was to be better than one’s fellows at divining what Hitler wanted, often on the basis of very little (and often seemingly contradictory) evidence…. and delivering it at all costs.

Which plays into the second advantage of such a system for a dictator: Near-complete deniability.  If you’ve ever had the misfortune of dealing with a Holocaust denier (or if you’ve read Richard J. Evans’s excellent Lying about Hitler), you know that there’s no “smoking gun” for the Holocaust; no official kill order over Hitler’s signature.  This fact — and it is a fact — has allowed certain types to spin all kinds of theories about what happened during the war, how much Hitler knew about what might or might not have been happening, etc.  But, of course, “working towards the Fuhrer” is the easiest and most obvious explanation for the overwhelming circumstantial evidence — Hitler didn’t issue such an order, simply because he didn’t have to.  Everyone knew what he wanted, and the spectacular rise of guys like Eichmann was proof.

Of course, the circumstantial evidence against Hitler was (and is) overwhelming.  But: We only have access to all that circumstantial evidence because we won the war.  Without all those captured documents, and complete freedom to peruse them and follow wherever they lead, and millions of eyewitnesses, and a whole bunch of ex-Nazis willing to testify in exchange for plea bargains, the case would’ve been much tougher to make.  Had all of those conditions not been met, the leadership of the Third Reich would have been almost impossible to prosecute.  You could pin just about every individual act on some low-level actor, but even though the higher-ups must have approved, no paper would ever attach to them.  Think of it as a government-wide version of the way mob bosses work — if you don’t have the don actually ordering so-and-so to get whacked, on film and audio, you don’t have a viable prosecution.

So, yeah — Huma Abedin is going to jail.  That’s what all this noise is about.  But if Hillary Clinton is smart — or just not utterly, utterly retarded — she never actually said “cut and paste the classified stuff.”  She certainly never said it in anyone else’s earshot, and not even a Democrat is dumb enough to put it on paper.  She just made a few vague statements, dropped a few fuzzy hints… and let her well-known preferences, and her equally well-known fondness for (shall we say) “creative” solutions, to do the rest.

Since this isn’t Nuremberg, the prosecution’s only chance, then, will be getting Huma and a few others to roll on their boss, which… well, would you?  This woman is still the odds-on favorite to be the next President of the United States.  I’d take the fifteen-to-twenty in the federal pen, secure in the knowledge that a presidential pardon and a nice cushy payoff were already in the works.

I mean, this is, like, Conspiracy 101.