The Government Agent Who Altered Andrew McCabe’s Notes Remains Unnamed

The frothers have convinced themselves that the sticky notes via which misleading dates were added to Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe’s handwritten notes do not amount to “altering” those notes. That’s nonsense. Not only did the date added to Strzok’s notes suggest they could have been written on January 4, 2017 when several documents that had already been submitted in the docket (as well as other public documents) made it clear the notes had to have been written on January 5, 2017. But the added date — indicating that whoever wrote it thought the notes could be January 4 or 5 — don’t match the notice DOJ originally gave Sidney Powell about the notes, which suggested the could have been written on January 3.

There are further problems with the alterations, not least that DOJ claims that these documents were “scanned.” A comparison of the original set of notes with the altered one, along with the blue sticky visible on Bill Priestap’s notes with how the same kind of blue sticky appeared on McCabe’s altered notes make it clear these were copied, along with being scanned, a step that made the alterations far less visible.

Worse still, rather than providing unaltered versions of the notes, DOJ instead provided altered versions of the altered notes. That’s easiest to see by comparing the original, altered McCabe notes, where you can see the lined page underneath the added date.

With the altered altered notes.

It’s clear that rather than simply taking the sticky off, DOJ instead simply whited out the date, along with the lines of the page beneath it.

But you can see this by comparing the three versions of the Strzok notes. Unaltered:

First alteration:

Second alteration:

The sticky is still visible in the second alteration, which suggests they’ve done the same thing they did with McCabe’s altered notes, just edit out the alteration, rather than scan the original document. I suspect the reason they doubled down on altering documents is because doing otherwise would make it clear that the McCabe notes, in particular, could not have been “scanned,” because it would have made the blue sticky visible.

So tomorrow they’re going to have to certify that their re-altered notes are “authentic.”

There may be a far more interesting reason why DOJ chose to re-alter the altered documents rather than providing the originals.

In both Jocelyn Ballantine’s notice of discovery correspondence about the Strzok notes:

During the review, agents for EDMO placed a single yellow sticky note on each page of the notes with estimated dates (the notes themselves are undated). Those two sticky notes were inadvertently not removed when the notes were scanned.

I am providing replacement versions of these documents, and ask that you destroy the prior versions provided to you. We have determined, and confirmed with counsel for Peter Strzok, that the content of the notes was not otherwise altered.

And her notice of compliance, falsely claiming to comply with Judge Emmet Sullivan’s order to authenticate all the documents submitted in this case, she blamed WDMO FBI Agents for the alteration to Strzok’s notes.

In response to the Court and counsel’s questions, the government has learned that, during the review of the Strzok notes, FBI agents assigned to the EDMO review placed a single yellow sticky note on each page of the Strzok notes with estimated dates (the notes themselves are undated). Those two sticky notes were inadvertently not removed when the notes were scanned by FBI Headquarters, before they were forwarded to our office for production.

But her notice of discovery correspondence accompanying the newly altered McCabe notes:

At some point during the course of the review of this page of notes, government agents placed a clear sticky notes (with a colored tab) on this page of notes. On the clear portion of this tab was written the date of 5/10/2017. This sticky note was inadvertently not removed when the notes were scanned.

I am providing a replacement version of this document, and ask that you destroy the prior version provided to you. The content of the notes was not otherwise altered.

And her notice of compliance, she didn’t reveal who had altered McCabe’s notes.

Similarly, the government has learned that, at some point during the review of the McCabe notes, someone placed a blue “flag” with clear adhesive to the McCabe notes with an estimated date (the notes themselves are also undated). Again, the flag was inadvertently not removed when the notes were scanned by FBI Headquarters, before they were forwarded to our office for production.

In one case, she blames, “government agents,” in the other case, she blames “someone.” Blaming “someone” is not a very good way to convince a judge you’re not pulling a fast one.

Realtering the altered notes is not either.

Note, too, that while Ballantine says she has reviewed the contents of Strzok’s notes with his lawyer, she only claims that the content of the McCabe notes has not been altered. If the redactions change the meaning of the notes, falsely tying a SSCI briefing to the notes about Flynn, I can see why she might do that.

By realtering the notes, DOJ is hiding that the altered notes were not, in fact, scans (because if they had been scanned the alteration would have been obvious because the stickies in both cases were colored, and FBI’s scans pick up color).

But I suspect they’re also hiding who that “government agent” is who altered McCabe’s notes.

93 replies
  1. Alan Charbonneau says:

    The McCabe notes explanation: “At some point during the course of the review of this page of notes, government agents placed a clear sticky notes (with a colored tab) on this page of notes. On the clear portion of this tab was written the date of 5/10/2017. This sticky note was inadvertently not removed when the notes were scanned.”

    If that’s true, where does the “colored tab” show up? It looks like either this was a clear sticky with NO colored tab or that someone wrote directly on the notes (or wrote directly on a photocopy of the notes).

    The “altered altered” notes show straight edges cutting off the the lines on the page underneath the added date. Also, the background on the altered notes looks “dirty” (for back of a better word) from toner, but on the altered altered notes, it now looks “clean”.

    A new sticky, or other piece of paper, the same color as the document was used to “white out” the date.

    This is worse than amateurish.

    • P J Evans says:

      Maybe they have “Post-It” tape, which is paper-white – though the edges may show as narrow “shadows”. The 3/4-inch version would fit that kind of redaction. Yellow stickies don’t show much, either.

    • emptywheel says:

      It’s possible that they added the date to McCabe’s note right on the notes, and so effectively have permanently altered the record.

      Remember, McCabe has discovery in his termination suit.

      • Alan Charbonneau says:

        I’m thinking that’s likely since in the 5/10/17 date, there are toner smudges between the numbers and date slashes, suggesting to me that they wrote on the original and photocopied the document after that.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Penalties for incompetence, negligence, and obstruction are usually less than those for the underlying crime. Here, though, Sullivan also has wide discretion to impose sanctions on the DoJ and its lawyers, personally.

      If those are severe enough, who among them wouldn’t flip and spill the beans on their higher ups? Has Barr created enough cut-outs to keep the consequences of that away from the top of the food chain, which probably links to Sid Powell and might link to Trump?

      The most damaging sanction, from Barr’s perspective, might be that this potential obstruction and fraud on the court gives Sullivan unimpeachable reasons not to dismiss the prosecution. That would make Trump upset with Barr and force Trump to act directly, something he is loathe to do.

      • John Lehman says:

        “…. gives Sullivan unimpeachable reasons not to dismiss the prosecution.”

        Really hope so…. game, set, match.

      • emptywheel says:

        Right. The only way he’s going to get away with not dismissing the prosecution is if there was clear misconduct. And DOJ just keeps doubling down.

    • BobCon says:

      I wonder if anyone used offbrand Scotch tape to keep the original Post Its in place, and now they can’t get them off without damaging the paper….

  2. Hika says:

    Is Judge Sullivan able to demand that originals of all documents be brought to his court because he simply cannot trust any of the copies being served up by people who are ostensibly “officers of the court”?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      If they have copies, the DoJ has the originals, unless they’ve destroyed them, which would cause a heap of trouble criminally and professionally. I’m pretty sure Sullivan wouldn’t accept the, “I can’t find them” excuse.

      • timbo says:

        Yeah, the dog ate my homework defense to contempt ain’t likely to be much more of a fly on the heaping pile at this point.

        • TimH says:

          I suspect Sullivan can’t do much except cause minor embarrassment to the FBI with a contempt issuance. No one goes to jail or loses their job.

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            More likely embarrassment at the DoJ. Delay might also put resolution of the dismiss the prosecution question close to January 20th, which would force Trump to pardon Flynn or take his chances.

            • timbo says:

              I suspect he can’t pardon Flynn without pardoning several other lawyers et al. This is what happens when you conspire actively and vigorously to obstruct justice; too many eggs in the basket now.

  3. BroD says:

    One of the residents on my childhood household was Ickity Pickety, who was often identified as the perpertator of various bad acts (splattered ketchup on Aunt May’s new dress, left the door open so the cat got out, tracked mud on the living room rug). It seems he’s now working at the DOJ.

  4. Concerned Citizen says:

    What are those small lines in the colored part of the post it tabs on the Strzok notes? You can see them in the colored part of the tab. But it almost looks like those lines can be faintly seen under and above the added date “1/4-5/17”.

    • Valley girl says:

      Yes, I can see those extending lines too. IF the notes were written on lined paper, and IF the spacing indicates these are actual lines on the paper, then possible that the date was added directly to the notes. The color copy above of the Strzok notes doesn’t show lines, but could be a contrast issue. So would they have been written on lined paper? Strzok (among others) would know.

  5. klynn says:

    “Who” that government agent is will be an interesting crumb on the trail.

    I keep wondering “who” poured through all the paperwork and understood where to make alterations to fit a “no russia-russia” narrative.

  6. ThoughtMail says:

    From the MINUTE ORDER, Oct 23:

    “Here, however, the government has acknowledged that altered FBI records have been produced by the government and filed on the record in this case. See Notice of Compliance, ECF No. 259. Accordingly, the government is HEREBY ORDERED to file, by no later than October 26, 2020, a declaration pursuant to penalty of perjury under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1746 in support of its motion to dismiss that the Exhibits attached to its motion and supplement are true and correct copies. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the government’s declaration shall identify each exhibit by name, date, and author.”

    Underline, please: “identify each exhibit by name, date, and AUTHOR”.

    Hmm. This seems to me the nub of Marcy’s post, “But I suspect they’re also hiding who that “government agent” is who altered McCabe’s notes.”. What’s missing is that DOJ has flatly refused to comply with Sullivan J.’s ORDER (which DOJ and others variously refer to as “requests” (umm, no) in their letters). Proof of exercise of due diligence is simply MISSING.

    To my toddlers: “Who did this?”
    Toddlers: …
    To my toddlers: “Who did this?”
    Toddlers: “idunno” (in unison)


    Go back and do it again. The perjury trap is set.


    • ThoughtMail says:

      Edit didn’t stick?: MINUTE ORDER, Oct 23.

      This is getting so far into the weeds, it’ll be over in 2029.

    • bmaz says:

      Lol, there is, legally, effectively no such thing as a “perjury trap”. Don’t lie to government agents. That is the law, not a “trap”. Better yet, do NOT talk to them, nor invite them to talk to you.

      • ThoughtMail says:

        As usual, this is just lies piled upon lies. Perjury about perjury. I’ll agree that the best defense is keep your mouth shut. But SOME people are incapable of learning that lesson. They keep creating wheels within wheels. That’s why I pose that this may/will be over by 2029 (probably under a different judge, who will still have the unalloyed authority to ORDER answers).

        “Tell me, please (well, maybe not ‘if it please YOU’) what steps you took to determine who touched this?”

      • Rugger9 says:

        Let’s remember that the reason Martha Stewart went to jail was that she lied about her insider trading, not the trading itself.

        Bottom line, as bmaz says, don’t lie to the Feebs.

        • bmaz says:

          And, to be clear, not saying I like the draconian lying to the Feebs law. If they can lie to you with impunity, and they can, you ought be able to lie to them. But that is the law, and it has been forever. It is no secret.

          • graham firchlis says:

            Remember reading long ago a sff short story about a society in a galaxy far far away, where the justice system mandated that the sole repository for all the evidence in a case be with the defendant, for the innocent must be afforded every opportunity to mount the best possible defense.

            Very few cases came to trial, what with the disappearance of so much critical evidence, and the populace was quite pleased with the official crime rate near zero even as unconstrained criminality ensured their demise.

            Theodore Sturgeon, maybe?

              • graham firchlis says:

                Reducto ad absurdum.

                The universal prohibition on lying to investigating authorities persists because allowing witnesses or the accused to lie with impunity cripples any justice system irrevocably.

                Even investigators are constrained. Their lies must have a legitimate however tenuous investigatory purpose. Further, it is a crime for authorities to lie to each other, to their superiors, or to the defense in court ordered disclosures.

                There is an apparent tilt to the “Who can lie when?” balance, but it is weighted in the interest of justice. Allowing everyone giving evidence to lie as they please, as you suggest, won’t amend any perceived inequities. It is instead a recipe for disaster.

            • Alan Charbonneau says:

              Sturgeon wrote some interesting stuff — I read More Than Human & Godbody. But I don’t think he wrote about crime.

              The Minority Report by Philip K. Dick was about a computer predicting who would commit crimes in the future and it’s prediction got people locked up before they actually committed the crime! Something Bill Barr would like, no doubt.

              But I know if no sci fi novel with the premise you laid out. It does sound interesting.

  7. Alan Charbonneau says:

    FWIW, it looks to be as though Jocelyn Ballantine got the “stickies explanations” reversed. It looks like a clear sticky with a blue border was added to Strzok‘s notes – the blue border is to the right of the 1/4-5/17 notation. I don’t see any such border on the McCabes’s notes.

    McCabe’s notes are either altered via a clear sticky with no border (unlikely) or the date was added to the original. I see no evidence of a yellow sticky in either of the “altered” notes (but an a opaque sticky was added to the “altered altered” notes).

    In any event, scans appear to be of photocopies and not the originals, all sticky explanations aside.

        • madwand says:

          I think cottonmouth and water moccasins refer to the same snake. Regardless when you are up to your ass in alligators Burmese Pythons and cottonmouths, its hard to remember your original mission was to drain the swamp. Trumps problem actually.

          Read recently of a guy paddling in the swamps probably Fla and went under a tree with a cottonmouth water moccasin that dropped into his boat, grabbing his shotgun he unloaded into the snake killing it and blowing holes through his boat which sank leaving him swimming his ass off to get away from gators and other snakes. Amusing story and I guess you could say Trump has done nothing but shoot holes in the boat of his administration.

  8. SaltinWound says:

    The Department of Justice wasn’t kidding in the mandamus case when they claimed there’d be an injury to them if any of this was even looked into.

    • P J Evans says:

      That’s a poor setup for an office. The phone should have been closer to the typer – or she should have used the swivel on that chair.

        • P J Evans says:

          I’d have put the typewriter on the left side of the desk, if she couldn’t move the phone. Of course offices are different now, what with computers (and phones that are networked)….

    • John Paul Jones says:

      My memory might be playing me false, but if I do recall correctly, this was the photo which was supposed to show how Rosemary managed to erase 15 minutes or so of a crucial tape. But I’ve done transcriptions with those old machines, and most of them had a foot pedal. You listen, lift up you foot and the tape stops; you type; press down on the pedal, and it automatically goes back 5 seconds and then you repeat the process. Virtually impossible to erase anything, unless you do it deliberately.

  9. Ed Walker says:

    In the early days of the foreclosure mess, we had a Chpater 7 case where FDIC claimed it held a first mortgage on property owned by the debtor. They got the mortgage as successor to a failed bank, probably WAMU, which took it by assignment from the original lender. They filed a proof of claim with a document that lacked a signature needed for a tranfer by the original lender. So I filed a motion demanding production of a certified copy bearing the correct signature. FDIC produced something that did not bear a good signature. So at my motion the Court ordered production of the original. That did not show up. So the judge denied the claim of FDIC as a secured creditor and as an unsecured creditor. We made a tidy profit on that case.

    So yes, Sullivan can order the FBI to produce the original on the grounds that the copies are problematic.

      • Chris.EL says:

        As summarized by Marcy:

        …”After Judge Sullivan called DOJ on altering the docs, DOJ didn’t submit unaltered docs instead.

        They realtered the already altered docs.”

        **** this stuff is priceless ****
        Sullivan is only going to get more tough on these guys! Yay!
        Today should be interesting.

    • vvv says:

      I’ve had success a number of times on credit card and loan cases and once on a school loan case doing the same type of thing.
      When the docs don’t show up, I notice the dep of the out of state alleged holder in due course (they are always out of state).
      I think I obtained 3 or 4 voluntary dismissals from that in the last couple of years (none this year, of course).
      One time I went so far as to threaten a counter-claim for spoliation.
      In this state, re-filing allows for costs and the possibility of attorney fees, which further chills the follow-up …

    • Skilly says:

      I had an interesting case along the same lines in State court and then federal bankruptcy court. The Bank was ordered to produce a WAMU mortgage. The judge ordered it to be produced. they did not produce it, and in fact could not because my client had the original wet ink document accidentally sent to him from WaMu as they went under. He was the bearer of his own note. State court decided that was irrelevant. granted foreclosure anyway.

  10. Marinela says:

    I don’t think it is a coincidence that the two documents “altered” were authored by people that were pushed out by Doj. First pushed out, then alter their documents, in that order.

  11. subtropolis says:

    This just keeps looking worse and worse. If the ultimate goal of this apparent ratfuckers wasn’t to smear the Democratic candidate, I’d find it difficult to believe, it’s so bizarre and amateurish.

    Little typo: “she blamed WDMO FBI Agents”

  12. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Politico has a story about the probability that, if Trump loses, scores of political appointees will leave HHS right after the election. It seems likely that they will also leave other agencies by the hundreds. They’re not doing their jobs – they are fronting for Trump – which means that much of what they do actively harms Americans. But the immediacy of their departures, before replacements are possible, would do further harm by leaving no one on the bridge during a typhoon. That tends to sink ships.

    That’s on Trump. But in a rit of fealous jage, as he tries to make sense of a threatening world. he will act out more destructively. He will try to burn the place down. (One of the few things he remembers is that someone burned down the White House during the War of 1812, but he thinks it was the then non-existent Canadians.)

    He’s already talked about firing SecDef and the heads of the FBI and CIA. Perfect for America’s defense during a painful transition. I wonder who else is on Putin’s list? Biden’s transition team needs a whole unit to keep track of this shit, as he tries to put the place back together.

    • General Sternwood says:

      Trump’s replacement of the non-Ratliffe IC heads is setting things up to destroy all records of what he has done. Or have Putin install him as puppet dictator for life. One of the two.

  13. earlofhuntingdon says:

    About that 60-Minutes segment that ran last night. If anything, Lesley Stahl was too easy on Trump. To be polite, she kept asking whether she could ask him a question. He sometimes said no or not a hard one. He whined repeatedly when Stahl failed to imitate a bimbo from Faux Noise. (Perhaps he’s not the world’s toughest negotiator.)

    In fact, Stahl’s questions were bread and butter, peppered with gentle fact checking. They were the minimum that should have been asked of an American president, who was badly mismanaging a pandemic response, while campaigning for re-election.

    Not quite concealing his disgust at being questioned, Trump bailed early. Mike Pence blabbered an excuse, in his follow-up interview: Trump was too busy and too good at his job to continue with a mere interview. Kayleigh “Barbie” McEnany dumped a hastily prepared binder on Stahl, as a thank-you gift. It was filled with a few thousand pages of crap, none of which related to the health care plan that Trump claimed was an oven-ready replacement for Obamacare.

    Trump would never have survived the knowledgeable questions asked of Pete Hoekstra, when he began his tenure as the American ambassador to the Netherlands. Said one reporter, as plainly as could be: “This is the Netherlands, you have to answer questions.”

    • ThoughtMail says:

      “Trump was too busy and too good at his job to continue with a mere interview.”

      But … in the middle of his “successful” dealing with COVID19, Trump was able to spend 25 minutes on the phone talking to (the highly influential) Piers Morgan. He must see himself as the “ne plus ultra” of time management. That’s why he can have so much time available for TV, golf, and rallies. But his time management can’t hold a candle to those of the Texas legislature, who get all the good stuff done in a few weeks of sitting in deliberation (having already decided how to secure reelection).

      Nice game you’ve got there. Can I play?

      /sarc (rare, akshually)

  14. Rugger9 says:

    IIRC, Pete wore out his welcome almost as fast as Grenell did in Berlin, yet he’s still there in the Hague. Go figure.

  15. earlofhuntingdon says:

    One way for the Democrats to support their base is to make clear that Moscow Mitch’s success in ramming ACB’s nomination through the Senate – in time to give Trump a yes-vote over any Bush v. Gore-like litigation that makes its way to the Supremes – will be short-lived.

    McConnell has scheduled the vote on ACB for 7.30 pm tonight. He has the votes to put her on the Court. Afterwards, Trump has promised a Midnight at the Covid-Oasis party on the White House grounds to celebrate. Check your masks and public health concerns at the door. The symbolism is pure Trump. The Rose Garden announcement of her nomination was a super-spreader event. And anything government does at midnight – like news dumped on the media on Friday at five – is bad news for America.

    The Dems can steal Trump’s thunder and do the right thing by promising to undo Republican court packing. Undo McConnell’s and his corporate patrons’ most-prized legacy. Make the federal courts less partisan, less against the common weal, and give them the resources they need to do the heavy work modern America demands of them. Unpack the Court, starting with the Supremes.

        • BobCon says:

          Biden hinted at something I thought was interesting (I wouldn’t read much into it, since I ammsure he is keeping his cards close).

          Keep the Supreme Court at nine, keep lifetime jobs, but rotate the justices to other benches after a set period.

          Like I said, this is just a hint of what he may be thinking, but I like the thought of sending Alito off to the appeals court in California, or in an extreme variation having him deal with low level cases in Guam.

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            There will be long and heated debates on this topic, involving all the Dem leaders. Historically, Biden rides the wave rather than gets out in front of it. I hope he’s become more daring with experience and the heightened stakes now in play.

            The notion of rotating judges sounds like an Obama compromise, designed to appease the left while not being practicable to do. For starters, the six-vote reactionary majority on the Supremes would dismiss as unconstitutional any legislation that constructively deprives them of their lifetime appointment on the Supremes (service on other appellate courts would not count), or otherwise restricts their power.

            While Congress can reform the lower courts almost at will, legislation affecting the Supremes will receive heightened scrutiny. Legislation that expands the Court is about the only way to reduce the power of that reactionary majority. The Dems have to get comfortable with that in a hurry.

        • Forbes Road says:

          Send your camel to bed.
          Thanks for reminding me. In the early ‘70s every house I remember in Sydney had a copy of Maria’s album. And Rodriguez’s Cold Fact. The internet is a mixed blessing but oftentimes wondrous…

          Fingers crossed for 11/3. The world is holding its breath.

  16. pdaly says:

    I’d like Judge Sullivan to identify, in the DOJ’s submitted and resubmitted altered documents, the microdot date stamps that modern photocopy machines print onto all copies of documents.

    I recall the FBI can use microdot stamps in investigations to track down unsubs. At the very least it will supply a rough timeline for when fake dates were added to the notes and perhaps identify which photocopy machine(s) was/were used

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Exactly. That technology has been available for decades, and now permits identification of individual printers and copiers. The DoJ would know their locations and principal users. Providing it should be a piece of cake – as long as you’re not trying to hide something.

      • ThoughtMail says:

        Not only that, but in most high-volume offices, the high-speed, high-volume copiers/printers/scanners will be operated with a key card, indicating date/time/user/matter/job, with the records assiduously kept for billing purposes. Cross-reference should about do it to identify everything. That stuff can’t be hidden for long, if at all.

  17. Yohei72 says:

    I’m a mere babe in these woods, so I don’t know much, but… is this as breathtaking as it seems to me on first glance? Are they pretty much just blatantly flying the bird at the judge in their case? These people must really think they’re untouchable.

    • Chris.EL says:

      More and more it seems they are muddying the waters to make attempts at reading the evidence impossible.

      Any word on what happened today in Sullivan’s court?

  18. skua says:

    Trump’s WH , with his pet Republicans controlling the Senate, seems to have governed as an Administerium.
    Truth, science, facts, ethics, history and values are violated so as to support protean, roiling narratives that fascinate and disorientate. Trump is styled as the unitary-executive Protector of some Transactional Prosperity Church, with SCOTUS being set up to “defend the faith”. Whilst the financial enrichment of his cardinals is the over-riding aim.
    Trump really has taken America back.
    Time have a look at how pre-Reformation medieval politics worked.

  19. troglodyte says:

    re: 170510 McCabe Note
    ….. Based on the height between the lines on a standard line rule notebook paper being 1/4″ tall, the white tape is a curious tiny rectangle measuring 9/16″ w x 1/2″ tall. Tiny and not any standard sticky note. 1/2″ tape would be a better assumption. Just a small note to add to the methodically minded governmental obfuscation department of intrigue.

  20. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Now I know why former Sen. Claire McCaskill lost her seat: she spent a lifetime admiring long-time arch-conservative columnist Peggy Noonan.

    Nicolle Wallace had a more informed take, which she delivered in response to Noonan deriding Kamala Harris for trying too hard to appeal to the youth vote and to sell her “Happy Warrior” mystique. (This, after Donald Trump tried to show off his dance moves, while both his feet were nailed to the floor.)

    Wallace called Noonan several things, but “tone-deaf,” “nasty,” and “bitchy” cover it. And that’s being polite in a Beltway maven to Beltway maven sort of way.

    • Hika says:

      Give old Donald a break. It’s hard enough to walk in those “lifts” yet alone skip and dance. It took me a while to work out why the ramp at West Point was trickier for him than a staircase, where he struggles at the best of times. The vanity of the Tom Cruise boot.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        You’re assuming his mobility problems are mechanical. There are numerous signs they might be neurological.

    • Eureka says:

      UGH, gross. I was much happier when your description merely evoked the CGI “Dancing Baby”, but we have seen this DJT film before: when he was partying with Epstein.

  21. Eureka says:

    Yesterday afternoon, police in West Philadelphia killed 27-year-old Walter Wallace, Jr., who was wielding a knife, in front of his mom. There are (were) protests and rioting (not much going on at this hour per news).

    This is all very bad for many reasons. Election-wise it will surely impact rhetoric; hopefully not more than that, tho the memory darts to Barr-Trump’s long-standing desire to deploy federalized forces. Vlad’s bots and our fellow American trolls are out in force. So the highest troll of he land should make a lovely, stoking appearance when his nightly rest is over. Or whenever his sate wanes from installing another of his “slate of electors.”

    Anna Orso (@anna_orso), Ellie Rushing, and Samantha Melamed have photos/video on their reporting timelines.

    Ellie Rushing: ““Why didn’t they use a taser?” said his father, Walter Wallace Sr. “His mother was trying to diffuse the situation,” he said. He said his son struggles with mental health issues and is on medication. “He has mental issues. Why you have to gun him down?”” [thread; there is a video of the shooting in the replies (real video, sketchy account re-posting it)]

    Samantha Melamed: “A calmer tone out here in West Philly with greater police force. Protesters are still letting police know their anger, demanding to know why less lethal force was not used on Walter Wallace Jr., who was killed this afternoon: “Y’all brought a gun to knife fight.” [video]”

    Samantha Melamed: “2020: Fireworks over a dumpster fire. [image]”

    • bmaz says:

      Good gawd, I just woke up and first thing I saw was that on CNN. It is absolutely brutal. Multiple cops with Glocks more than socially distanced from a disturbed man with a knife.

      They, in knee jerk fashion, center mass shoot him repeatedly. Which, of course, kills him. Why is that always the result? Because that is how American law enforcement academies and training specifies. It does not have to be that way, it is because that is the warrior cop way (h/t to our friend Radley Balko for the descriptor warrior cop).

      • Chris.EL says:

        Totally agree, [didn’t see the report] from what you describe, the individuals with the guns did not need to engage in that fashion to protect their lives.

        This has occurred to me many times prior to today.

        A knife is thrown? Step out of the way. Retrieve the knife. Secure the knife. Calm the disturbed party. Get psych. help.

        Come on, men!

Comments are closed.