Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for May 9th, 2017

The ‘Stros begin interleague play this evening at The Yard as we host The ATL. In 2016, did we have a winning or losing interleague record?

Congrats to the City of H-Town for moving another step forward on the pension reform bill.

Commentary watched yesterday as former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates handed Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz their arses to them – big time, a kind of a Texas two-step stuff and slam job. The hearing was on Gen. Michael Flynn and the Russians and these two tools wanted to talk about her not wanting to defend the Muslim ban and she owned them pure and simple. She sliced and diced them nicely. It was cold blooded and well deserved. Here is from Esquire on the two getting punked:

It is not often that you see one woman demolish a state’s entire delegation to the United States Senate, but Sally Yates did the Republic a great service on Monday afternoon by demonstrating that Texas has sent to Washington a remarkable pair of deuces. First, she slapped John Cornyn silly as regards her refusal to enforce the president*’s original travel ban, the issue over which she’d been fired. He pronounced himself disappointed, and she handed him his head. Via The Washington Post:

CORNYN: Well, Ms. Yates, you had a distinguished career for 27 years at the Department of Justice and I voted for your confirmation because I believed that you had a distinguished career. But I have to tell you that I find it enormously disappointing that you somehow vetoed the decision of the Office of Legal Counsel with regard to the lawfulness of the president’s order and decided instead that you would counter man (ph) the executive order of the president of the United States because you happen to disagree with it as a policy matter.

YATES: Well, it was…

CORNYN: I just have to say that.

YATES: I appreciate that, Senator, and let me make one thing clear. It is not purely as a policy matter. In fact, I’ll remember my confirmation hearing. In an exchange that I had with you and others of your colleagues where you specifically asked me in that hearing that if the president asked me to do something that was unlawful or unconstitutional and one of your colleagues said or even just that would reflect poorly on the Department of Justice, would I say no? And I looked at this, I made a determination that I believed that it was unlawful. I also thought that it was inconsistent with principles of the Department of Justice and I said no. And that’s what I promised you I would do and that’s what I did.

That was merely the appetizer. Yates, in her calm and judicious way, proceeded to make the entrée Tailgunner Ted Cruz, who started out in his customary cloud of oily arrogance and ended up being sautéed by the nice lady with the backbone of steel.

CRUZ: Well, are you familiar with 8 USC Section 1182?

YATES: Not off the top of my head, no.

CRUZ: Well, it — it — it is the binding statutory authority for the executive order that you refused to implement, and that led to your termination. So it — it certainly is a relevant and not a terribly obscure statute.By the express text of the statute, it says, quote, “whenever the president finds that entry of any alien or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interest of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem appropriate.” Would you agree that is broad statutory authorization?

YATES: I would, and I am familiar with that. And I’m also familiar with an additional provision of the INA that says no person shall receive preference or be discriminated against an issuance of a visa because of race, nationality or place of birth, that I believe was promulgated after the statute that you just quoted. And that’s been part of the discussion with the courts, with respect to the INA, is whether this more specific statute trumps the first one that you just described. But my concern was not an INA concern here. It, rather, was a constitutional concern, whether or not this — the executive order here violated the Constitution, specifically with the establishment clause and equal protection and due process.

If you don’t think that, in addition to unbounded joy among Democrats, there were at least a few indiscreet high-fives in other Republican senatorial offices, you have no idea how utterly friendless a lizard Ted Cruz really is. There are a number of things I learned from Monday’s hearing and first among them is that I want to live out my life without ever being prosecuted by Sally Yates.

Here is the entire read from Esquire: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a54961/sally-yates-testifies-senate/.

These two tried to pull some of their partisan bullying and macho BS and she made them look like Donald Trump’s toads. They were way out of their league and I think they now know it. Commentary had to tweet out that Cruz was a worm for sure.

I think it is time for the FBI Director to fade away. If the following is true, it is inexcusable. Here is from Pro Publica:

FBI director James Comey generated national headlines last week with his dramatic testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, explaining his “incredibly painful” decision to go public about the Hillary Clinton emails found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop.

Perhaps Comey’s most surprising revelation was that Huma Abedin — Weiner’s wife and a top Clinton deputy — had made “a regular practice” of forwarding “hundreds and thousands” of Clinton messages to her husband, “some of which contain classified information.” Comey testified that Abedin had done this so that the disgraced former congressman could print them out for her boss. (Weiner’s laptop was seized after he came under criminal investigation for sex crimes, following a media report about his online relationship with a teenager.)

The New York Post plastered its story on the front page with a photo of an underwear-clad Weiner and the headline: “HARD COPY: Huma sent Weiner classified Hillary emails to print out.” The Daily News went with a similar front-page screamer: “HUMA ERROR: Sent classified emails to sext maniac Weiner.”


The problem: Much of what Comey said about this was inaccurate. Now the FBI is trying to figure out what to do about it.

FBI officials have privately acknowledged that Comey misstated what Abedin did and what the FBI investigators found. On Monday, the FBI was said to be preparing to correct the record by sending a letter to Congress later this week. But that plan now appears on hold, with the bureau undecided about what to do.

Here is the entire article: https://www.propublica.org/article/comeys-testimony-on-huma-abedin-forwarding-emails-was-inaccurate.

This fella has no credibility. He has had a very bad year. His reputation is shot. Show him the exit door, please.

Commentary said this yesterday:

The ‘Stros are 21-11, our best record after 32 games. We have been 21-11 on one other occasion – name the year?

With this answer:

In 1973, the ‘Stros started out at 21-11. Heck, they won their next game and started out 22-11.

I was wrong but that is what the 2011 team media guide said. The 2004 ‘Stros were also 21-11 of course , of course. I saw other outlets say this so I checked it out. I am sorry.

In 2016, the ‘Stros were 11-9 in interleague play of course.

The ATL is 11-18, 8 ½ games out, and in last place in the NL East. We have a 6 game lead.

Read Full Post »