FBI Pretends That Political Assassin Wasn’t

Friday, June 23, AD 2017

 

Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist tells us that the FBI has decided that would be political assassin James T. Hodgkinson was merely a victim of poor anger management:

 

 

The FBI admits that Hodgkinson:

vociferously raged against Republicans in online forums,
had a piece of paper bearing the names of six members of Congress,
was reported for doing target practice outside his home in recent months before moving to Alexandria,
had mapped out a trip to the DC area,
took multiple photos of the baseball field he would later shoot up, three days after the New York Times mentioned that Republicans practiced baseball at an Alexandria baseball field with little security,
lived out of his van at the YMCA directly next door to the baseball field he shot up,
legally purchased a rifle in March 2003 and 9 mm handgun “in November 2016,”
modified the rifle at some point to accept a detachable magazine and replaced the original stock with a folding stock,
rented a storage facility to hide hundreds of rounds of ammunition and additional rifle components,
asked “Is this the Republican or Democrat baseball team?” before firing on the Republicans,
ran a Google search for information on the “2017 Republican Convention” hours before the shooting,
and took photos at high-profile Washington locations, including the east front plaza of the U.S. Capitol and the Dirksen Senate Office.

We know from other reporting that the list was of six Republican Freedom Caucus members, including Rep. Mo Brooks, who was present at the practice.

So what does the FBI decide this information means? Well, the takeaway of the briefing was characterized well by the Associated Press headline about it: “FBI: Gunman who shot congressman had no target in mind.” The Associated Press reported the FBI:

believes the gunman “had no concrete plan to inflict violence” against Republicans,
“had not yet clarified who, if anyone, he planned to target, or why,”
believes he may have just “happened upon” the baseball game the morning of June 14, and that the attack appeared “spontaneous,”
are unclear on the “context” of Hodgkinson’s note with six names of members of Congress,
does not believe that photographs of the baseball field or other sites “represented surveillance of intended targets,” and
“painted a picture of a down-on-his-luck man with few future prospects.”

In fact, USA Today went with “FBI offers portrait of troubled Alexandria shooter with ‘anger management problem’” for their headline, since that’s what the FBI emphasized in the briefing.

The FBI also said there was no “nexus to terrorism” in the attempted mass assassination of Republican leadership by a Democratic activist. The claim that tourists take pictures of a a completely unremarkable baseball field in a tiny neighborhood also seems odd, particularly when the pictures were taken a few days after The New York Times reported that Republican members of Congress practice baseball there with little security. Someone going by the moniker “Yoenis Cespedes” wrote, “As a guy who could arguably be called a reconnaissance manager when he was in the Army, this is reconnaissance.”

Oh, and here’s a little tidbit that didn’t interest many people in the media beyond a brief mention in the last paragraphs:

Hodgkinson also visited the office of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose campaign he had worked on as a volunteer, and was in email contact with the two Democratic senators from his home state.

As one Twitter wag put it, “You’d think “Congressional Shooter Visited Actual Capitol Hill Offices” would be kinda a big deal and you’d be wrong.”

I wrote last week that the media’s big problem right now is that everyone in the country knows how they’d be covering the shooting if the parties were reversed. Can you imagine if a shooter had visited the office of Sen. Ted Cruz and corresponded with two Republican senators? Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) gave emails to investigators last week but it was treated mostly as local news.

With trust in institutions at historic lows, and the bureaucracy beset by fears of politicization, the FBI made a poor decision to gaslight Americans by claiming that the assassination attempt wasn’t premeditated terrorism but a spontaneous “anger management” problem.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to FBI Pretends That Political Assassin Wasn’t

  • I actually think the term “living wage” is a terrible term. After all, what is a living wage? Many would say that it is a wage that enables a worker to support himself and his family. But a living wage for a man with a wife and three kids to support is going to be different than a living wage for a single man with only himself to support. So, by this logic an employer would have to pay the former more than the latter regardless of any difference in productivity. This is clearly untenable. But that term gets thrown around even by some conservatives.

  • I’m never quite sure if that’s what the officialdom said, or if that’s the fiction the reporters and editors have elected to run with. If it’s not the latter, I’d say it’s remarkable how thoroughly Holder and Lynch managed to ruin the agency.

    What’s pathetic is the degree to which federal law enforcement consists of a string of ineffective bureaucracies. See the Secret Service, which couldn’t prevent some random dude from invading the White House and is amply populated with officers who think little of cheating on their wives with Colombian hookers. See Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which may be able to defend itself by providing evidence that they’re better at their jobs than their predecessor agency.

  • I’m with Art on this– why would we trust the AP on this?

  • There’s a meme marching about bragging about how few Democratic administration members have been indicted as compared to Republicans. With weaponized decision-making like this, it is small wonder.

Shocked! Shocked!

Monday, October 24, AD 2016

 

I am shocked, shocked!

 

 

The political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use.

Campaign finance records show Mr. McAuliffe’s political-action committee donated $467,500 to the 2015 state Senate campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI.

The Virginia Democratic Party, over which Mr. McAuliffe exerts considerable control, donated an additional $207,788 worth of support to Dr. McCabe’s campaign in the form of mailers, according to the records. That adds up to slightly more than $675,000 to her candidacy from entities either directly under Mr. McAuliffe’s control or strongly influenced by him. The figure represents more than a third of all the campaign funds Dr. McCabe raised in the effort.

 

Go here to read the rest.  When Trump says the system is rigged, he doesn’t know the half of it.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Shocked! Shocked!

  • She spent $1.9 million in a losing campaign for the state legislature? I had no idea a Sandra Fluke clone was running for office in Virginia.

    When I was involved in politics in my home town, the state senate constituencies had populations of about 300,000. There was a local businessman who ran for an at-large seat on the city council (constituency population, 220,000). His ‘unprecedented’ campaign war chest contained….$17,000. That was in 1989. A contextually similar sum today would be about $50,000. Thanks, Pres. Fundraiser.

  • Art,
    .
    You’re likely correct. State senate campaign budgets likely average in the mid five-figures (like $50,000, SJW’s). A one-time, half-million dollar donation would be outlandishly huge for a state legislature campaign.
    .
    The stupidity! It hurts even worse than the corruption.
    .
    Welcome to the United Soviets of Aztlanistan.
    .
    Keep deplorable my friends.

J. Edgar Hoover in The FBI Story

Monday, September 26, AD 2016

The 1959 movie, The FBI Story, was a project near and dear to the heart of J. Edgar Hoover, founding director of the FBI, who ran it with an iron fist from 1935 until his death in 1972.  Based upon the best selling authorized history of the FBI, The FBI Story, Hoover wanted the FBI to be portrayed in heroic mode, with no controversial spots.  A squad of special agents supervised the film and everyone associated with the film, no matter how humble, had to be vetted by the FBI. 

Continue reading...

One Response to J. Edgar Hoover in The FBI Story

  • As a child I was taught to respect the FBI. I seemed to recall an Efrem Zimbalist series that dramatized FBI cases. My parents knew some agents. Now that the FBI seemingly has been politicized I wonder how the recruiting is going?

It’s a Wonderful Life: Commie Propaganda?

Thursday, December 27, AD 2012

Hard to believe, but there was an FBI report in 1947 that deemed It’s a Wonderful Life as Communist propaganda:

To: The Director  

D.M. Ladd 

COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY   (RUNNING MEMORANDUM)

There is submitted herewith the running memorandum concerning Communist infiltration of the motion picture industry which has been brought up to date as of May 26, 1947….   With regard to the picture “It’s a Wonderful Life”, [redacted] stated in substance that the film represented rather obvious attempts to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a “scrooge-type” so that he would be the most hated man in the picture. This, according to these sources, is a common trick used by Communists.

>In addition, [redacted] stated that, in his opinion, this picture deliberately maligned the upper class, attempting to show the people who had money were mean and despicable characters. [redacted] related that if he made this picture portraying the banker, he would have shown this individual to have been following the rules as laid down by the State Bank Examiner in connection with making loans. Further, [redacted] stated that the scene wouldn’t have “suffered at all” in portraying the banker as a man who was protecting funds put in his care by private individuals and adhering to the rules governing the loan of that money rather than portraying the part as it was shown. In summary, [redacted] stated that it was not necessary to make the banker such a mean character and “I would never have done it that way.”   [redacted] recalled that approximately 15 years ago, the picture entitled “The Letter” was made in Russia and was later shown in this country. He recalled that in this Russian picture, an individual who had lost his self-respect as well as that of his friends and neighbors because of drunkenness, was given one last chance to redeem himself by going to the bank to get some money to pay off a debt. The old man was a sympathetic character and was so pleased at his opportunity that he was extremely nervous, inferring he might lose the letter of credit or the money itself. In summary, the old man made the journey of several days duration to the bank and with no mishap until he fell asleep on the homeward journey because of his determination to succeed. On this occasion the package of money dropped out of his pocket. Upon arriving home, the old man was so chagrined he hung himself. The next day someone returned the package of money to his wife saying it had been found. [redacted] draws a parallel of this scene and that of the picture previously discussed, showing that Thomas Mitchell who played the part of the man losing the money in the Capra picture suffered the same consequences as the man in the Russian picture in that Mitchell was too old a man to go out and make money to pay off his debt to the banker.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to It’s a Wonderful Life: Commie Propaganda?

  • Very interesting, Donald. The fourth branch will be the end of this country yet.

    Patrick Daneen also posted on this movie today – see here: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/12/itrsquos-a-destructive-life

    I am curious as to your thoughts on his post.

  • “I am curious as to your thoughts on his post.”

    Overwrought comes to mind. Viewing George Bailey as a modernistic wrecker of Bedford Falls is an imaginative interpretation but not one that I agree with. Bailey is simply attempting to help people get homes of their own. With a growing population that would not be possible with existing housing stock. As a denizen of small towns my entire life, except for my seven years at the U of I, I have never been sympathetic with the impulse that small towns should be preserved in amber. They are not museum pieces for tourists to admire the quaint folkways of the inhabitants, but living communities that will inevitably change over time. Items of value will be lost as a result of the change, but items of value will be gained.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY MORNING GOD & CAESAR EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • In fact, my commie, ex-twin brother employs (received an email on the topic Christmas Eve) the movie, and its “Potter” caricature, to indict capitalism, in general, and so-called “banksters”, in particular.

    The “Potter” character is not a capitalist or a banker. He is a thief (e.g., the deposit money in the newspaper).

    Likely, George Bailey isn’t a “saint.” The raison d’etre for building and loan associations and Federally-chartered savings and loan associations was to finance residential housing. Such institutions often used commercial banks to clear checks and to finance operations. In general, the bit about Potter calling the loan isn’t how it would have worked. And, from 1933, the Federal Home Loan Bank System served the financing role. Although, their terms were not much better than “Potter’s.”

    I see GB’s actions taken as much as any other motive to preserve the institution to which his father and uncle gave their working lives. It is unlikely that GB advanced a home loan to anyone that did not meet certain credit standards, as in, the ability to repay the loan.

    And, if you place any trust the state, consider this factoid from yesterday’s instapundit, “Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.”

  • You are right they should not be. The question is what sort of land use attends the additional housing stock. You should have sidewalks, street trees, and proximity to commercial strips. It is also bad form to dig up cemeteries. Deneen does not mention that poor planning of commercial development has been rather more damaging to the urban landscape than suboptimal residential tract development. No hook for that, though, as George Bailey was the proprietor of a savings bank that undertook only home mortgage lending (and a fairly novel and unusual sort of mortgage lending by the standards of 1928).

  • Observant people there in the Forties could not be unaware of a Communist infiltration and conspiracy in the movie industry. as well as in the federal government. Joseph McCarthy was ultimately vindicated. What a pity it was not before he died. I saw this movie when it was first released, and I did not think it was a real threat to anyone.

  • I thought for sure this was an urban legend, but apparently not. Perhaps it was a case of “when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail” — with the Nazi threat gone by 1946 and the Soviets now in the position of World Enemy Number One, anything that appeared to be at all critical of capitalism was suspect.

  • The Red Menance was very real in 1947 abroad as was Communist infiltration in Hollywood. Ronald Reagan, New Deal liberal, began his trek from Left to Right as a result of dealing with Communist dominated unions, often using violent tactics, during his several terms as President of the Screen Actors Guild in the late forties and early fifties. The problem was that the FBI was often as clueless in dealing with internal subverison by Communists as it was in dealing with the Mafia which Hoover at this time steadfastly denied existed.

An Admiral and Two Generals

Saturday, November 10, AD 2012

 

 

Well, I have to hand it to the Obama administration.  Obama reelected on Tuesday, they are already getting a start on the scandals that tend to plague most second term Presidents.  The resignation of CIA Director, retired General David Petraeus, over an alleged affair, a week before he was to testify before a Senate committee on Benghazi, brings to three the number of high-ranking officers connected with Benghazi, or its aftermath, who have seen their careers abruptly cut short.

Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was relieved of his command of the Stennis strike group in the Mediterranean in late October.  Such a removal is unprecedented.  The Navy denies that the removal was in regard to Benghazi, and indeed the Stennis was in the Pacific on 9/11/12.   However the Navy has issued a fairly cryptic statement that the removal was for “inappropriate leadership judgment” during the deployment of the Stennis to the Middle East and has stressed that this does not involve any improper personal conduct by the Admiral.  All very mysterious.

The Combatant Commander of Africa Command  on 9/11/12, General Carter F. Ham abruptly retired on October 18.  Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz reported that in an interview he had with General Ham in Libya that the General told him that in regard to the Benghazi attach he had never been asked to provide military assistance.  The internet is ablaze with rumors that General Ham attempted to send assistance to Benghazi during the attack and was told to stand down.  Thus far the General has remained mum.

In regard to General Petraeus there are many questions.  Allegedly the  affair came to light months ago when the FBI caught his alleged paramour attempting to access his e-mails.  One might be curious as to why the FBI was involved in this and the answer is quite simple.  The FBI and the CIA have been at war with each other since the creation of the CIA’s predecessor the OSS in World War II and routinely keep track of the higher-ups in each organization.  (Yeah, I know:  our tax dollars at work.)  Apparently the affair has been known for at least several months, and I find it hard to believe that both the CIA and the FBI did not know of the affair before Petraeus was onfirmed as CIA Director, the background checks for such a position being extremely comprehensive.  This all raises the question as to why the affair triggers a resignation now.  His wife Holly works for the White House and unless she was in the dark on the affair, and considering how gossipy the military community tends to be I find that hard to believe, presumably the affair was known at the White House.

Petraeus is up to his arm pits in Benghazi, having denied that it was the CIA that failed to provide military assistance to the two brave Seals, Ty Woods and Greg Doherty, who died heroically leading the defense at Benghazi.  Now that he is retired, his deputy Mike Morell will testify next week.  Eventually I assume Petraeus will also testify, he has indicated post resignation that he is eager to testify, but now the story in much of the Mainstream Media will be pertaining to his affair rather than to his testimony.

Continue reading...

23 Responses to An Admiral and Two Generals

  • Maybe enough of this will come to light that not even the Democrats in the Senate will be able to ignore it. One may hope.

  • I think it will eventually. Too many people know pieces of the story regarding Benghazi for a coverup to succeed longterm, although it did get Obama through election day with the help of the lapdog Mainstream Media.

  • Oh, all of it will come out, but nothing will harm Obumbler. Nothing Clinton did ever hurt him. Democrats have a license to lie, cheat and steal.

    There are other rumors and reports around saying that Obumbler wants to sign on to a UN treaty that effectively bans private ownership of guns. Any treaty must be ratified by a 2/3 Senate vote. Let him try it.

  • Morning’s copy book is all over the ‘extra-marital’ affair for its good readers. Gen. Ham was inside small print. I don’t actually read it, and would cancel if my mother didn’t, so I missed the Admiral story.

    Transparency has a new dimension. It is obvious that these men are not convenient for the Benghazi hearing on the terrorist attack of 9/11/12 so out with them, no – wait, I mean, ‘how can this immorality be allowed in such a moral government’ and ‘we need people who work the way we work for the … country’. Transparency is in the eye of the beholder now.

    The words ‘affair’ and ‘extra-marital’ are good to deflect those who may wonder, with the added bonus of good posture for those who cheat, lie, and steal.

    Imagine the laughing that goes along with this plan or someone saying, that’s the ticket – an affair!. The copy book writers seem more mindless than ever.

  • Penguins Fan,

    Snopes provides information which disagrees with what you wrote about the UN Small Arms Treaty, resolutions on which you can find here:

    http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/

    Snopes specifically states:

    The Arms Trade Treaty has nothing to do with restricting the legal sale or ownership of guns within the United States. The aim of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is to combat the illicit international trade of arms by “tightening regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons” in order to “close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.” The text of the proposed treaty specifically “reaffirms the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems,” so even if such a treaty came to pass, U.S. rights and laws regarding the sale and ownership of small arms would still apply within the United States.
    No such treaty could “bypass the normal legislative process in Congress,” as all treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding.
    The President of the United States cannot enact a “complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations.” The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

    Please read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp#BKvhTE3UaFA2sjyz.99 

    I myself own a mini-14 rifle. I bought it after Obama’s first election. I had never wanted to own a firearm, but with the rise of “National Democracy”, I thought I should take advantage of my Second Amendment right. I have used the rifle only once or twice at a firing range. Perhaps when my left leg heals from my recent quadriceps detachment accident I will be able to use it in hunting deer, but that won’t be till next year. Outside of the shooting range and hunting, I hope for no use of the rifle (well, I will teach my children how to care for, handle and shoot the rifle, but that will be at the firing range). I truly do not see how the UN can outlaw such ownership and peaceful use of firearms. Private ownership of fully automatic weapons and sensible regulation of revolvers and other small handguns are a different matter. Let’s keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and in the hands of honest citizens.

  • i never used to think of myself as suspicious, but I changing I guess. I have read that an Illinois politician who Obama needed out of the way was suddenly discovered to have had an illicit affair and O then won that election handily.. that this kind of thing has occurred more than once.

  • That was two politicians Anzlyne: Blair Hull in the Democrat primary for the Senate nomination in 2004, who was expected to win, was effectively knocked out of the race by the Chicago Tribune, at the behest of the Obama campaign, getting his divorce records unsealed. The same exact slimy tactic was then used against his Republican opponent Jack Ryan, who had been married to Jeri Ryan, the Borg Babe on Star Trek Voyager. Ryan dropped out as a result and was replaced by Allan Keyes, who I voted for, and who even I was convinced was crazy by the end of the Senate race. Keyes got 30%.

  • Don, there is nothing “alleged” about it, the general admitted to it. My theory is Petraeus quit to avoid falling on his sword for the so-called intelligence failures of the spooks. Same thing happened with Dubya when he blamed “faulty” intelligence by the CIA on Iraq nukes, which gave him cover when no WMD’s were found. Remember, the CIA has always been the President’s “private army.” Whenever something goes wrong, as it did in Benghazi, it’s not the general who gets the blame but the grunts.

  • There is much that remains “alleged” about it including the identity of the person he had the affair with. Until she confirms it I will keep the “alleged” firmly in place.

  • I look forward to other administration officials who have been involved in affairs to be resigning soon.

  • good one Phillip

  • “I look forward to other administration officials who have been involved in affairs to be resigning soon.”

    The man who saved Obama’s hide in the last election, Bill Clinton, could probably direct the President to some of the female officials who have had affairs.

  • I doubt BIll Clinton will incriminate himself in revealing those women who had heterosexual affairs lest he be so implicated. 😉

    As for the rest who may not be heterosexually inclined and who engaged in affairs, such disclosure would be met with all approval and accolade for a “coming out of the closet” by both Administration and News Media alike. 😉

    Sexual promiscuity is accepted – even welcomed – except when it is a tool to be used to smear an otherwise impeccable record of honesty and attention to duty, hence the situation in which General Petraeus finds himself. Even if the confession of an extra-marital affair is correct, why is it not as forgiveable as the adultery that William Jefferson Clinton committed in the public light with Monica Lewinsky, and his subsequent lying about it to the entire nation? That is a rhetorical question and requires no answer.

  • Thought provoking isn’t it? this kind of thing would provide no leverage at all for O against the C’s should he want to get them out of play.

    Paul FirstTruth is right– nothing is really scandalous anymore unless the persons involved are Believers. For those whose lives are a scoff– it doesn’t matter.

  • “nothing is really scandalous anymore unless the persons involved are Believers. For those whose lives are a scoff”

    It’s only significant to the Left because they feel believers are conservative or at least Republicans and they can make political hay. I have heard several Dems brag about it quite openly with me. They said “our guys have no standards to meet unlike your guys. That’s a big advantage. It doesn’t matter what they do or how they lie.” I asked one, “If they are willing to lie to the public why wouldn’t they lie to you as well” Silence.

  • Anzlyne, you are correct. If a 30 year old priest is accused of a sexual relation with an 18 year old boy, it’s all over the News Media as priestly sex abuse and pedophilia. if a 30 year old actor actually does have a sexual relation with an 18 year old boy, it’s called consensual sex that we have to approve of in order to demonstrate our tolerance and kindness and Christian charity. I for one am disgusted and depressed and angry. Did General Petraeus screw up? Possibly, but unlike William Jefferson Clinton, he did the manly thing and confessed in contrition, something no godless depraved Democrat is capable of doing. Ok, no more ranting. Let’s pray for General Petraeus:

    Hail Mary, full of grace
    The Lord is with thee.
    Blessed art thou among women
    And blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.
    Holy Mary, Mother of God,
    Pray for us sinners
    Now and at the hour of our death.

    Lord Jesus,
    Please remember General Petraeus
    And be with him in his hour of need.
    Please be merciful and forgive the contrite heart,
    And bring to justice the real evil doers.
    Amen!

  • Strangely, at this time there are more details out there about Petreus and his alleged mistress than there were about Benghazi at a similar point.

  • “Strangely, at this time there are more details out there about Petreus and his alleged mistress than there were about Benghazi at a similar point.”

  • Pingback: SUNDAY MORNING GOD & CAESAR EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • The MSM is unlikely to present a coherent pcture until it doesn’t matter or at least until after others have forced their hand. We saw this in the aftermath of Vietnam and the Cold War. Fellows who for all practical purposes were either on the other side or indifferent developed all manner of scruples that led them to denounce Communism, and proclaim the virtues of the free market with religious freedom for all. When in the name of these same values Messrs Regnery, Encounter and the Hoover Institute among others published accounts of life under communism and drew attention to the actvities of their supporters and fellow-travellersin the West , they were dismissed according the prevailing fashion as CIA think-tanks, antisemites or imperialists. It appears that we are now in a repeat of the Pravda years, where those would like to be informed have to flter and piece together factoids from RT, AlJazeera and the fringe press.

  • Maybe enough of this will come to light that not even the Democrats in the Senate will be able to ignore it. One may hope.
    Paul W. Primavera

    Hope really hard. Senate Democrats enjoy tremendous powers of ignorance.