Faute de Mieux


"Polls have opened across the east coast of the United States as millions of Americans go to the polls to choose between Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, or a third party outsider. 

As voting began in the early hours of Tuesday morning in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton's lead in the polls solidified, with the RCP poll average showing the Democrat nominee up three points.

The village of Dixville Notch, which has just eight voters, became the first in the nation to declare. Shortly after midnight local time, Mrs Clinton won the village with four votes. Donald Trump received two votes, with another going to Gary Johnson, the Libertarian. One voter chose to forgo the candidates on offer and cast a vote for Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP candidate. 

The final, frenzied hours of campaigning on Monday saw stars galore and mad dashes to key swing states – including, notably, Michigan, which Democrats have conceded they might lose.

"Hopefully it's relatively calm. Hopefully it doesn't blow up. But this hasn't been a regular election year," said Wendy Weiser, head of the democracy program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU's Law School."  The Telegraph


It looks to me that Hillary Clinton will be president, faute de mieux.

This presidency will be marked by a continuation and intensification of an aggressive US foreign policy driven by neocon and Zionist interests and the apparently genetic impulse of the US Navy to dominate the Pacific Ocean area.  This means that the US is likely to re-engage massively in the Middle East to resolve the wars in Syria and Iraq to Clinton's taste.  This re-engagement will lead to the re-introduction of conventional US ground forces to the region if Clinton experiences frustration of her expectation of the hegemony of her instrument for discipline of the world.  That instrument is, of course, the US and its armed forces.  The advisers, trainers, pilots, logistics people presently committed to the anti-IS and anti-Syrian government fights are obviously insufficient to bring the results that she wants.  She will not accept failure of her dreams  for a new kind of world community.  All of that means that US soldiers will start bleeding again in large numbers.

Domestically she will attempt to drive the country to the left in its social mores while simultaneously feeding the beast on Wall Street.  People in the rentier/investor class like me will make money.

Control of the Senate of the United States will be crucial and momentous in the Clinton II years.  If she has it, she will sculpt a  federal judiciary that will enforce her will.  If she does not have control of the senate, she faces the prospect of impeachment and conviction by a Republican controlled House of Representatives and Senate.  They will want her blood and she would be lucky in that circumstance to reach the end of her term.



This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

122 Responses to Faute de Mieux

  1. Hood Canal Gardner says:

    PL Is it really that bad?

  2. BillWade says:

    The 3 early voting New Hampshire towns picked Trump at 32 to 25. Dixville Notch did go to Clinton. I’ll be voting in an hour or so, supposed to be a light crowd as 6 million Floridians voted early.

  3. T G Holland says:

    It seems to me that the importance of Vietnam is that it was the Army’s second beachhead on the Asian mainland. Yes, the Navy held Hawaii but the Army owned the theater.

  4. bks says:

    We made it through eight years of W. Can’t be worse than that.

  5. Paul Escobar says:

    To all,
    Little quibble with the article.
    New Hampshire midnight voting (Dixville Notch, Harts, Millsfield)
    Trump 32
    Clinton 25
    Obama 28
    Romney 14
    Hope he wins,

  6. ked says:

    Hilliary is rational and smart.
    She will not excercise warfare as the main FP & Nat Sec policy tool, but will focus on diplomacy, especially face-to-face negotiations (her actual strength). This is because warfare has proven inadequate for achieving success, wastes a great deal of precious treasury (better spent on domestic initiatives), and diplomacy is a field where she’s least stymied by Congressional gridlock.
    “Leftist social mores” is a construct that is practically meaningless in terms of specific policymaking. Centrist presidents just don’t lead the value system any longer (if they ever did). In any case, the GOP Congress will freeze legislation (of any sort) because they find hate for her to be their only unifying theme and means to manipulate the base of the party. State level initiatives will reveal our polity’s social mores, not DC (should make states rights enthusiasts happy, but they are rarely happy). Congress will be so dysfunctional (even by current standards) that it will become completely irrelevant. The public will support her need to employ emergency powers over a budget crisis to keep the gov whole, & the House may impeach, but it will fail in the Senate and no one will care. It will be a period later known as “the Shame of the Congress”. She cannot sculpt the judiciary, the turnover is too slow and if it’s self-centered borg behavior you like as a template, it is as strong in the judicial hive as the intel or anywhere else. {btw, people like you, Wall St & me always make $… while prez’s come & go… little changes on that score, except scale & style.}
    Her real challenge will be to turn to long-term domestic conditions crying for attention, that in doing so would do great service for the working class … industrial policy (including technology & health) and infrastructure maintenance and modernization programs. In doing so, she will be hammered for using executive power – a self-fulfilling prophecy that GOP strategists will think so clever. Now, I’m off to cast my pointless ballot in my one-party state, out of habit if nothing else. When do the bars open?

  7. Lemur says:

    I wonder if old socialists like George Bernard Shaw could envisage a left wing oligarchy?

  8. turcopolier says:

    TG Holland
    CINCPAC is always an admiral. During the VN War, USMACV was a subordinate unified command under CINCPAC. pl

  9. rjj says:

    how did those NH communities vote in the primaries? anybody remember?
    booths are full here at 9AM.

  10. turcopolier says:

    IMO you are mistaken about all of that especially the smart and rational part. I was always the smartest kid in the class and I recognize the limitations of such a qualification especially when people are intent on kissing your butt. Rational? “Ah, but I can summon spirits from the vasty deep.” pl

  11. Hood Canal Gardner says:

    This bad:
    Building/maintaining a fence around a rotting house/unpruned orchard says something about the owners. As for national health security (read pandemic) it is far too central to national defense to be left to the vagaries of domestic and international employer bookkeeping.

  12. Col. Lang – a terminology question – you write “aggressive US foreign policy driven by neocon and Zionist interests”. At his Vineyard, “The Saker” uses the word “AngloZionists”:
    I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

  13. rjj says:

    “Ah, but I can summon spirits from the vasty deep.”
    GODDAMN! I got labeled with that a few days ago. In my case you clearly do not appreciate that there is method in’t. The universe is mysterious. Moms can sometimes modify an undesirable outcome by actively anticipating the worst (worry juju) Tried to explain to a pilot with a reason fetish how passengers gripping the armrests in an airplane help keep a gazillion pounds of metal alloy airborne. It was futile.

  14. kooshy says:

    So far, our country’s experience of her and her advisors is contrary to what you say (hope). But IMO the worst with them is, that they are in their element with the corruption.

  15. kooshy says:

    If I were Trump i would check everyone of those mail in voters.

  16. ked says:

    Well, I admit I’m a relativist and kinda hopeful that reason and intelligence is good and might even prevail. But ya got me on the point that rationalism and smarts does not assure anything – except occasionally a worthy competition of ideas and actions. I can make the counter-argument too, that she will quickly tire of the power that turns out empty once she has reached the apex. That would be sad, maybe even dangerous, yet lead to an implosion of the Dem party as we are witnessing in the GOP… So there’s always that to hope for.
    I look forward to your post mortem on the GOP, & whatever nativism, right wing extremism will be branding itself as going fwd.

  17. Tyler says:

    I think you will be surprised.

  18. Swampy says:

    The Local polling place (neighborhood H.S) was barren this morning, which is a surprise because last election it was packed at 8:00 a.m. However, the spot by my work has what looks to be a 2 hour wait.
    Lots of Women sporting the Hillary “Hospital” shirt, though with plenty of talk about how anxious they’ve been. Overheard everything from Lack of sleep, Tums abuse and excessive baking and cooking.

  19. rjj says:

    forgot to quote: previous post refers to “Ah, but I can summon spirits from the vasty deep.” pl
    come to think of it, by way of Owain Glyndŵr – HRC has two welsh grandparents which may go a long way to explain her approach to IT and security.

  20. Eliot says:

    “Hilliary is rational and smart.”
    Intelligence is not wisdom.
    The group think in Washington can also be quite pernicious, leading otherwise sensible people to believe some very strange things.
    – Eliot

  21. Joe100 says:

    Ked –
    I have been dealing with the D “deep state” in my work back through the Clinton administrations. Given that I have seen very little rational thinking in this crowd over that period, I can’t imagine where then rational ideas would come from (certainly not from CAP in my work area). My colleagues have been working with one of her key policy advisors to develop recommendations for her transition team and it appears that more “kool aid” thinking will prevail if HRC is elected.

  22. Phodges says:

    Who do think he worked for?

  23. Babak Makkinejad says:

    …”but will focus on diplomacy, especially face-to-face negotiations (her actual strength). ”
    That is a joke, right?
    You are being ironic?

  24. Sam Peralta says:

    Hilliary is rational and smart.” And a leopard can change its spots.
    She will not excercise warfare as the main FP & Nat Sec policy tool, but will focus on diplomacy..“. Tell that to the people of Libya and Syria and Ukraine. And Gaddafi who was brutally raped and killed while she cackled about it. And the people of Iraq and the Balkans. Is there a war or military intervention she has opposed since she got to DC?

  25. Tyler says:

    My podunk polling place had 70 people last election. It broke that record by 8am this morning.

  26. BillWade says:

    Am glad I waited till election day to vote here in Florida, no line at all, they all voted Sunday apparently.

  27. J says:

    The dangerous game is how the Russians would read the moves of an HC quagmire, and how their reactions would be. Russia is in defense mode, counter-moving with each NATO errant. Russia is cranking out training after training that I’ve been observing by their Ministry of Defense. The kids are sharp, and getting sharper. HC’s NEOCON/ZIOCON nitwits have no idea what real war is, and the Russians do as every generation since their fight against the Nazis to know and understand the devastation pain and suffering that war causes and the brave sacrifices of those of that generation who made their sacrifices so that the modern generation would even exist.
    I burn every time I see the Hitler Nazi Swastika emblazoned on the Ukrainian nitwits helmets. Our fathers generation fought those Nazi bastards so we could exist today. And sadly that history isn’t being taught to our young in today’s U.S. education system. So today’s young U.S. generations would understand that war is not a computer game, its a struggle of life and death, blood, carnage, pain, and suffering.

  28. LeaNder says:

    I didn’t want to go into this:
    I can make the counter-argument too, that she will quickly tire of the power that turns out empty once she has reached the apex.
    Pretty rational, indeed. Isn’t it? The apex of “power”? The Apex being the presidency? Well we saw how well that worked under Obama.
    Some here tried to explain it with Obama’s narcissism.

  29. ex-PFC Chuck says:

    re: “Her real challenge will be to turn to long-term domestic conditions crying for attention, that in doing so would do great service for the working class . . ”
    The DC branch of the Democratic Party has turned its back on the working class, and the Clinton’s have led that change of direction. That’s why many people of the party’s former faithful have been attending Trump rallies and will be voting for him.

  30. georgeg says:

    Here in Kinnelon NJ, the turnout at 10:00 am seems higher than in previous Presidential elections. The “Trumpers” are vocal about their choice as they exited. I for one have never voted Republican, but am making an exception…..

  31. ToivoS says:

    Hillary is rational and smart? This was promoted by the Clinton machine in a big way going back to 2008. It is pure spin. Try reading her emails where she puts down her thoughts. Utterly pedestrian. Setting up those email servers? That was not rational. Hillary has some good political instincts but they are not driven by intelligence.

  32. Jack says:

    I agree that “This presidency will be marked by a continuation and intensification of an aggressive US foreign policy driven by neocon and Zionist interests..”. This is why I voted for Trump. IMO, her attempts to “scare” the Russians to walk away from their Syrian investment is going to be an epic failure as that will put us on an escalation ladder. At some point on that ladder she’ll have to back down or engage in a shooting match with the Russians. Her supporters don’t believe this as reflected in ked’s post. We can be certain that the Petraeus, Indyk, et al crowd of national security advisors will be whispering no consequences to belligerence to her. This will feed her natural hubris and warmongering. We know that her track record of decision making on national security matters is demonstrated poor judgment. Anyone expecting a change in her personality is deluded about human behavior.
    The GOP will be at war within itself as those wanting the support of Les Deplorables take a harder stance. There will be a significant number in the House that will be pissed with Ryan and the party establishment for their betrayal of the tens of millions of voters that would have voted for Trump. They’ll demand and get a war with the Borg Queen. While I think the House may impeach her I don’t believe the Senate will convict. The vitriol will be amped up even beyond what we saw during the election campaign.

  33. Abu Sinan says:

    The wife and I were at our polling station before 6.10am this morning. Early, thinking to best the crowds. We ended up having to wait 30 minutes to vote despite the line moving quickly. We are in Falls Church. Never have I been less excited about the choices as I was this election cycle.

  34. A.Pols says:

    Being “smart” doesn’t necessarily mean one is also rational.
    History is replete with examples.

  35. kao_hsien_chih says:

    In response to Ked, but also to everyone,
    I think the trouble with HRC and wonkish thinking in general is that they are predicated on relying on “facts and figures” (or, “logic and data” if you will) to show that they are right, not to evaluate where they might be wrong. This worldview is exactly the antithesis of “science”: it starts from the belief that your original worldview is the “correct” view, assembling data and interpreting them in a particular manner to fit that worldview, and dismissing data to the contrary as “irrational” dead-enders. “Science,” on the other hand, starts with the premise that “theories” are right only as long as the data is consistent with it, and contrary data indicate the limits of the theory, beyond which you should start taking the theory with increasingly larger grains of salt.
    We have been describing the wonkish thinking as “Kool Aid” already here on SST. I suspect this is a phenomenon spread far broader than just foreign policy. I’ve been defending “social sciences” against what I consider somewhat unfair characterizations thereof, but one widespread problem that I have to acknowledge is that a great deal of social science is indeed wonkism, rather than “science”: many take their “theories” too seriously and are too dismissive of the contrary data. While many are very “smart,” they are blinded by their preconceptions and are too narrow in their worldviews, a process furthered by their isolation from those who think differently from them, who have had different experiences. Policy wonks, liberals more often than conservatives but not always, of course, love social science theories and build their policy proposals around them, and exhibit the same attitude–worship the theory, love the data as long as they fit the theories, and treat data with contempt if they don’t. And this is the world that the likes of HRC inhabit.
    My inclination is that this trend should be best combatted with better “science,” rather than dismissing “science.” “Facts and figures,” carefully examined, show plenty of holes in the wonkish thinking. We who dissent need to be better at it, instead of conceding that the phoneys the claim to “science.”

  36. LeaNder says:

    how can we be surprised, considering the election will be rigged anyway?

  37. David Lentini says:

    Wasn’t that Fabianism?

  38. Stephanie says:

    We made it, but we still haven’t recovered. It will take some time before the detritus is fully cleared away. Eight years wasn’t nearly enough. At least Trump got rid of the Bushes – for now.

  39. David Lentini says:

    The “Deep State” is about ideology; these people are intellectual legends in their minds only. Their power derives from greed and corruption, from enlisting the financial support of those who want to own the world but not run it; it has nothing to do with rationality.
    Contrary to the Colonel, I’m still hoping Trump will pull this out to an extent that it can’t be stolen. I base my hope on the alternative reporting, as the MSM is completely in the Clinton camp. Granted that may be a thin reed, but I don’t see how anyone can take the “official” polling seriously. And if Trump wins, that’s only a chance to start to break the stranglehold of the oligarchs; it would only be the earliest beginning of the end, and will likely be very tense times. But Hillary will be a cataclysm.

  40. Dave Schuler says:

    “They will want her blood and she would be lucky in that circumstance to reach the end of her term.”
    If the Republicans retain control of both House and Senate she’ll be lucky to reach the beginning of her term.

  41. ked says:

    Got it. If the wonky kool-aid thinkers don’t get with the program (that which Bernie represented pretty well) it will merely speed the demise of the Dem party as constituted. So… no downside (other than the pain of making & surviving the shift… nothing worthwhile comes without at least some pain).
    I think part of the antidote to our current challenge is to reduce focus upon personality & celebrity in leadership, drop/kick ideology from our debates, and get into pragmatic solutions (uniquely American, like the blues). Kinda like we’ll have to anyway, when we reach the shape we’re headed.

  42. Dubhaltach says:

    In reply to ked 08 November 2016 at 09:33 AM
    “Hilliary is rational and smart.”
    She is rational in pursuit of her goals many of which are neither rational nor smart.
    “She will not excercise warfare as the main FP & Nat Sec policy tool”
    Given her record as an active and enthusiastic warmonger I can give that statement no credence whatsoever.

  43. robt willmann says:

    It seems that as of today, WikiLeaks has released 58,375 e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta. From what I can tell, not one e-mail is in there from Hillary to Podesta or vice versa using the private e-mail address she had while secretary of state, hdr22@clintonemail.com. Using an e-mail address she used (probably among others) after she left the sec. of state’s office, hrod17@clintonemail.com, there are only 138 e-mails in the Podesta bunch of 58,375 that involve that e-mail address.
    Was Podesta not communicating with her by e-mail when she was secretary of state? Did he switch e-mail accounts and/or user names after she left the state dept. on 1 February 2013?

  44. Old Microbiologist says:

    I don’t know. The markets are a somewhat valid predictor and it is all over the place. Peso daon then up and I suspect it will go this way all day and rise/fall with each revolution of voter trends by our “oh so honest” news. Personally, we went 100% cash yesterday in case Trump wins taking some hits doing so but after 2008 I have learned caution.
    I would prefer Trump to her and I had thought all along she had a lock on either by hook or by cook. But, the hackers seems to be working on both sides so maybe the cheating will average out. This is clearly the nuttiest election for a very long time. For Americans like us who live overseas and all our pensions are from the US government, she is clearly the better choice as she will keep the dollar high through applied force to our allies. She will also keep the printing presses running to keep the sick, lame, and lazy fed. The military will have a definite increased OPTEMPO and possibly fighting on three continents, and possibly 4.
    Personally, I am hoping Trum wins just so I can determine if the Clintons and Obamas cut and run to Qatar. I think flight to the Middle East will be full for weeks if he wins. Alternatively, anyone critical of Clinton will be on a hit list should she win.

  45. Jay says:

    I voted Trump. However my crystal ball says, Clinton , Senate 50/50 House Dems up by 8. I hope I am dead wrong..

  46. Ken Macaulay says:

    What is smart & rational for Hillary Clinton?
    My take of a few of the most basic level smart & rational choices for her:
    To continue to increase the massive information gathering networks on every citizen & to aggressively pursue potential leakers, investigators, & dissidents with all the powers at her command. Hillary has an enormous number of skeletons in the closet and has alienated atleast half the country, stating quite openly that she doesn’t regard them as human.
    To continue to intensify the politicization of all investigatory & legal bodies – she needs to avoid impeachment & criminal prosecution.
    To continue to intensify the support of wall street & the bankers at the expense of all else. While they ended up supporting Obama over her in her last attempt, this time they are firmly in her corner and wield the most weight over how power is organised in the US (as in much of the rest of the world, but that is unlikely to matter to Hillary).
    To continue to increase aggressive military action. Her aggressive military rhetoric & support for the most extreme positions have made her the star among the billionaire think tanks that run so much of US policy these days.
    There are no consequences to these actions in her world – as consequences for the elite these days only happen to those who lose the power struggle against other elite factions. She must ensure this does not happen at all costs.

  47. jonst says:

    says you. It can always “be worse”, and often is.

  48. jonst says:

    “Hillary is rational and smart”. I would tweak that a bit. ‘Hillary is rational and shrewd”.

  49. different clue says:

    Yes, yes it can.
    Obama deepened and permanentized the Cheney/bush legacy, and if Clinton gets elected, she will build further upon Obama’s numerous decomplishments.

  50. different clue says:

    Well, if Michigan goes to Trump, I can take one little voteful of pride in having helped that to happen.
    I hated to do it, but it had to be done.
    Trump . . . for Peace.
    Trump . . . for the sake of my brother.
    Trump . . . to stop the Clintons before they kill again.

  51. different clue says:

    Stephen Colbert taught us the difference between true and truthy, truth and truthiness.
    Is Clinton smart or merely smarty? Does she possess smartness or merely smartiness? If she is so smart, why has she learned nothing from the way Libya has turned out after toppling its Head Strongman In Charge? Why does she think Syria will turn out any different if Maximus Leaderus Assad is toppled? Where is the smartness?

  52. steve g says:

    Col Lang
    You may be correct on the final outcome
    but to use two quotes from one of America’s
    greatest philosophers, one Yogi Berra, number
    8 in your NYY program.
    “It ain’t over till it’s over”
    “It ain’t over till the fat lady sings.”
    Who the current fat lady-might be is another
    question as Kate Smith is long gone.

  53. turcopolier says:

    mistah charly Ph D.
    I rarely read his blog or any other. I don’t care what terminology he uses. This is on the same principle that I never read literature about anything I participated in. I do not wish to confuse what I remember. pl

  54. turcopolier says:

    I would be pleased to see the election in the House of Representatives. pl

  55. Dubhaltach says:

    In reply to jonst 08 November 2016 at 02:07 PM
    The OP described her as “smart” you are calling her “shrewd” well perhaps, but she puts me in mind of the description “cunning but stupid” to be found throughout the Middle East. Or if you prefer the Irish version “so sharp she’ll cut herself”. I don’t care if she cuts herself I do feel very sorry for all the people that have been cut, burnt, poisoned, and bombed because of her warmongering ways and all those who will be.

  56. Walrus says:

    At present, Wall Street share prices say Clinton will win.
    The outcome of a Clinton victory is, in the foreign policy environment going to be disastrous if, as expected, the think tanks have their way.
    Domestically equally disastrous for the majority if Wall Street has its way.
    But wait, there is more…..
    Both sides of politics will agree; “never again will we have a Trump!”.
    Both sides of politics will work together inside and outside the legislatures and party rooms to prevent a loose cannon from ever again getting a party nomination.
    Both sides will work together to criminalise whistle blowing, leaking and publication of their secrets a la Wikileaks.
    Both sides will work together to redefine the term “journalist” to reduce the volume and reach of uncontrolled media.
    Both sides will work together to prevent “non violent extremism” via an implementation of “Big Brother” (Orwellian) surveillance of thought, word and deed, deliberately designed to create a chilling effect on free speech and enforce compliance with the wishes of the government. The Chinese are already implementing such systems. Google and Facebook already seem to be offering themselves as a platforms and at least one Wikileaks email suggests mounting frustration with the American peoples annoying independence among the political class.
    My plea to SST members; please do not confuse the term “Liberal” or “leftist” with warm, touchy feely, memories of peaceful gentle hippies. University educated, cultured “Liberals ” killed 25% of the population, about three million people, in pursuit of harmony, gender equity, LGBTQ and other socialist wet dreams in Cambodia.
    To put that another way do not for one second think that academics or women cannot be worse tyrants then the average man.
    I am afraid that many are going to be surprised at the speed with which our doom overtakes us.
    God bless all of us.

  57. Frank says:

    I read your first sentence and laughed so hard I choked on my spit a little.

  58. Tel says:

    Yeah, I was just going to point out the same. Those totally unbiased Journalists put up a “Victory for Clinton” headline and right down the very bottom mumbled something about Trump actually having more votes when you add them up.
    That’s how it’s been all the way through with the news media… all in the tank for Clinton and not one of them willing to put forward an honest report.

  59. LondonBob says:

    Better start writing your President Trump article!

  60. Chris Chuba says:

    I think it is good to expose one’s self to different points of view.
    HRC and the foreign policy establishment are extremely cloistered and they reinforce each other’s set ideas. I’d reduce it to, X is a bully, you have to stand up to bullies, bullies will always back down (the Munich analogy). Now this group meets Putin who is not a bully but a patriot who cannot back down because he knows the next battle will be worse. This is now a perfect storm.
    I am hoping that this remains an academic exercise, that Trump will win the election, in which case I will thank HRC for her 20yrs of public service and look forward to seeing the good work she will be able to do as a full time leader of the Clinton Foundation.

  61. Eliot,
    The notions of ‘rational’ and ‘smart’ are rather more complicated than they look. If you simply do not know what you need to know to make the decisions you have to make, however ‘rational’ and ‘smart’ you are, you will make a mess of things.
    As it happens, Hillary Clinton is a quintessential embodiment of a pathology which characterises a very large proportion of contemporary American, and – I regret to say – British political élites.
    Their whole worldview is based upon readings of the arguments over ‘appeasement’, but they show no indication whatsoever of understanding what these were about.
    From a report in the ‘Washington Post’ in March 2014:
    ‘Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday compared Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Ukraine to actions taken by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler outside Germany in the run-up to World War II.
    ‘Making her first extensive comments about the crisis in Ukraine, Clinton said at a private fundraiser in California that Putin’s campaign to provide Russian passports to those with Russian connections living outside his country’s borders is reminiscent of Hitler’s protection of ethnic Germans outside Germany, according to a report published overnight.’
    (See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/03/05/hillary-clinton-says-putins-action-are-like-what-hitler-did-back-in-the-30s/ .)
    Ironically, the view that Hillary appears to attribute to Putin – that he is likely to want to reincorporate Russians in former Soviet republics which have broken away into a kind of ‘Greater Russian Reich’ – is the precise equivalent of that which many ‘appeasers’ attributed to Hitler.
    (I know something about this, because my late father was intimately involved in these arguments. While he became a very active opponent of ‘appeasement’, people he enormously liked and admired were on the other side of the debate. It is a world of civility almost unimaginable today – when people could think those with whom they disagreed were completely wrong, but still respect and like them.)
    To suggest that it was self-evidently stupid, at the time, to interpret Hitler’s intentions in this way so many of the ‘appeasers’ did is simply silly. It is critical to remember that some of the most significant supporters of Chamberlain’s approach – Lord Halifax and R.A. Butler in particular – were ‘old India hands’.
    These people were indeed ‘rational’ and ‘smart’ about the worlds which they knew well. For them, Churchill was first and foremost the man who had led the opposition to the ‘appeasement’ of nationalist forces in India embodied in the 1935 Government of India act.
    Quite correctly, in relation to India, they thought that Churchill’s enthusiasm for confrontation was likely to turn a difficult but manageable situation into a complete and utter shambles.
    Moreover, their view was shaped by a view common among genuinely ‘rational’ and ‘smart’ imperialists. All kinds of revolutionary agitators say silly things and write silly books. But when they actually have to confront the real choices involved in the exercise of power, very commonly, they as it were ‘simmer down’.
    Accordingly, the view of many ‘rational’ and ‘smart’ people ran something as follows.
    The agenda about which Hitler really cares – and here, the ‘Führer’ does indeed speak for the ‘Volk’ – is the reincorporation of ethnic Germans into a Greater German ‘Reich’: that is, precisely the agenda which Hillary appears to attribute to Putin.
    In the remarks quoted by the ‘Washington Post’, Hillary concedes that ‘there is no indication that Putin is as irrational as the instigator of World War II.’
    This really is ironic. Precisely the assumption that so many ‘appeasers’ made was that Hitler was not sufficiently ‘irrational’ deliberately to risk an all-out confrontation with the British Empire. However, many ‘rational’ and ‘smart’ supporters of ‘appeasement’ were all to well aware of at least some of the ‘irrational’ elements in Hitler.
    The ‘rational’ and ‘smart’ conclusion they drew was that, if the British resisted his aspirations to incorporate the Sudeten Germans into his Greater German ‘Reich’, they would be liable to end up with an uncontrollable process of escalation, leading to a re-run of the processes many of them believed had been responsible for the outbreak of war in August 1914.
    That war, for them – as it also was for my father, and still is for me – the ultimate disaster.
    So, many ‘rational’ and ‘smart’ people – including people like R.A. Butler, whose father and uncle had been governors of Indian provinces – drew conclusions which, crudely, might be summarised like this.
    It really is not worth the candle to fight to prevent ethnic Germans being reincorporated into a greater German Reich. If we do so, the likely result – a rerun of the 1914-18 – will complete the destruction of the social fabrics of European societies which the previous conflict largely accomplished.
    Of this destruction, the likely beneficiaries will be communists. (Oh yes, and many of those who thought the ‘appeasers’ were utterly wrong had, as it were, imbibed anti-communism at their father’s knee, as I did from mine, and he from his – they simply disagreed with the conclusions the ‘appeasers’ drew from their anti-communism.)
    A corollary of this is that people like myself have no difficulty understanding how the ‘appeasers’ read the situation. If the Soviets could successfully keep out of this rerun of 1914-18, they thought, they would be in a position to reverse the retreat of Russian power produced by the outcome of the First World War, and indeed extend that power even further than it had reached when the Empire of the Tsars attained its largest limits.
    In relation to the world beyond Europe, some of their thinking sometimes ran something like this: Although we know that in the longer term the European empires in what is now called the ‘Third World’ are unsustainable, their premature end will empower all kinds of problematic people – communists and radical nationalists – before they have had, as it were, a chance to ‘sober up’.
    And here, a lot of the errors that many of the ‘appeasers’ made were ones that ‘rational’ and ‘smart’ people could quite easily make. As a result, however, they not only radically misread Hitler – but also Stalin.
    Assuming that Hitler’s fundamental agenda was to bring ethnic Germans back into a greater German Reich, they concluded Nazism did not actually pose any kind of ‘existential threat’ to the Soviet Union, and it was unlikely that Stalin thought it did. Accordingly, they went on to conclude that Stalin’s professions of a ‘defensive’ agenda were disingenuous, and concealed his actual ‘offensive’ agenda: to precipitate precisely the kind of rerun of the First World War they so deeply feared.
    Ironically, contemporary American ‘neoconservatives’ tend largely to share the same ideological blinkers that made it impossible for the ‘appeasers’ to drew the simple conclusion that very many committed anti-communists, like my late father, drew: that the the only realistic way to ‘contain’ Hitler was to seek alliance with Stalin.
    As it happens, if you actually look at what Putin has said and done, it should be absolutely clear that he is not actually attempting to bring ethnic Russians back into a kind of Greater Russian ‘Reich’. As was the case with Stalin in the late ‘Thirties, his fundamental agendas are defensive and reactive. And Putin, whatever his faults, is quite patently not a mass killer like Stalin.
    Both the neoconservatives, and Hillary, have learnt all the wrong lessons from the history of Munich, which they completely fail to understand, and have no understanding at all of the lessons of Sarajevo.
    They are profoundly ignorant, and therefore profoundly dangerous.

  62. robt willmann says:

    Here is a brief video of Mark Crispin Miller, a “liberal” teacher at the New York University Steinhardt, talking about the issue of voting fraud in the U.S.–

  63. TV says:

    “Hillary is rational and smart”
    If you call her handling of the email mess “rational and smart” you’d better look up the definitions of these words.
    If anything, she showed herself to be a cypher mechanically climbing the ladder toward power and money – surrounded by equally dumb and self-absorbed sycophants.
    Read some of the emails written by the so-called “smartest guys in the room.”
    Not only is the “elite ruling class” massively corrupt, they’re not bright, just advantaged.
    I fear the future in the hands of this soulless, dishonest dummy.

  64. robt willmann says:

    Another question about the lack of Hillary e-mails in the big batch of John Podesta e-mails is whether WikiLeaks is doing some sanitizing and editing on itself.

  65. AK says:

    Please, dear God, can one of you Clinton cultists present me with hard, factual evidence for these assertions? I really want to believe that everything will be ok, but the merciless bitch that is reality keeps telling me otherwise…

  66. TV says:

    If Clinton wins and the Republicans hold the House and Senate, DO NOT count on them making her life difficult.
    For the last 6 years their incompetence and (unrequited) love of the lefty media has pretty much shown them to be weak and feckless idiots.
    The Republicans’ main gesture of opposition to Obama has been bending over.

  67. dc,
    Picking up on a response to a comment of mine you posted on an earlier thread.
    I am not sure my memory serves me right, but I think it may have been you who compared the current situation to what happened when when an ice flow breaks up – the currents and cross currents can send the fragments hurtling in all kinds of different and confused directions.
    Something I have found immensely frustrating is that good friends of ours, confronted by the phenomena alike of the upsurge in favour of ‘Brexit’ and Trump, have retreated into a kind of ‘frozen world’.
    If they said to me – ‘better the devil you know’ I could live with that and accept it.
    But time and again they do not. In the face of the – abundant – evidence of Hillary Clinton’s corruption, incompetence, and recklessness, they simply respond with denial, or idiotic excuses.
    And this is among the reasons why I think that, on this occasion, ‘better the devil you don’t know’ is a more relevant maxim.
    A nightmare for me has been the possibility that the break-up of familiar alignments will simply produce utterly toxic polarisations.
    But, this may not happen.
    It is not impossible that people coming from different and indeed deeply antagonistic starting points may find common ground.
    Rightly or wrong, it has seemed to me not only that Hillary really is far more likely than Trump to produce a major international catastrophe, but that a breaking out of toxic polarisations is far less likely if she wins.

  68. Castellio says:

    I have not seen her reflect upon or learn anything from anything…
    Other than how to get others to pay for influence, and learning to give others what they want when they pay.

  69. Mac says:

    Colonel and Committee,
    Thought on the day after if he wins the popular vote but she wins the anti-democratic EC?

  70. Augustin L says:

    Trumps talks about rigged elections and incites the wounded lumpen to unrest, but make no mistake his camp know exactly where they stand. Brad Parsdale’s Alamo big data team knows that if not for rigging they have already lost the election, his team ran all types of projections with various models and always came out on the loosing end. I quote Brad Parsdale’s the man running the command center: “we have three major voter suppression operations underway, aimed at white liberals, young women and African American voters.”. Again: ”the aim is to depress Clinton’s vote total, we know because we’ve modeled this out”. In other words, the only path to any competitive outcome is massive voter suppression. The GOP is also looking to purge millions of minority voters to keep the senate and deliver the white house to Trump, but current high voter turnout mirror numbers from 2008 when Barack Obama was elected in a landslide… Here’s another quote from the man leading Trump’s Alamo Team underligning they are only selling a product to the deplorables (Cambridge analytica’s data allows them to intimately know what deplorables want to hear) :” You have to find out what people want and then convince them why your product is the right one.” What financial firms own Cambridge Analytica ? I suspect they have another bunker with techies ready to hack into voter tabulation centers to outright change voting results in their favour. The pot calling the kettle black… http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-27/inside-the-trump-bunker-with-12-days-to-go
    Can U.S. elections be stolen ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxXKr2hKCz0&feature=youtu.be

  71. aleksandar says:

    ” Russia will never again fight on its own territory! ”
    Sergey Karaganov, a personal advisor to President Vladimir Putin

  72. Ex-PFC Chuck says:

    “Learned nothing but forgot nothing” comes to mind” Talleyrand, IIRC?

  73. FourthAndLong says:

    That issue was raised in this Rolling Stone piece which wonders if some fabrication may have been taking place:

  74. fasteddiez says:

    She has learned something that these US sponsored conflicts are not a bug, they’re a feature. The Neocons pushed for war in Iraq and Afghanistan through what the local people certainly thought that they were invaded. The Neocons have not paid any price for their deplorable agendas and execrable results, because they control the majority of the Stink Tanks. As I have said before on this blog, Israel wants failed states on their borders, and and the Arab world in general. Egypt and Jordan are non committal at the present time, but anything can happen. What the Izzies want, the Izzies get through their ownership of the movers and shakers in DC.

  75. ked says:

    I’m all for science!

  76. ked says:

    Cultist I ain’t, so I can’t help you with merciless bitch fixation.

  77. Fred says:

    At least continue to shame the devil.

  78. Kooshy says:

    IMO, the Borg will not accept and adopt an oporative who’ smart. Bold up front PR is not smart, smart people may take the side of the country and constituents, insted of the Borg’.

  79. Bobo says:

    No matter the outcome tonight it certainly looks like close to10 million more Americans voted today than four years ago. That is the best news this day will bring and I will leave it you to believe who or what is bringing them to the polls. Go America!!!

  80. Fred says:

    Trump’s victory/concession speech (It will work both ways).
    Coming out to the podium. Fist raised in the air. “My fellow Americans, we shall overcome!” He begins to a cheering crowd.
    Hilary, speech at midnight. She walks to the podium, a giant smile on her face, Quotes Pheidippides “Nenikikamen” followed quietly by the words of Brennus from her staff “ Vae victis”
    It will be a long four years. Just how much log rolling from the free to grind their axe media will we see? ABC is already calling states at 7:10 eastern time. What the hell is wrong,… ah, never mind, still “with her.”

  81. Mark Logan says:

    The only hope is this is not the same nation which Bush Jr. led to war. We have learned the hard way, and the lesson hasn’t yet been forgotten, although it surely will at some point. Her siccing of the Kagan’s on the Ukraine didn’t go real swift, and the Russian intervention in Syria ensued. I hear even Henry Kissinger was once an idealist. There is hope yet.
    Trump decried that intervention as the sort of thing that happens when “American is weak”. When asked to elaborate on his lack of hatred for Putin he said “He says good things about me so I say good things about him.” His convictions, whatever they may be, are mud-puddle shallow. Lack of better alternative, the case indeed.
    FWIW, as there is no danger of Trump winning my state I wrote in William Weld. He’s my favorite of the six on the three major tickets.

  82. kooshy says:

    Colonel sorry for the OT, but here is your everyday street Iraqi hero
    “ISIS snipers thwarted by Iraqi hero in bulletproof BMW, 70 saved”http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/8/isis-snipers-thwarted-by-iraqi-hero-in-bulletproof/

  83. wisedupearly says:

    there you go again
    “she will quickly tire of the power that turns out to be empty once she has reached the apex”
    why spout stuff that has no foundation?
    Ask yourself, is she a billionaire? She sees that she has a lot more to do, at the apex.

  84. I don’t support Hilary but neutral Princeton neuroscientist & molecular biologist Dr. Sam Wang who researches how human brains make decisions and voting statistics
    has the most accurate track record of correctly predicting elections in 2004, 2008, 2012 (even more accurate than FiveThirtyEight.com and RealClearPolitics.com )
    and he has been predicting since the summer a
    97% to 99% chance of a Hilary electoral win of
    304 to 324+ electoral votes
    based on state by state polls
    Empirical research has shown that
    October Surpruses cause only a 1% to 3% shift at the most
    He has been projecting a Dem/Independent majority of
    51 Dem/Independent majority
    49 Repubs
    His current projections for all Senate, House, and Presidential elections is below and proving correct once again

  85. Tyler says:

    Up by 132k in VA and 2% in Florida.
    Smart money says the panhandle is going Trump, so this is gonna be interesting.

  86. Jack says:

    As I watch the election results in Florida it is so clear we have a massive urban vs rural divide. These are two completely different world views and perceptions. There’s no chance that these two worlds can come together as they don’t even speak the same language. John Michael Greer captures this divide well in his post The Last Gasp of the American Dream that Walrus linked to. While I live in Democratville I’m aligned with Les Deplorables. I find more affinity with JD Vance’s people. If a civil war arrives it’s clear which side I’ll take. It’s not gonna be with the Davos crowd!

  87. steve g says:

    you can’t short on a down tick

  88. The Beaver says:

    Dow futures off as much as 400pts.
    The Kagans and their Neocon ilks must be peeved at this hour .

  89. Judging from the general tenor of your comments, I think you may have meant, in your last sentence, that if Clinton wins a breaking out of toxic polarisations is far MORE likely.
    Anti-establishment economist Michael Hudson argues that, from the point of view of minimizing chances of war, Trump is the better option.
    As I write this a bit before 10 pm Eastern time on election day the election result is still very much in doubt, and the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC are in a somber mood.

  90. I don’t support any neocon (nor Hilary, who’s neocon in action -I was hoping instead for Bernie Sanders) –I laugh at the “nail biter” horse race propaganda in the mainstream newsmedia because the sensationalistic artificial drama creates higher ratings & clicks for more advertising revenue …
    the real electoral votes are NOT even close
    the most accurate election forecaster based on 162+ polls is neuroscientist & molecular biologist Dr. Sam Wang of Princeton http://election.princeton.edu , who researches how the human brain makes decisions & voting patterns
    -he’s been the most correct predictor for all elections in 2004, 2008, 2012 -even more accurate than 2nd place http://www.FiveThirtyEight.com & http://www.RealClearPolitics.com
    Ever since the summer, his statistical predictions based on 162+ polls constantly updated has a
    Hilary win of 97%-99% of 304-324+ electoral votes vs. Trump’s 224+ electoral votes
    He also predicts a 73%+ chance of Senate Dems/Independents gaining a majority of 51 to 49 Repubs or 50 Dems/Indy’s vs 50 Repubs
    while the House remains under Repub majority
    This is because empirical research has shown that contrary to popular belief, ‘October Surprises’ only move the polls by 1% to 3% at the most .. and since Hilary is leading +6%+, it would still be a Hilary win
    Because Hilary has 262 ‘safe’ Blue states, she only needs to win Minnesota’s 10 electoral votes to guarantee a win .. and Minnesota has voted Blue for the past 3 presidential elections & is +6% Blue

  91. Tyler says:

    I told you all.
    Mike, I look forward to my salmon.
    GCP, you can paypal me the money.

  92. c says:

    Sen. Marco Rubio sailed to victory Tuesday night, knocking off Democratic challenger Patrick Murphy and in the process giving national Republicans a big victory. riding on the back of Trump

  93. crf says:

    Wonder if this congress will see the death of the filibuster.

  94. scott s. says:

    Well, this is the advantage of living in Hawaii. No problem waiting for results. As long as it isn’t a replay of 1960.

  95. Ooops, it seems all the pollsters have been wrong & underestimated Trump support, includng Princeton’s Dr. Wang & http://www.FiveThirtyEight.com so congrats to President Trump’s upset & working with Russia to get rid of ISIS & the theocratic Wahhabist jihadists
    On the bright side, No more neocon wars & no more regime-change is a good thing hopefully

  96. optimax says:

    Putin’s going to pull it off. Will the Borg find the missing ballots?

  97. Serge says:

    Tyler is owed a large sum from a certain someone, I believe. Just in time for christmas

  98. rjj says:

    omg. 2:34 am

  99. kao_hsien_chih says:

    Well, Trump has won, I think.
    There will be recriminations against pollsters and analysts, and many deservedly so, but was it the “data” and “polling” that was wrong or was it the interpretation? The first polling analysis that I had run, based on the polling data available in late September, projected Trump to win by about 1%, but with small majorities throughout the Midwest. I thought this projection was too weird, as did the folks that I was analyzing the data for, so I went back to the drawing board, identified what was, technically, a mistake, and redid the analyses that, depending on assumptions, showed 2-8% HRC lead in PV, but still showing reasonable chance that Trump would win EV by winning by small margins across many competitive states.
    In the end, I gave Trump about 30% chance of winning via EV, and I still think it’s a reasonable assessment: we still don’t know if Trump actually won–there may be recounts in several states, for all we know, and it may be weeks until we know whether Trump won, officially at least. Each of these narrow wins could have gone either way and it is not a sure thing that most of them will have gone to Trump (my original map misclassified Nevada and Colorado as prospective Trump states, by narrow margins. My later projection flipped several Midwestern states, again by narrow margins.) Still, I think it is pretty likely at this stage, that Trump will be the winner, and if he is, he deserves, no, he is entitled to both our congratulations and goodwill befitting his role as the president-elect, and later, as the president.
    PS. CNN is reporting that HRC has just conceded. Well, let us wish President-Elect Trump all the goodwill that he deserves. It is the only decent thing to do as Americans.

  100. kooshy says:

    Congratulation America and the rest of the world

  101. aleksandar says:

    So far
    Trump : 276
    Clinton : 218

  102. Harry says:

    Every time I lose faith in the common sense of ordinary American people I find that they correct my lack of faith. The DNC should have listened to their voters.

  103. Aka says:

    I’m beginning wonder whether msm also “improved” the HRC winning chances during those months worth predictions and surveys.

  104. ToivoS says:

    Well I was surprised. My congratulations to you Mr Tyler for seeing what was coming. I thought you were a deluded partisan but you were right.

  105. HawkOfMay says:

    Turns out you were correct Tyler.
    I was thinking about replying yesterday saying that I ‘think’ Hillary will win but I would not place any bets on the question.

  106. Charles Michael says:

    When you will read this Trump victory it will be already old news; but as the show is over and a new one also fascinating is about to start, I want to express my sympathy to all here who opposed the Clintons gang.
    With a speciak mension to the exhuberant Tyler, and many thanks for the ligth brougth by SSC.
    Incredible USA, amazing success against all odds of a very amateur, I wish you all the best.
    And may a reformed US politic pave the way again for this decrepit, spinless Europe.
    PS: this morning on Al Masdar News, they reported the deaths in Mossul of already 16 US soldiers, French one have been already reported in Irak and Libyia.

  107. johnf says:

    Craig Murray, the ex-British Ambassador sacked for revealing Britain’s role the use of torture, and whose blog played a small but useful part in Trump’s victory on social media:
    “Mainstream Media: Don’t Mention Wikileaks
    I have been six hours watching “experts” across mainstream channels analyse why their earlier statements were totally wrong. There has been not one single mention of #WikiLeaks – or of social media at all. The clapped out old journalistic hacks are in denial that their mechanisms of control are now irrelevant, and they as greasy cogs in those mechanisms are viewed with contempt. The contrast between the mainstream media political narrative and what people were saying on social media was absolutely stark. People got their information from #WikiLeaks.
    The Democrats chose the most Establishment candidate possible. Probably the only Democrat candidate who could have lost to Donald Trump was Hillary Clinton. Oh alright then, Weiner could have lost too, but that was about it. All those journalists who WikiLeaks showed contrived with Clinton and the DNC to cheat Sanders, may directly have caused President Trump. All those who contributed hundreds of millions to the Clintons and their “charity” Foundation to buy influence, look at this moment like they wasted their money.”

  108. John Minnerath says:

    The great mass of deplorable unwashed have spoken.
    The “Establishment” that felt it had a permanent mandate for running this country are going to have a real hard time dealing with this overwhelming defeat.

  109. Cee says:

    I’m not. I was one of those pitchfork voters but for different reasons than yours.
    We came. She’s gone. Cackle!
    I wonder if she’ll have to live in a toxic trailer like the ones the CF gave to poor Haitians after keeping $ raised for them.

  110. JJackson says:

    David and All
    Firstly thanks again for another considered, informative piece which is a pleasure to read.
    I think this bit nicely sums up the problem.
    “If you simply do not know what you need to know to make the decisions you have to make, however ‘rational’ and ‘smart’ you are, you will make a mess of things.”
    Inside the DC bubble the groupthink is so pervasive it has its own ‘reality’ which is somewhat removed from any approximation of an objective reality. As a consequence those swimming in this soup have little chance of making sage decisions given their foundations are based on false premises.
    Given Trump’s win it will be interesting to see what kind of bubble Trump will swim in and where he will draw his advice from. I doubt the normal Think-Tank, K street, Foggy bottom pool will really be a very good fit what I don’t understand is who outside of this have the needed contacts and experience to run his Government given the Executive branch’s limitations to effect change in an otherwise hostile political environment. I suspect the result is the best option for the rest of the planet but am not sure America is going to have an easy ride internally.

  111. mistah charly, Ph.D.
    You are of course, absolutely right – ‘she’ was a slip for ‘he’. I was just heading up for an early night when I wrote, in the expectation that the really interesting time would probably from the early morning (our time) onwards.
    It must have been just after you posted that we woke. It was just in time for the Ohio result. I felt a profound sense of relief beginning to creep over me. And now, however uncertain the future, I feel as though a dark cloud has lifted.
    The ending of a piece which Philip Giraldi posted yesterday, entitled ‘Oh, What a Lovely War!’, said what I think better that I could myself:
    ‘Part of the problem with Trump is that he has some very bad ideas mixed in with a few good ones and no one knows what he would actually do if he were president. Unfortunately, it is all too clear what Hillary would do.’
    (See http://www.unz.com/article/oh-what-a-lovely-war/ .)

  112. Harry says:

    That’s the last neuroscientist I listen to.

  113. Nancy K says:

    Tyler you were right and never wavered in your conviction. As you know I didn’t vote for him but I do accept the nation has spoken and he is our president. President Trump that will take some getting use to.

  114. irf520 says:

    We all dodged a bullet there. And judging by the margins of victory (around 1% in a few states) the bullet took some skin off the tip of my nose as it whistled past.

  115. Babak Makkinejad says:

    You did that last year, if memory serves.

  116. jld says:

    Is this an echo of the famous Churchill quote:
    “… after they tried everything else.”

  117. robt willmann says:

    On the issue of a “special counsel” or “special prosecutor”, the Attorney General can appoint an attorney from inside or outside of the Justice Department to handle a specific matter. The Independent Counsel law, which expired in 1999, authorized a panel of three federal judges to appoint an independent counsel, and they selected the person rather than the Attorney General, which removed the selection completely from the Justice Department, although the Attorney General requested the three-judge panel to act. However, now the Attorney General is the one who appoints the special counsel.
    Ironically, it was James Comey — when he was Deputy Attorney General (Number 2) in the Justice Department — who appointed Patrick Fitzgerald, who was the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, to handle the matter of the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s name as a CIA covert operator. Attorney General John Ashcroft had recused himself. Fitzgerald tried the case and got a conviction of Irving Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Jr., who was VP Dick Cheney’s chief of staff.
    Title 28, United States Code, section 515–
    “(a) The Attorney General or any other officer of the Department of Justice, or any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law, may, when specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct, whether or not he is a resident of the district in which the proceeding is brought.”
    Title 28, United States Code, section 543–
    “(a) The Attorney General may appoint attorneys to assist United States attorneys when the public interest so requires, including the appointment of qualified tribal prosecutors and other qualified attorneys to assist in prosecuting Federal offenses committed in Indian country.”
    Here is a discussion from 2013 of the issue of special counsels, variously named, by the Congressional Research Service (8 pages)–

Comments are closed.