Jon Favreau redeems himself.

Sorta.

https://twitter.com/jonfavs/status/755270989898878976

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/12/obama-favreau.html

Trump: Best Humble-brag Ever

From tonight's 60 Minutes interview:

Lesley Stahl: You're not known to be a humble man. But I wonder--

Donald Trump: I think I am, actually humble. I think I'm much more humble than you would understand.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-trump-pence-republican-ticket/

Baton Rouge : Three Police Officers Dead in an Attack

Multiple officers shot, 2 dead.
Hospitals are on lock down.
The situation is ongoing, but contained.

What Comey and the media wrought

Today Bob Somerby, liberal watchdog of the liberal media, is beginning a week long analysis of James Comey's statements on the Clinton email investigation, the press coverage, and the framing of the narrative by the media going forward.

I was outraged last week by the liberties that Comey took with protocol and procedure simply because he had a subject named Clinton. I was equally outraged by the media's complicity.

After Comey's testimony to Congress last week, it was clear that he had framed his statement to be as damaging as possible. The FBI stickler-for-detail had no problem conflating "contained information they should have known was classified" with "marked classified". Comey was found to be mistaken about the markings on the three classified emails that he did manage to find among more than 30,000. (This mistake has engendered hope of a Perjury Fairy by some on the right.) And of course, rather than testify that there was no evidence that the system was hacked, he very helpfully opined that there was no evidence that it hadn't been.

The very accommodating liberal punditry, journalists, and MSM news outlets did nothing to correct the record, call Comey's "findings" concerning carelessness into question, or report on the possible political motives Comey had for the very special and unusual treatment that was given the candidate named Clinton.

The very same media that gleefully refuted Clinton's claim that the investigation was a "security review" by reporting that Comey had stated that "security review" was not an FBI term, never asked the director if "extreme carelessness" is a typical term in the FBI lexicon. Comey couldn't define it during his testimony, but he had no problem using it to damning effect concerning Clinton.

Democrats need to take back the narrative. Comey, who has a history of being involved in politically motivated anti-Clinton investigations, engaged in an unprecedented abuse of power and position last week with one goal in mind: to damage the Democratic candidate. We need to be more vocal, and we can begin by demanding that the press do its job.

http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2016/07/comey-watch-acolytes-honor-comey-god.html
http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2016/07/yesteryear-watch-predecessor-to-comey.html
http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2016/07/con-man-watch-comey-god-and-ad-for-trump.html

Congressman John Mica just crossed the line.

His insinuations of corruption on the part of Comey were unmistakable and disgusting.

H.A. Goodman is an Unapologetic Propagandist

There is a difference between a diehard supporter and a ruthless propagandist.

"The endgame is, obviously, the slow Fox News-ification of the left. Due to the efforts of Goodman and others, the progressive movement is rapidly losing its credibility and, at the very least, is stripped of its high-road posture."

http://thedailybanter.com/2016/07/ha-goodman-is-an-unapologetic-propagandist/

You're equivocating.

An administrative sanction is not a criminal prosecution.

Has the FBI ever publicly scolded a candidate or former government official before?

Does the FBI have a history of doing this?
If not, what entitles James Comey to do it today?

Unprecedented! Democratic presidential candidate interviewed by the FBI

Reaching out

I was a Clinton supporter in 2008. I remember my disappointment at the outcome of the primary and my anger at the process. (Entire states that favored Clinton were disenfranchised because they had broken scheduling rules.) However, most Clinton supporters rose above their raw emotions and cast their ballots for the Democratic nominee. For many it hurt to cast that vote, but it was the right thing to do.

It worries me that some of the Sanders partisans have taken the "Sanders or nobody" position. At that point, it becomes a cult of personality. In my opinion, when it's all about one particular person (rather than an agenda or a platform), we're in a danger zone.

I was a young mother when Reagan was elected and destroyed the middle class. My husband is a lucky 9/11 survivor who made it out of the towers alive despite G.W. Bush's willful ignorance of intelligence warning of an attack.

I know how dangerous a dangerous president can be.

Vote for the Democrat, vote Green, or write in Sanders's name if your state has that option. Any one of these choices would be "doing the right thing".

But please don't weaponize your vote by casting it for Trump. That is an indulgence that the country can ill afford.