Good News For Christmas: You Don't Have To Pay Any Attention To Government Dietary Advice

I don't know what you're doing on this weekend before Christmas, but I'm about to head off on a whirlwind round of holiday parties.  It's a hard burden to bear, so I'm looking around for a little encouragement.  And I've found it!  Here's the good news:  All government dietary advice is literally worthless.  You can ignore it completely.  Indeed, it appears that in most instances you are best off doing the opposite of what they recommend, which is likely what you wanted to do in the first place if left to your own devices without their meddling.

I have previously posted on this topic multiple times, for example here back in January 2016.  But it only gets worse.  The latest salvo comes in an open letter today to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine from two guys named Edward Archer and Carl Lavie.  The title is "Nutrition Has a 'Consensus' to Use Bad Science."  This is scathing, to say the least.  Excerpt:

'Nutrition' is now a degenerating research paradigm in which scientifically illiterate methods, meaningless data, and consensus-driven censorship dominate the empirical landscape. . . .  Over time, the sustained funding of demonstrably pseudo-scientific research methods has subverted the self-correcting nature of science and suppressed skeptical scholarship. Consequently, many decades of politics taking precedence over critical inquiry produced contradictory dietary guidelines, failed public policies, and the continued confusion over 'what-to-eat'.

Yikes!  Could this be as bad as climate "science"?  That's a close call.  But the essential problem is identical:  an enforced "consensus" causing billions upon billions of federal taxpayer dollars to be spent on worthless research that is then used as a basis for coercive government policy.

The particular issue on which Archer and Lavie focus is the use of "Memory-Based Methods" of assessing diet, which they refer to as "M-BMs."  It seems that most nutritional studies, as well as the government dietary guidelines, are based on assessments of diet derived from these "M-BMs," where people are surveyed and report from their own memory on what they have eaten over some period of time.  It turns out that many people -- and particularly overweight and obese people -- dramatically underreport their caloric intake.  So the nutrition scientific community has just developed protocols where they let researchers delete data that "look wrong" and go with the rest.  How's that for "science"!

Archer and Lavie refer to one of their own studies from December 2015 in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, titled "A Discussion of the Refutation of Memory-Based Dietary Assessment Methods (M-BMs): The Rhetorical Defense of Pseudoscientific and Inadmissible Evidence."    A few choice quotes:

[T]he data generated by memory-based dietary assessment methods (M-BMs) of nutrition epidemiology are pseudoscientific and inadmissible as scientific evidence. . . .  Nutrition epidemiology often uses statistical machinations and post hoc data exclusions to “correct” or simply delete implausible data and alter results. . . .  These procedures are not merely correcting erroneous data entries or removing nonrepresentative data (ie, statistical outliers). The result of these machinations is to alter and/or delete the data of individuals most representative of the population of interest. For example, the US population is predominantly overweight and obese, and these individuals are the most likely to misreport. In other words, when the numbers did not add up, nutrition epidemiologists simply changed, ignored, or deleted the implausible data (regardless of the systematic biases they introduced) rather than acknowledge the invalidity of M-BMs. 

So why is this important now?  Because the government, through the National Academies, is in the process of developing a new round of dietary guidelines, and as a major step in that process has just come out with a Report titled "Redesigning the Processes for Establishing Dietary Guidelines for Americans."    And of course, they've gone right ahead and relied on all kinds of research based on these "M-BM" studies.  From today's open letter:

Briefly, the M-BMs employed in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and other major nutrition studies produced data that were physiologically implausible, incompatible with life, and inadmissible as scientific evidence. . . .  Implausible dietary data should not be used to establish the DGA; yet that is exactly what the National Academies’ report recommends, and you as Presidents, endorse.

So the next round of government dietary guidelines is going to be just as worthless as all the previous rounds.  No surprise there.  I'm going to go on eating what tastes good and paying no attention whatsoever to government directives.  I hope you do too!

I do find one thing to disagree with in the Archer/Lavie work.  Commenting in their 2015 piece on use by nutrition researchers of data that has had inconvenient portions deleted and altered, they say this:

We are not aware of any research domain in which this type of data doctoring and consequent message distortion would be tolerated. We think that DGAC’s use of these manipulated data and consequent distorted messages to inform public health policy constitutes dubious scientific practices.

Apparently they are blissfully unaware of the field of climate "science."  For a good day's worth of reading on data deletion and alteration in that field to create a surface temperature record that fits a political narrative, see my seventeen-part series "The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time."

Two Ways Of Looking At The World: Which One Is Insane?

If you go to my About Page, you will find my short list of some of the required tenets of the official Manhattan Groupthink.  These are the things that you must believe if you want to be part of the in crowd.  My list includes things like:

[T]he government has infinite capacity to tax and spend and does not need to make any choices about spending priorities; the government has an infinite ability to borrow; an appropriate function of government is to take on all down-side risk of life so that no individual ever needs to worry about loss of anything . . . .

And so forth.  And then, of course, there's the tenet that anyone who disagrees on any of the other tenets is not just wrong, but evil.

I wrote that back in 2012.  Since that time, several new tenets have been added.  For example, a tenet that has been added is that the Trump campaign conspired with a foreign adversary (Russia) to influence the 2016 election, and that the FBI and now Robert Mueller and his team have been engaged in a righteous effort to protect national security and the integrity of our elections.  Another new tenet is that anyone who disagrees with this latest tenet is not merely wrong, and not merely evil, but also "insane."

How do I know these things?  Because I have read the lead editorial in today's New York Times.  The headline is "Fox News v. Robert Mueller."   The editorial focuses in part on recent commentary from a Fox News anchor named Jeanine Pirro.  In what the Times calls Ms. Pirro's "most unhinged rant yet," aired on Saturday December 9, the Times quotes her as saying that the FBI and Justice Department "need[] to be cleansed of individuals who should not just be fired but who need to be taken out in handcuffs," and that Mr. Mueller "can't come up with one piece of evidence."  Then this:

To put it mildly, this is insane.  The primary purpose of Mr. Mueller's investigation is not to take down Mr. Trump.  It's to protect America's national security and the integrity of its elections by determining whether a presidential campaign conspired with a foreign adversary to influence the 2016 election . . . .

See, it's like I said.

Unfortunately for Pravda, they chose to publish this as a lead editorial on the same day that the text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and his mistress and also FBI agent Lisa Page finally got released.  So here at MC, let's not engage in "unhinged rants," but rather, let's just quote some of the Strzok/Page texts to see which is the more reasonable inference:  either (1) they were in good faith trying to "protect national security and the integrity of our elections," or (2) they hate Trump and want him taken down.

• From Fox News, today:  Text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page in 2016 that were obtained by Fox News on Tuesday refer to then-candidate Donald Trump as a "loathsome human" and "an idiot."
• Page to Strzok, March 4, 2016:  "God, Trump is a loathsome human."
• Strzok to Page, July 19 (at the Republican convention, referring to Trump and his family):  "Oooh, TURN IT ON, TURN IT ON!!! THE DO*CHEBAGS ARE ABOUT TO COME OUT."
• From the Wall Street Journal today, Page to Strzok, also July 2016 during the Republican convention: “Wow, Donald Trump is an enormous d*uche.” Strzok response:  “How was Trump, other than a d*uche?”
• Page to Strzok, August 6: "Jesus. You should read this. And Trump should go f himself."

OK, those things make a strong showing of general animus.  But are there any of the texts that go beyond general animus, and give rise to an inference of specific intent to take Trump down?  As a matter of fact, there are:  

• Again from the Wall Street Journal today, Page to Strzok, August 2016:  “Maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace.”
• And from the Daily Caller, today, Page to Strzok, August 15, 2016:  “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk.  It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”  The Caller identifies "Andy" as Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director of the FBI.

Let's turn to a calm, cool head -- John Hinderaker of PowerLine -- for a reasonable conclusion:

Actually, I don’t think President Trump has been as critical of the CIA and the FBI as he should be. The leaders of those agencies have disgraced themselves and let down the American people by putting loyalty to the Democratic Party above all else. Way, way more bureaucrats need to be fired.

One side of this debate likely is insane.  Which one?

The Stupidest Litigation In The Country Reaches The Ninth Circuit

There is quite a lot of stupid litigation in this country.  So how does the Manhattan Contrarian know which of thousands of candidates is actually the very stupidest of all?  Well, let me tell you about my candidate, and then you judge whether it is even remotely possible that there could be any case even stupider.

The case in question goes by the name Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana v. United States, et al.  It was brought in 2015 in the Federal District Court in Eugene, Oregon.  (The documents in the case are available from the federal Public Access system, which unfortunately is behind a paywall.  I'm picking up the cost to read some of the documents on behalf of all of my readers!) The Amended Complaint contains a very lengthy description of Ms. Juliana, of which the following are not necessarily the most ridiculous portions:

Kelsey is 19 years old and was born and raised in Oregon, the state where she hopes to work, grow food, recreate, have a family, and raise children. During the fall of 2014, Kelsey walked 1,600 miles from Nebraska to Washington D.C. in the Great March for Climate Action to raise awareness about the climate crisis.  Kelsey is harmed by Defendants’ actions and inactions regarding carbon pollution and the resulting climate destabilization and ocean acidification. . . .  Kelsey spends time along the Oregon coast in places like Yachats and Florence and enjoys playing on the beach, tidepooling, and observing unique marine animals. . . .   The current and projected drought and lack of snow caused by Defendants are already harming all of the places Kelsey enjoys visiting, as well as her drinking water, and her food sources—including wild salmon. . . .  Defendants have caused psychological and emotional harm to Kelsey as a result of her fear of a changing climate, her knowledge of the impacts that will occur in her lifetime, and her knowledge that Defendants are continuing to cause harms that threaten her life and wellbeing.   

Ms. Juliana is just one of twenty-one individual plaintiffs, all under the age of 21; plus there is an environmental group calling itself "Earth Guardians."  Oh, and then there's another plaintiff known as "Future Generations."  Wouldn't want to leave them out!  

That business about drought and lack of snow is what they wrote in 2015.  I guess it sounded good as something to cause "psychological and emotional harm" to poor Ms. Juliana.  Of course, today, two years later, exactly zero of the State of Oregon is experiencing a drought of any kind, even the most mild.  And then, do you wonder, as I do, how Ms. Juliana regularly gets from Eugene, over the coastal mountain range and down to the ocean to "play on the beach, tidepool, and observe unique marine animals"?  It's about 60 miles.  Maybe on her bicycle?

Anyway, by now I'm sure you have guessed that this is the case where a group of minor children have sued seeking to get a court injunction to force the U.S. government to end the use of fossil fuels in this country.  The claim supposedly arises directly under the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

This action is brought pursuant to the United States Constitution. It is authorized by Article III, Section 2, which extends the federal judicial power to all cases arising in equity under the Constitution. . . .  That grant of equitable jurisdiction requires Article III courts to apply the underlying principles of the Constitution to new circumstances unforeseen by the framers, such as the irreversible destruction of the natural heritage of our whole nation. An actual controversy has arisen and exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants because Defendants have placed Plaintiffs in a dangerous situation, continue to infringe upon Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and have abrogated their duty of care to ensure Plaintiffs’ reasonable safety, among other violations of law. 

And the relief they seek?  Hey, let's go big!  Among some nine different requests, each more overreaching than the next, we find this gem:

Order Defendants to prepare and implement an enforceable national remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2 so as to stabilize the climate system and protect the vital resources on which Plaintiffs now and in the future will depend . . .

We're not just going to force them to "phase out" all fossil fuel use, but we'll also make them suck the CO2 out of the air!  Might there be any technical or cost issues in trying to remove billions of tons of a 0.04% trace gas from the earth's atmosphere?  Not our problem!

And now we get to the response of the Obama administration to this case.  It would be a very reasonable inference that somebody was scheming to lose.  In 2015 they made a halfhearted motion to dismiss the case, entirely directed to technical legal issues like what is known as "standing" and "justiciability."  After sitting on the motion for a while, the court denied that motion in mid-2016.  Whereupon the government had to serve what is known as an "Answer," responding paragraph by paragraph to the allegations of the Complaint.  Now the Complaint here contains one after another of preposterous and unverified allegations of predicted future disaster -- every horrible imaginable, from sea level rise to drought to flood (both at the same time? why not?) to hurricane and other storms to searing temperatures to disease to starvation to literally anything else you can think of.  None of it has actually happened yet?  So what -- we just know that it will!

The government filed the Answer on January 13, 3017.  Yes, that was exactly one week before the inauguration of the new President.  And in the Answer, the outgoing administration admitted one after another of the ridiculous predictions of impending disaster.  There are way too many to give you more than just a taste.  Here is the first sentence of paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint:

For over fifty years, the United States of America1 has known that carbon dioxide (“CO2”) pollution from burning fossil fuels was causing global warming and dangerous climate change, and that continuing to burn fossil fuels would destabilize the climate system on which present and future generations of our nation depend for their wellbeing and survival.       

And here is our genius government's "Answer":

With respect to the first sentence, Federal Defendants admit that for over fifty years some officials and persons employed by the federal government have been aware of a growing body of scientific research concerning the effects of fossil fuel emissions on atmospheric concentrations of CO2—including that increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2 could cause measurable long-lasting changes to the global climate, resulting in an array of severe deleterious effects to human beings, which will worsen over time. 

Or consider paragraph 150 of the Amended Complaint:

During the last decade, Defendants have repeatedly stated that allowing “business as usual” CO2 emissions will imperil future generations with dangerous and unacceptable economic, social, and environmental risks. As Defendants have acknowledged, the use of fossil fuels is a major source of these emissions, placing our nation on an increasingly costly, insecure, and environmentally dangerous path. 

And your government's "Answer":

Federal Defendants admit the allegations in this paragraph [150].

Over to you, President Trump!  When the Trump administration got its act together after a few months, it decided to go to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to try to get what's called a "writ of mandamus," directing the District Court to put an end to the madness.  Unfortunately, a writ of mandamus is a very unusual remedy for the denial of a motion to dismiss, let alone that the government was by this time way beyond the normal deadline for asking for such relief. 

The mandamus effort then came up for argument yesterday in the Court of Appeals, before Judges Thomas, Berzon and Kozinski.  Here is a link where you can watch the full argument, which is about an hour.  It's fair to say that Judge Kozinski gave the plaintiff's lawyer an appropriately hard time about the ridiculousness of her case.  However, the other two judges (Clinton appointees in both cases) were clearly indicating that they didn't think mandamus was an appropriate remedy, and Kozinski did not signal disagreement on that point.  It is likely that this case, with or without a Kozinski dissent, will now go back to the District Court for discovery and trial.  The stupidest litigation in the country, marching on!

Assuming that is right, the Trump administration now must withdraw the preposterous government "Answer" and start over.  This will be a real test of competence.  They need to fight on every point, assuming that they are going to lose in the District Court and probably in the Ninth Circuit, and only prevail in the Supreme Court several years from now.    

At least the new people cannot possibly be as incompetent as the prior administration in selling the people of the United States down the river in service of the latest progressive fad.  (The alternative hypothesis is that the prior administration was not incompetent, but actually hated the United States and everything it stands for, and was intentionally seeking to destroy the economy and impoverish the people.)  If you ever have the feeling that Donald Trump is not your type of guy and you would rather that he was not President, just keep in mind what Barack Obama and his administration did in throwing the defense of this case and trying to hand to one activist judge in Oregon the ability to order the de-industrialization of our economy and the energy impoverishment of the people.  

Extreme Corruption Of The Political Process: Wisconsin

While this blog has devoted a good amount of space to criminal prosecutions of various pols on the take, I have long expressed the view that that kind of corruption is of relatively minor consequence compared to the "most extreme corruption."  The "most extreme corruption" is the use by government officials of the powers of the government itself to advantage one side of the political divide and disadvantage the other.

In that linked post from May of this year, I suggested that the Trump/Russia collusion narrative was nothing more than a "preposterous cover story" offered up by ex-CIA chief Brennan and other Obama administration intelligence officials to justify their extreme corruption of surveilling the Trump campaign and transition for partisan advantage.  Right now, that's looking like a rather good call.  I'll have plenty more fun with that one as more details emerge.  But for today, let's consider another instance of the same phenomenon, this one coming from the state of Wisconsin.

On December 6, 2017, the Attorney General of Wisconsin released a Report on the subject of "violations of the John Doe secrecy orders."  Here is a link to the full Report.  While the specific focus of the Report is criminal leaks of certain information from state government investigations that were subject to court secrecy orders, the Report also addresses the more fundamental basic corruption of large numbers of identified Wisconsin state bureaucrats.  Words are not minced.  For example:

DOJ [Wisconsin Department of Justice] is deeply concerned by what appears to have been the weaponization of GAB [Wisconsin Government Accountability Board] by partisans in furtherance of political goals. . . .          

Since you may not have followed the story of the Wisconsin "John Doe" investigations, here is some background.  Scott Walker (a Republican) was initially elected Governor of Wisconsin in 2010, and then immediately became subject to a campaign for "recall," forcing him effectively to run again in 2012.  He won that recall election (and then another full term in 2014).  In 2012, shortly after the recall election, a so-called "John Doe" investigation of Walker's campaign was initiated by various Democratic DAs around Wisconsin, with the assistance of a central state bureaucracy called the Government Accountability Board, which purported to have expertise in state election law.  A "John Doe" investigation in Wisconsin is an investigation under a particular state statute that requires that the investigation proceed in secrecy under the supervision of a "John Doe Judge."  

The supposed subject of these particular John Doe investigations was alleged violations of campaign finance law by the Walker campaigns and certain independent groups for improperly "coordinating" their activities.  During 2012 to 2014, despite the cloak of secrecy, there were frequent reports out of Wisconsin of extraordinary investigatory tactics being employed, including subpoenas numbering in the hundreds directed to every Wisconsin Republican of consequence, and numerous middle-of-the-night no-knock home invasions, supposedly to collect evidence of campaign finance law violations.  In July 2015, responding to a lawsuit brought by certain (unnamed) targets of the investigations, the Wisconsin Supreme Court shut the investigations down.  From a report in watchdog.org:

In a ruling issued Thursday morning, the [Wisconsin] high court ordered an end to the politically motivated investigation into conservative groups in Wisconsin that has been dragging on for more than three years. . . .  “It is utterly clear that the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing,” [Supreme Court Justice Michael] Gableman wrote in the opinion. “In other words, the special prosecutor was the instigator of a ‘perfect storm’ of wrongs.”

But the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision did not end the matter.  The prosecutors sought certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court.  Shortly before that Court was expected to rule on the request, a large trove of the supposedly secret materials collected in the investigations was leaked to the Guardian newspaper, which ran a big story in September 2016 that included a link to the complete collection of all the leaked materials.  Was the leak an intentional effort by Wisconsin bureaucrats to influence the U.S. Supreme Court?  (The U.S. Supreme Court denied the cert petition in October 2016, thereby ending the matter.)

And then we haven't heard from the matter for over a year, until the release of the Wisconsin AG's Report this past week.  Maybe it's just me, but I would call this Report a bombshell in its revelation of extreme corruption by a group of government bureaucrats -- Democrats -- using the machinery of the government, including its most dangerous secret investigatory powers, to advantage their side and disadvantage the other side.  Key quote from the Report:

After reviewing the emails exchanged between the attorneys at GAB, it is apparent that GAB attorneys had prejudged the guilt of Governor Walker, Wisconsin Republicans, and related organizations that they were investigating and this dramatically influenced their ability to give competent legal advice.  GAB attorneys did not act in a detached and professional manner. The most reasonable inference is that they were on a mission to bring down the Walker campaign and the Governor himself. 

There's much more, including:  the leak of the information was a criminal act; it came from the intense partisans at the Wisconsin GAB; and it was timed specifically to try to influence the U.S. Supreme Court.  I guess if you truly believe that the Republicans are evil, and that maintenance of power by the progressive faction is the most important thing in the world, you can justify just about anything.  

I've done quite a bit of looking to see if I can find any mention of this Report in any "mainstream" news source, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NBC, and so forth.  But, even though the Report has been out for four days now, I can't seem to find any mention.  Funny, isn't it?  

Question:  When all the facts are out, will the fundamental corruption of the federal intelligence agencies be even worse than this one?

"The Rich" Figure Out That The Tax Bill Is Not A Big Giveaway To Them

The famous Central Newsroom of Progressive Groupthink, located beneath Times Square, has been hard at work the past few months coming up with the official party line and talking point to deal with the tax bill making its way through the Republican-controlled Congress.  And, if you have been even close to awake during this time, you know what the officially-issued line and talking point is: This is a "massive giveaway to the rich."

You know that that is the officially-issued line and talking point because you can find it in literally every progressive or mainstream source that discusses the subject.  Examples:

• Washington Post, October 3: "The Trump tax cuts would be the most insane giveaway to the rich ever."  Yes, minor variations from the official talking points are allowed, such as the substitution of "insane giveaway to the rich" for "massive giveaway to the rich."
• Huffington Post, December 2:  "Senate Passes Massive Tax Cuts For The Rich In Middle Of The Night."
• New York Times, November 27:  "Senators Scramble to Advance Tax Bill That Increasingly Rewards Wealthy."
• The Hill, November 29:  "The current Republican tax bill would mostly benefit billionaires and millionaires like Trump, as well as wealthy corporations, all on the backs of middle-class and working-class Americans."     

But the question is, has anyone done any real analysis here?  Or is this just a line that sounds good to stoke up some resentment among the ignorant and thus help the progressives gain and hold onto political power?

It sure looks like the latter to me.  Consider the world of high-earning professionals from which I come.  These people are the archetypes of "the rich" in the usual caricature.  Suppose you are such a professional in Manhattan in the seriously "rich" category, earning $2 million per year.  You are currently paying around $700,000 per year in federal income tax.  Under the Senate bill, your marginal tax rate will go down from 39.6% to 38.5%.  Under the house bill, your marginal tax rate does not go down at all.  The marginal rate change will thus save you either about $20,000 per year, or nothing, depending on which version prevails.  You are currently paying in excess of $200,000 per year in New York State and City income tax.  Loss of that deduction will cost you about $80,000 per year.  If you own a house or apartment, it won't be a cheap one, and you likely pay around $50,000 or more in property tax.  Loss of that deduction (above a $10,000 cap) will cost you around another $15,000 or more per year.  Net, this is going to cost you $100,000 or more per year on your income tax bill.  The value of your home could also suffer some serious negative impact from the loss of the interest and income and property tax deductions.  

How again is this a "giveaway to the rich"?

I acknowledge that there are many other moving pieces in these tax bills, and there are certainly a good number of affluent people who will benefit, particularly in the category of business owners.  But people who just earn high amounts of ordinary income -- which includes not just professionals, but also most corporate executives -- look to be almost entirely big losers.  There could be a handful of such who live in no-income-tax states and rent their homes who could show a small gain.

So over at the New York Times, after parroting the official talking point for several weeks, they suddenly decided yesterday to take a look at how the House and Senate bills would affect the affluent people living in their own locality, and now they discover that it's the opposite of what they have been saying.  The headline is "How New Yorkers Would Lose Under the Republican Tax Bill."  By the way, it's not just any New Yorkers who would lose; it's predominantly the high income New Yorkers.

The article leads off with this picture of a row of townhouses on the Upper West Side of Manhattan:

Their caption is "Brownstones on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. New York’s homeowners could suffer disproportionately from changes in deductions for state and local taxes."  Does it bring a tear to your eye?  For those unfamiliar with our Manhattan real estate market, the houses pictured have market values in the range of $5 - 10 million (and in some cases even more), depending on condition and whether they are burdened with rent-regulated tenants.  You really have to feel for their owners' "suffering."

So what is the real impact here?

The tax plan would probably cut taxes for most New Yorkers, at least in the short term. But it has several provisions that local leaders said could pose long-term problems for New York and other urban areas. Mayor Bill de Blasio, in an interview on Monday, estimated that 700,000 New Yorkers would pay more in taxes in the near term.

De Blasio doesn't say who those 700,000 are, but the obvious inference is that they are the higher-income part of the population, who are losing the deductions for state and local income and property taxes and mortgage interest.  Could this be a backhanded acknowledgement that the lower and middle income mostly gain and the upper income mostly lose?  

And wait!  I thought that higher taxes on "the rich" were a good thing!  Actually, we now find out that higher taxes on "the rich" are only a good thing if we get the money, and they are a terrible thing if you get the money:

“The human impact is huge,” Mr. de Blasio said, referring both to the higher taxes some residents would pay and to the services that could be cut as a result of the tax plan. He said his administration had tried for four years to make one of the world’s most expensive cities more affordable by providing public prekindergarten and paid sick leave. “And then along comes the federal government and makes the situation worse,” he said.

All I can say is, it's time for the people in the Central Newsroom beneath Times Square to work some overtime to come up with the new official party line and talking points.

The Reputation Of The FBI -- And Of The Justice Department -- In Tatters

A few days ago in one of his famous tweets, President Trump asserted that the reputation of the FBI was "in tatters."  This followed recent revelations that a top agent involved in both the Mueller investigations and the Hillary Clinton email investigations was an anti-Trump partisan who had exchanged inflammatory political text messages with his mistress.

So, is the reputation of the FBI -- and, for that matter, of the Justice Department -- in "tatters" as President Trump claims?  And, if so, what difference does it make?

My answer to the first question is definitely yes as to both institutions, although for me the shredding of their reputations has only been accentuated by the events of the past few weeks, and had previously been going on for a good nine years, ever since Obama and Holder got their hands on the reins of power.  And the difference it makes?  To put it simply, you would be out of your mind ever to cooperate in any way with these guys.  And so would everybody else in this country.  And thus, the FBI and Justice are totally undermining their own effectiveness as law enforcement institutions.  It's a fair bet that whatever they are up to at any given point in time has little to nothing to do with enforcing the law in an even-handed way, and much or everything to do with advantaging Democrats over Republicans.  (It doesn't matter who controls the Presidency and Attorney Generalship at any given point in time.  The staff of the Justice Department and FBI are partisan Democrats until definitively proven otherwise.)  If they want to get you (e.g., you are a Republican, although there could be many other reasons having just as little to do with whether you have committed a crime) they are entirely likely to create an entrapment scheme to manufacture a crime to nail you, such as (to take a random example) asking you in detail about some conversation you had that they happen to have recorded, and then charging you with "lying to the FBI" for any instance where your memory differs from their transcript.  If I can accomplish one useful thing with this blog, it will be making sure that none of my readers ever makes the ridiculous mistake of talking to the FBI.

Before getting to the most recent events, let's review just a few of the other politicized and/or corrupt activities of Justice and the FBI under the Obama/Holder/Lynch/Bharara regime (some of which activities continue under holdovers to this day).  Probably, you once heard of at least some of these things, but only when they are put together in one place do you suddenly realize the magnitude:

• When I started this blog, one of the first things I covered was the endless series of what I deemed "phony prosecutions" of major financial institutions for allegedly causing the financial crisis.  There was one after another of what could only be called shakedowns.  In this post on July 1, 2013, I discussed a settlement by Citi with Fannie and Freddie for $968 million for losses in the financial crisis, even though it was F&F that had set the terms of the loans; and another settlement by BofA for $2.8 billion for essentially the same thing; and a settlement of those two plus five other banks for $8.5 billion with OCC for alleged improper documenting of mortgages ("robosigning"); and then ten settlements by JPMC with various federal agencies between 2011 and 2013, all of them over $50 million (and some over a billion).  In September 2013 it was a $920 million settlement with JPMC over trading losses that should have been none of the government's business.  In August 2014 it was a settlement with BofA of $17 billion (!) for, supposedly, "failing to have third party loan level due diligence" as to loans going into securitization deals.  There were many, many more.
• And then it turned out that Justice had created a slush fund in which to put big chunks of the bank settlements, to be passed out to favored left-leaning groups to advance the Obama/Holder political agenda, all unconstitutionally outside the appropriations process.  From Kimberly Strassel in the Wall Street Journal, December 2015, quoted by me here:  "The [Justice] department is in the process of funneling more than half-a-billion dollars to liberal activist groups, at least some of which will actively support Democrats in the coming election.  It works likes this: The Justice Department prosecutes cases against supposed corporate bad actors. Those companies agree to settlements that include financial penalties. Then Justice mandates that at least some of that penalty money be paid in the form of “donations” to nonprofits that supposedly aid consumers and bolster neighborhoods.  The Justice Department maintains a list of government-approved nonprofit beneficiaries. And surprise, surprise: Many of them are liberal activist groups. The National Council of La Raza. The National Urban League. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition. NeighborWorks America . . . . " 
• Who can forget the endless phony prosecutions by New York U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara for the non-crime of "insider trading" by non-insiders?  As pointed out by me in many posts, there never was a statute that made this illegal.  It was all about ginning up political resentment against people who could be painted as having made too much money too easily.  At one time Bharara claimed a string of some 80 consecutive "convictions," but nearly all of them were guilty pleas.  Of the seven insider trading cases he took to trial, one resulted in an acquittal, and three of the six convictions, which involved non-insiders, were reversed on appeal; many of the guilty pleas were also vacated.  After the Newman/Chiasson reversal in October 2015, Bharara used the occasion to stoke resentment for political advantage:   "You can think of this as a potential bonanza for friends and family of rich people with access to material non-public information."
• The Obama/Holder Justice Department ramped up the civil asset forfeiture shakedown to such an extent that by 2014 civil assets seized by Justice annually exceeded all proceeds of burglary in the United States.  Do you recall the scandal over the mass seizures by prosecutors of luxury cars being exported to China?  On the thinnest of pretexts, Justice Department prosecutors claimed that the exports were illegal and seized hundreds of cars; and then offered to "settle" by giving half the cars back to the rightful owners while keeping the rest.  Proceeds went into another of those extra-constitutional Justice slush funds.  When a target of the scam finally took one of the cases to trial in February 2017 (during Bharara's last days in office) it took a jury just three hours to rule for the defendant.
• How about "Operation Choke Point" -- an Obama/Holder initiative that used the Justice Department to put pressure on legal but politically-disfavored businesses (examples:  gun dealers, payday lenders) by seeking to cut off their access to the banking system?  The Trump administration finally announced an end to that one in August 2017, although I would not be so sure that deep state operatives somewhere in the Justice Department are not still carrying on.
• Then there was the bringing of dubious cases of "bribery" or "corruption" against various state and local pols.  Somehow, when a Democratic pol drew the attention of the prosecutors, it involved a situation where the Dems held a huge majority in the relevant body and political control was not at issue.  Example:  Sheldon Silver, Speaker of the New York Assembly, where the Dems hold about a 2 - 1 majority.  But when the target was a Republican, it would be a swing situation with potential for a conviction to shift control to the Democrats.  Examples:  Bob McDonnell as Governor of Virginia, Dean Skelos (of the New York State Senate, where the Republicans held a one seat majority).  All three of those convictions have been reversed, by the way.
• And, finally for this review (really, I could just be getting started) we have the Justice Department in the ultimate corruption attempting to declare independence from the President and the Constitution under the leadership of Sally Yates.  Obama holdover Yates was the Acting Attorney General briefly before Jeff Sessions was confirmed earlier this year, and used that position to attempt to defy President Trump when he issued his first "travel ban."  A few months later she tried to justify her action in a New York Times op-ed:  "The president is attempting to dismantle the rule of law, destroy the time-honored independence of the Justice Department, and undermine the career men and women who are devoted to seeking justice day in and day out, regardless of which political party is in power. . . ."   In Yates-world, oaths of office are for the flouting.

So believe me, around here, the Justice Department and FBI did not have any remaining unshredded reputation to be preserved by the time the Comey and Mueller got going investigating Trump.  So how shocked are you that they:

• Used a piece of preposterous opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC as a pretext to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Republican candidate's campaign while it was ongoing?  That link, by the way, is not to some right-wing conspiracy theorist, but rather to CNN back in April.
• Put a highly partisan pro-Clinton senior FBI agent (Strzok) on the Clinton email investigation, and allowed him to change the words Comey used to describe Hillary's conduct from "gross negligence" (a crime) to "extremely careless"?
• Hired a team of some fifteen prosecutors to pursue the investigation of the Trump campaign, at least half of whom are highly partisan Democrats who have contributed to Obama, Clinton and the DNC, and none of whom have contributed to Republicans?
• Put the same highly partisan senior FBI agent on the job of tricking Flynn into an interview about a conversation that had previously been recorded by the FBI, so that they could manufacture a previously non-existent crime by characterizing any slip by Flynn in remembering the conversation as "lying to the FBI," even if everything about the underlying conversation itself was perfectly legal?
• Refused to turn over to Congress the Strzok texts and other documents that would embarrass and/or incriminate the FBI and/or Justice itself -- and continue the stonewall to the point of getting held in contempt of Congress?

Me, I'm not surprised at all.  Readers, please do not ever, ever talk to these people.  Remember this:  Everybody who has been at Justice and the FBI through the Obama/Holder/Lynch era knows about all of the things listed above and decided to stay on nonetheless.  People of integrity would have resigned long ago.

During my legal career, it has been the norm that prominent politicians and business leaders could not afford to refuse to cooperate with the FBI and Justice Department.  The reason was that the respect for these institutions was such that failure to cooperate carried a reputational stain for the non-cooperator.  Corporations would almost always fire those who refused to cooperate.  Today?  I'd like to see some corporations stand up to the creeps.  Among politicians, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Trump and some of his people stand up.

UPDATE, December 6:  Judicial Watch has released an email that it obtained via FOIA request from the Department of Justice.  The email is from Andrew Weissmann to Sally Yates dated January 30, 2017.  You will recognize Yates from above.  January 30 is the date that she sent a memo, in her capacity as Acting Attorney General of the United States, to everyone at the Justice Department instructing them not to implement the initial "travel ban" executive order that new President Trump had issued on January 27.  Weissmann is currently the senior Justice Department prosecutor working with Mueller on the investigation of the President.  Here is the text of Weissmann's January 30 email:

From: Weissmann, Andrew (CRM)
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 9:50 PM
To: Yates, Sally (ODAG) <sayates@jmd.usdoj.gov> Subject: I am so proud

And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects,
Andrew Weissmann 

So there it is.  Weissmann didn't just think it was OK for Yates to violate her oath of office and try to overturn the result of the recent lawfully-conducted election.  No, he went far beyond, asserting that he was "so proud" and "in awe."  He actively applauds defiance of the Constitution.

It is completely beyond me how a guy who thinks defiance of the oath of office is OK is allowed to work anywhere in the federal government, let alone on an investigation of the President he thinks it is OK to defy.

The contents of this email, and of the Strzok texts (when and if revealed), and of plenty more from the above, should appropriately be part of the closing argument of every defense lawyer in every case brought by the Justice Department.  That's the consequence of destroying your own credibility through politicization.