All right, since disclaimers here are most necessary, I will make them. I believe that I have repeatedly made it clear that I am not in Trump’s corner, and am not going to vote for him. If Hillary is elected, America will have successfully avoided stepping in the dog poo. If Trump is elected, America will have successfully avoided stepping in the cow pie. We are merely talking about the about the bottom of the shoe versus the whole boot. Humanly speaking, we don’t have good options, and we should all know it.
But here is the problem. Consider Trump’s ongoing claim that the system is “rigged,” and his failure last night to commit to abide by the election results. That all depends, sez he. The response of the buttoned-up right to this attitude is the spectacle of quite a number of analysts with their dresses over their heads. And this reveals that they still don’t have a clue as to why Trump’s message is resonating with as many people as it has.
Now I am trying to explain something here, which is not the same thing as trying to plump, push, puff, or otherwise promote it.
There are two elements to this. The first has to do with why his message resonates. Think about it. Why would the message the system is rigged against me resonate? With whom will it resonate? It will deeply appeal to people who feel exactly the same way. The system is rigged against me is a set of words that more than one person can say, and if one person says it on behalf of others, he might at some point find himself the most implausible presidential candidate ever. And whether or not Trump himself has any right to feel that way—more about that in a moment—there are multitudes of workers who have some justification they can point to. I am talking about coal miners, loggers, factory workers, and so on. You know, the denizens of fly-over country.
The second element has to do with whether or not there is anything to Trump’s claim. Now there is a type of “let’s keep everything stable” conservatism that instinctively recognizes not only that every election is an election between candidates, but is also a referendum on the system itself. A stable and blessed society enjoys orderly transitions of government, and calling foul on the electoral process itself is therefore a big deal. So is not surprising that a bunch of people are trying to hush Trump on this point because they don’t want people to lose faith in the system. But—news flash—the only reason why someone like Trump is where he is now is that a whole bunch of people already lost faith in the system.
And so, were they right to lose faith in the system? Let me think about it. The whole country is downwind of the Clinton corruptions, and the ruling elites are all pretending that we don’t have noses. Those people have a string of dead bodies in their wake. And the FBI did not recommend indictment for Hillary. Not only did they not recommend indictment, they also—in an attempt to keep a semblance of their dignity—publicly outlined all the reasons why an indictment would have been appropriate. On top of that, they conducted the investigation in unheard of ways—letting computers be smashed after the fact, allowing aides who had been given immunity to sit in on Hillary’s questioning, etc. And sting videos were just released showing leftist operatives inciting violence at Trump rallies, one of whom has visited the Obama White House hundreds of times. Has an official investigation on that been opened on that? Ha. But it is not running in one direction only. After the DNC had their emails hacked (the hack that led to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz), the blame for it fell on Russia. Of course it did. But according to one whistle blower at the NSA, that hack was domestic and came from within our intelligence community. If so, then domestic spying is being put to political purposes. Anybody want to maintain that something like that is impossible? And has anybody gone to jail yet over the political use of the IRS to target conservative groups? Ah. Thought not. Are you serious? Of course the system is corrupt. Of course it is rigged.
It is not rigged as transparently and as stupidly as, say, North Korean elections are. Our corruptions are decentralized and a little bit gaudier. There is also quite a bit of free-lancing. We have an accumulated heritage of liberty that we are still involved in squandering, which means we still have some liberty left here and there. But the evidences of our widespread and massive corruptions are manifest. I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night.
Let me go back to the point about the string of dead bodies. America is the most powerful country in the world. It is one of the great empires of world history. Anybody who thinks that political power struggles in such a place would have to be white glove affairs is a person who really needs to read a book sometime. Of course there are murders. Of course there is voter fraud. Of course officials are pressured to lie to investigators. Of course there are threats.
And the hair trigger defensiveness of people outraged by Trump’s comments is probably the most telling thing about all this you could imagine.
If you believe the system is comparatively honest, but that all the scoundrels running the house are corrupt, ask yourself how that could possibly happen. No, it doesn’t work that way. Honest systems are built and maintained by honest people. Tell me the truth. Are those the people governing us right now? Are we being ruled by honest and conscientious rulers? Or are we being governed by people who believe that no lie is too brazen to tell?
Another reason @realDonaldTrump answered “suspense”
DJT: Yes, I will accept the outcome no matter what.
HRC: Ah’ight boys! Open Season just started!
Of interest? There’s something familiar about it.
Adam Smith said there is a great deal of ruin in a nation. It looks like we’re going to find out just how much.
Thank you for sharing this Rob. I especially appreciated Joe Rigney’s quote of Alexander Solzhenitzen, who said, “Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.” These are wise words well said, and my sentiments exactly.
Boy, Alex sure got one thing right: Regarding atheism, Solzhenitsyn declared: “Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by… Read more »
If the system is not rigged why is the media alway on the side of Hillary Clinton?
Because that’s who they are. It doesn’t require rigging to get a dog to eat bacon.
…or cows to make “pies”.
(Just to stick with the original metaphor.)
????
They aren’t. In 2008 they definitely weren’t. They are now because Trump.
Yeah, that reminds me of Rubio saying that we shouldn’t talk about Wikileaks… That kinda naïvate I didn’t expect to see from him.
Haha he knows there’s stuff on his emails that would ruin him.
Possibly, wouldn’t expect him though. But here’s the real issue. Right now he’s a useful assassin who styles himself a Paladin. What is to be done under another administration? Being an assassin is to look over your shoulder the rest of your life.
Well said. Well said, indeed!
The news of Hillary’s bus dumping sewage directly into a storm drain is perhaps the most accurate metaphor ever to occur in the history of the planet.
It’s as if America prayed, “LORD, give us a sign!”
And, brushing subtlety aside as if it were a mountain being cast into the sea, He did.
The metaphor aligns nicely with HRC’s ability to draw flies!
As seen at the second debate.
????
You’re good with your metaphors… Collect them and put it on Amazon. :) Good for retirement.
Except where to dump a tank is completely up to the driver. Not to blow the genius metaphor with a relevant detail or anything.
Actually, Rand, the metaphor remains accurate as somehow, even though several hundred gallons of human waste were dumped illegally out of a bus with Hillary’s name on it, she is somehow miraculously blameless while the whole stinking mess flows to the sea.
Well, Mrs. Clinton likely does not own the bus company. It is up to he mgmt to enforce rules about drivers dumping tanks. I actually know this from first hand experience working with bus companies. But of course continue if the metaphor is exciting to you. In any case, she will win the election over the the buffoonish Trump who has proven himself unfit, unlearned, unstable and downright moronic at just about every turn.To run with your metaphor (and pivot!) ikely that stinking orange-tinged pile is going to stay perched on top of the Republican party and continue to smear… Read more »
So, I take it your reaction would be the same had that bus had a Republican’s name and picture on it?
You’ve also made an assumption that because my comments opposed Hillary, I am supporting Trump.
Great article. And precisely because of your reasoning here, I totally don’t understand why the sole of your foot, for tenderness and delicateness, cannot touch the ground and vote. The mess on the bottom of the shoe is better than wading in it knee deep.
Even Obadiah worked for Ahab.
Even Daniel worked for Neb.
Even I like Doug Wilson!
So……Acish was more “honest” than King Saul, which is why it was OK for David to go over to The Philistines?
And Egypt was more “honest” than Israel, so it was OK for Jesus to move to Egypt?
Why do we, according to you Doug, all have to be scum bags?
If we seek forgiveness from God, do we not receive it?
Aren’t we all “honest” when we are under Grace?
You give Trump too much credit. He isn’t talking about “the system” or whatever, he’s rationalizing to himself how Trump, the greatest negotiator, the most powerful presence on any stage, could possibly lose. Lose badly even, to someone he has zero respect for. Since Trump is the greatest man alive, the only way he can actually lose is fraud. Really the question was just a softball with an obvious right answer. It’s like if he were asked “Mr Trump, some people think you might be a nazi. Would you like to comment on that?” The right answer is “Yes, thank… Read more »
Did you watch the O’Keefe videos?
When O’Keefe starts releasing actual videos, rather than the specially edited ones that always turn out afterwards to have nothing to do with the claims he made about them, I’ll start taking him seriously.
The guy is sleazy and has ruined any chance of rational people taking him seriously. “Fool me thrice..” And look up the Boudreaux incident. He has no moral rudder for this work – he just wants to create edited mishmashes that hurt people he doesn’t like. Basically, a less artistic-but-sneakier Michael Moore.
Did you watch them? Yes or no.
I stopped watching his videos five years ago when one after another turned out to be fraudulent. I’m not going to waste my time again. When he begins releasing originals with the full context rather than the edited fakes, I’ll take him seriously.
So, no. Your opinion isn’t worthwhile on this topic.
So someone’s past history of deception, false edits, lack of ethics, and eventual exposure on every meaningful video he’s made is somehow irrelevant to evaluating the next full-of-edits video that he puts out?
You would have been like poor Samson…. “Come on, she seems so sincere, she must be finally telling the truth this time!”
It would be interesting to have Jonathan explain how video edits could make Scott Foval say what he said in the video, or explain why he was immediately fired from his position as National Field Director for Americans United for Change.
Why was Juan Carlos Vera immediately fired for his O’Keefe video, then later given $100,000 and an apology from O’Keefe?
Notice that Jonathan did not bother to answer my question about Scott Foval. He simply blew it off and changed the subject, presumably because Jonathan knows that the edits to video did not make Foval say anything he didn’t actually say. O’Keefe’s undercover methods may be underhanded and “sleazy”, and the “Russians” may be bad, bad, bad for hacking the DNC emails, but that is entirely irrelevant to whether real corruption has been exposed. Jonathan is simply engaging in classing guilt-by-association fallacy, and misdirection. Vera was fired from ACORN because he conspired to commit illegal activity on video. Vera really… Read more »
I don’t think you know what a “guilt-by-association” fallacy is. If the person you are accused of being associated with is…you…it’s not “guilt by association” anymore. lol James O’Keefe has lied in every past video. Therefore, he’s probably lying in this one. Every previous James O’Keefe video has told a different story when the originals were released. Therefore, this one probably would do, if he would release them. In fact, the fact that he is only this time refusing to release the originals, when he’s always done it in the past, suggests that the distortions may be even more telling… Read more »
Jonathan wrote:
“ACTUAL emails”??? Jonathan is apparently more naive than I had even imagined him to be. Jonathan seems blissfully unaware that a video recording is millions of times more difficult to fake than unencrypted plain email text. Jonathan should have quit while he was behind.
The sad thing is Wikileaks should get 50 times the attention of a porn star making predictable October surprise allegations. Here’s one of many things revealed…besides a ton of stuff on Hillary:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/10/25/wikileaks-report-obama-admin-discriminated-against-arab-christians-for-top-jobs/
How ironic to complain about a porn star making predictable surprise allegations in October, when….they actually technically describes Trump. I do agree that the Wikileaks and many similar things should get FAR more attention. The Wall Street speeches, the Clinton Foundation, the Trump Foundation, Trump’s bribes and crooked business deals, the Indian casinos scandal, the Gary casino scandal, etc. should be where attention is focused. But American media watchers like videos and soundbites, not detailed analysis of policy and text. That’s why Trump making a ridiculous statement about a Latino judge (while appropriately criticized) got 10x as much attention as… Read more »
Katecho, do you believe I’m unaware of that, or do you just say ridiculous things like that because you think your clownish rhetoric has an effect in the real world? I didn’t base my evaluation of the Wikileaks emails vs. the O’Keefe videos based on how “difficult” they were to fake. I based it on the track records of those producing them…which is EXACTLY how we are supposed to judge such things. O’Keefe has a history of deception in literally every video he has released. That is widely acknowledged, even here. I judge him by his works. Wikileaks certainly may… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: However, literally everyone who O’Keefe ever deals with immediately disputes the results, as happened here, and are consistently vindicated. Foval is still fired, as far as I know. Can Jonathan point us to where Foval has been vindicated, or shown to have said something other than what the video recorded him confessing? Wouldn’t vindication require an actual investigation of prima facie video evidence, rather than mere denials, after the fact? Oddly, investigation is the very thing that Jonathan seems to refuse. Contrary to Jonathan, the Wisconsin Attorney General says: “DOJ is aware of these videos and very concerned… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: I don’t think you know what a “guilt-by-association” fallacy is. If the person you are accused of being associated with is…you…it’s not “guilt by association” anymore. lol Recall that Jonathan dismissed the videos that ashv referenced, merely because they were associated with O’Keefe. Jonathan did not even want to consider the content of the videos, because he had judged the content to lack any credibility simply because of O’Keefe’s involvement. That is classic guilt-by-association fallacy. Because there is sustained, incriminating dialog recorded in the video, it can’t just be waved away because of the reputation of the one… Read more »
No, Katecho, that’s not what a “guilt by association” fallacy is. I suggest you brush up on your logic courses. Once again, to claim that someone who has consistently been shown to produce lying videos is now producing another lying video is not “guilt by association”, it’s simply taking past record into account. And I wasn’t referring to the techniques of undercover stings. I was referring to entrapment, and worse. O’Keefe has frequently used techniques that would never, ever be admissible in a court of law if police did them, because he is trying to create violations where none existed,… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: No, Katecho, that’s not what a “guilt by association” fallacy is. I suggest you brush up on your logic courses. Once again, to claim that someone who has consistently been shown to produce lying videos is now producing another lying video is not “guilt by association”, it’s simply taking past record into account. Jonathan is just embarrassing himself at this point. His patronizing tone just adds to the disgrace. I’ll spell out his fallacy in detail, and folks are free to go confirm everything I say by consulting wikipedia if they want. The guilt by association fallacy has… Read more »
Sometimes one just has to drop their head into their hands. There’s a reason you never admit losing an argument, Katecho, no matter how poorly the evidence or logic works in your favor. You are arguing to win, and don’t care how absurd you look in the process of getting there. And that attempt to twist the definition of a “Guilt by Association” fallacy was pretty absurd. Katecho, PLEASE 1) find a professor of logic who you trust, or other expert on the matter. 2) Show them this discussion. 3) Report the results. “B” and “C” have to be irrelevant… Read more »
Jonathan is rapidly descending into the realm of intellectual dishonesty at this point. Jonathan wrote: Oh, wait, you can’t claim anything about likely events based on the DNC’s past behavior, can you, because that would be “guilt by association”. Jonathan is simply in error. Guilt by association involves a conclusion of guilt, not a conclusion of a likelihood or probability of guilt. Notice how Jonathan subtly obscures this distinction throughout his comment. None of Jonathan’s examples stick to the strict form of guilt by association argument that he originally offered against the latest O’Keefe videos. Instead he gives us several… Read more »
I haven’t watched the video, which is what started this whole conversation, so stop making all sorts of ridiculous claims that assume that I’ve seen it.
And show this conversation to anyone that knows anything about logic. Your claim that assuming a liar will continue to lie in the future is “Guilt by Association” is a silly misuse of a logical fallacy. Please, give it up. I’m done with the waste of time.
Jonathan wrote: I guess that when you hear a known liar make a claim, you always take that claim at face value and are forced to disregard any past history of lying, because that would supposedly be a “guilt by association” logical fallacy? You would put him on the stand in a trial, and count his testimony as of exactly the same value as, say, a police officer with a clear record of honesty, because to compare his current statement to any past statements would be illogical “Guilt By Association”? You’ve gone completely absurd. Using the fallacy the way you’re… Read more »
Katecho, your root issue in arguments is that you appear completely incapable of applying the same standards to yourself, or to anyone who agrees with you, as you do to whoever you’re arguing with. I suggest you work on that. For example, you get all huffy if an example I attribute as likely for you isn’t a perfect analogy. Yet you keep accusing me of having made “a conclusion of guilt” rather than “a conclusion of likelihood of guilt”, even though I’ve obviously done the second and not the first. Then you’ll reply to this statement by going on and… Read more »
Notice that Jonathan didn’t interact with any of the quotes of Foval that I gave above. Each of those statements was unbroken in the video footage, not spliced up with edits, and most were immediately surrounded by additional incriminating context. Jonathan offers no plausible explanation as to how video edits could have manufactured Foval saying what he clearly said. Foval obviously made those statements. Jonathan knows this, which is why his claim of clever video editing is not credible. Instead, Jonathan has to speculate that Foval was merely repeating lines already supplied to him, which is desperately ridiculous. Jonathan then… Read more »
Don’t you get it? If a porn star makes an accusation about Trump the day after she opens an online sex store, then doggone it, it must be true. It’s only guys like O’Keefe who need to be put under the microscope.
You didn’t watch it so your opinion isn’t relevant.
Sleazy and edits video. You mean just like CNN, CNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, BBC, RT, and CCTV.
Thanks for clarifying this for the readers.
You mean just like the case of CNN’s recasting of Sherelle Smith?:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/16/cnn-edits-out-milwaukee-victims-sister-sherelle-sm/
What a weird retort. What does that have anything to do with O’Keefe’s video? Trump tactics are rubbing off.
“When O’Keefe starts releasing actual videos, rather than the specially edited ones that always turn out afterwards to have nothing to do with the claims he made about them, I’ll start taking him seriously.” Jonathan “What a weird retort. What does that have anything to do with O’Keefe’s video?” You said you would take O’Keefe’s videos seriously when he stopped editing them and put the whole video on. Did you not remember that? Seriously, Jonathan, your arguments vary from thread to thread and from comment to comment. You need to get out more to see what is really happening in… Read more »
Um, you just listed a long string of letters that I specifically criticized as useless only a couple days ago, yet you’re making the weird implication that I support them with no evidence whatsover. Did you not see the back-and-forth between Demo and I where we discussed the uselessness of cable news? (Though I have somewhat less issue with the BBC than the other names you listed.) Claiming my arguments vary from “thread to thread and from comment to comment” and then claiming that I support something I JUST criticized as if it was some “gotcha” moment really shows that… Read more »
Then why did two people lose their jobs?
Why did Juan Carlos Vera lose his job? You didn’t realize the logic of your question is self-defeating. If you’re assuming that the firings are legit, that means Clinton had no role. If you assume that Clinton did it for public optics, then her choice is obviously irrelevant to the truth of the video. Clinton’s going to choose the best optics at the moment rather than make a moral stand. Juan Carlos Vera lost his job after a James O’Keefe video, yet he was later completely cleared and O’Keefe had to give him $100,000 and an apology. ACORN was defunded… Read more »
Donald Trump’s awfulness notwithstanding, it’s surely absurd for anyone in the party of Al Gore to express outrage at the idea that a candidate can’t say in advance of polling day that they won’t protest the results afterwards.
Tipper.
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the major nominees. => The system is rigged. QED
The system is rigged… to select candidates that “you, the people” vote for…..
I say “you, the people”, because I’m a Brit. Have you ever considered the merits of our beloved Queen? I’m sure she’d graciously pardon your many offences if you could just agree among yourselves to ask for it. ;-)
This post of mine would work quite well if our Queen had some powers, and we the people over here had voted for her. :-)
God bless her, save her, whatever. And us. Amen.
There’s rigging going on further back from simple voter fraud, and further back than the coordinated media manipulation. And further back than any Bilderberg type of full blown conspiracy that may or may not be happening.
Why don’t they teach demonology at these churches?
Doug – Being from Idaho I would think you would know it is better to step in cow poop than dog poop.
Who knew there were “experts” on this topic? ; – )
I was thinking the same thing. Maybe he should have referenced stepping in cow poop as opposed to slipping and falling in cow poop. Dog poop is a whole different category.
Senator Al Franken won by a few hundred votes. Over 1000 votes were unlawfully cast by felons. So there can be no confidence that Mr Franken was lawfully elected. / The DNC cheated for Hillary, and this was revealed not by honest Democrats, nor by a government that serves all Americans, but by, hmmm, Mr Putin? Wikileaks? Anonymous whistleblower? And we’re supposed to trust the Justice Dept and be mad if Mr Putin investigates? / “Eric Holder” could’ve voted? / Further back, Lyndon Johnson stole his senate seat–possibly with some justice if Coke Stevenson could’ve called to warn LBJ that… Read more »
And just to remind everyone that those were not inconsequential thefts, Franken cast the deciding vote for Obama Care which this year will be responsible for a 127% increase in my health care premiums.
On that felons number, you’re using a 4-year-old claim that was proven wrong within months. Most of the names on McGrath’s list were errors, eligible voters with the same name as felons and such. In the end, there were only 399 people on the whole list who were even identified as “potentially” ineligible, and that is counting all categories of ineligiblity, not just felons. I think the number of felons who got charged was around 100-200, and the DA even said most of those were accidents. And that’s in pretty much the most scrutinized voter rolls in history.
http://m.startribune.com/voter-fraud-stuffing-ballot-boxes-or-the-stuff-of-myth/176195981/
Oh, and no, no counties in Ohio had more votes than voters. You probably shouldn’t get your facts from memes.
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/01/voting-conspiracies/
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2016/aug/16/viral-image/viral-post-alleges-voter-fraud-wood-county-ohio/
https://www.truthorfiction.com/2012-voter-fraud/
Best comment on that blog: “He is horrible, but she is Evil.”, by someone named Kathy no less!
Too bad Huma doesn’t look more like “mini me”!
????????
Quick research shows her father died in 1993 when she was 17. He was an Indian scholar, educated in America, whose work focused on Muslim minority communities. He founded an academic journal on that topic.
Because that’s a fairly benign background and she was a 19-year-old American college student who had attended a British girls school? I don’t know how fast she actually obtained a security clearance, or how it would compare to the norm, but in her case where the family was well-known and public academics with American education and Indian origins, what do you think it would have taken the security process a long time to figure out before letting her be an intern? It might help if you know, among other things, that Indian Muslims are about as rarely involved in terrorism… Read more »
Her brother might be the academic you are speaking of.
In any case, let’s hope HRC loses her sec. Clearance.
The US has too few representatives. You need to have smaller government (spending, law, intrusion) with a larger number of representatives at different levels.
And your lobbying system appears to be a corruption magnet. There may be zero benefit to it, and any supposed benefit must be vastly outweighed by the detrimental outcomes.
Here in New England, the State of New Hampshire seems to have it right.
“The NH House of Representatives is the third-largest parliamentary body in the English speaking world. Only the U.S. Congress and Britain’s Parliament are larger.”
They are elected, there are a lot of them (400) .
“the salary of $200 per biennium puts some practical limits on service in the House”.
Hence Legislative sessions are short and to the point.
Film of the DNC practicing their response to the Wikileaks dumps.
That is a family favorite that has held up well.????????????☀️
A bit off-topic, but here’s how it will go down if McMullin does his keep-both-from-270 deal:
House Republicans: “We want McMullin!”
House Democrats: “We want Clinton!”
House Republicans: “Ok, let’s make a deal that’s win-win all around. We’ll vote Clinton, but in return we want a post office named after McMullin.”
R has the majority.
That never stopped them before.
“America is the most powerful country in the world. It is one of the great empires of world history. Anybody who thinks that political power struggles in such a place would have to be white glove affairs is a person who really needs to read a book sometime.” <– THIS. I've been an optimist my whole life, generally speaking. It's either that I'm getting a bit older or the circus that is this election cycle, but I've completely lost faith in the system. What a dream it is to think of a federal government that works for the people, not… Read more »
So long as governments are staffed by human beings they will work for their own purposes. And the federal government does work to benefit some of the people, you just aren’t very high on the list. (As measured by number of tax dollars spent on you personally, that is.)
The fewer tax dollars spent on me personally (and presumably, then, my kind generally), the better.
I think the system is rigged against 3rd-Party-ers. Tough to get on ballots. No invite to debates, which, as pointless as they are, could be really helpful for a lesser-known 3rd Party candidate.
The Constitution is rigged against 3rd-party-ers.
No Christian can vote for either of these reptiles. Vote 3rd party or fill in a name.
And sting videos were just released showing leftist operatives inciting violence at Trump rallies, one of whom has visited the Obama White House hundreds of times. Has an official investigation on that been opened on that? Ha. Actually, no, it turns out that the sting videos did NOT show such a thing. An official investigation was opened, by the Republican Attorney General of Wisconsin, Brad Schimel, who started with a press conference and much fanfare, and then had to admit there was nothing there. Schimel assigned the case to Assistant Attorney General Roy Korte, the head of Schimel’s criminal litigation… Read more »