I study writing here and this is something that makes every word count. That is why it is reprinted here without permission. I need to reread it before commenting further.

When President Donald Trump canceled a visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018, he blamed rain for the last-minute decision, saying that “the helicopter couldn’t fly” and that the Secret Service wouldn’t drive him there. Neither claim was true.

The Great Hack

The link above is for future reading and for now this is about The Great Hack (2019) and ultimately Steve Bannon, who has been in the news.

And this.

In the video Nix discusses OCEAN. At about the 9:00 minute mark he mentions cookies, social messaging ads, and set-top boxes as media buys.

Ann Rules?

Finally and most importantly:

If trained, she would be a good defense lawyer.

Someone I knew once used a phrase that I cannot remember. It was specific to the internet but it is also the way some people may think and it is very much a sign of the times. It was something like “self convincing.”

You can find anything. Maybe you can even find anyone, but that is a story for another time. Almost always, you can find a viewpoint or even something fairly scientific to back-up your opinion.

I even remember it from law training too: you can always find a law to support a certain position. That does not guarantee you will win or even that your case has merit though.

I really wanted to read Small Sacrifices but could not find it for free or in an e-edition. My large local library does not have it; a print edition could be sent, but it is not worth it, I think, after taking a closer look at Ms. Rule’s career. I admire her for going back to school, working in law enforcement and related fields, and studying courtrooms to be the best she could be. Her books, however, are just one woman’s opinions. The whole thing, like any science or profession, can be subjective. The legal process itself is contentious, adversarial, and human.

Robert S. Mueller III served as special counsel for the Justice Department from 2017 to 2019.

The work of the special counsel’s office — its report, indictments, guilty pleas and convictions — should speak for itself. But I feel compelled to respond both to broad claims that our investigation was illegitimate and our motives were improper, and to specific claims that Roger Stone was a victim of our office. The Russia investigation was of paramount importance. Stone was prosecuted and convicted because he committed federal crimes. He remains a convicted felon, and rightly so.

Russia’s actions were a threat to America’s democracy. It was critical that they be investigated and understood. By late 2016, the FBI had evidence that the Russians had signaled to a Trump campaign adviser that they could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to the Democratic candidate. And the FBI knew that the Russians had done just that: Beginning in July 2016, WikiLeaks released emails stolen by Russian military intelligence officers from the Clinton campaign. Other online personas using false names — fronts for Russian military intelligence — also released Clinton campaign emails.

Following FBI Director James B. Comey’s termination in May 2017, the acting attorney general named me as special counsel and directed the special counsel’s office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The order specified lines of investigation for us to pursue, including any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. One of our cases involved Stone, an official on the campaign until mid-2015 and a supporter of the campaign throughout 2016. Stone became a central figure in our investigation for two key reasons: He communicated in 2016 with individuals known to us to be Russian intelligence officers, and he claimed advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’ release of emails stolen by those Russian intelligence officers.

We now have a detailed picture of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. The special counsel’s office identified two principal operations directed at our election: hacking and dumping Clinton campaign emails, and an online social media campaign to disparage the Democratic candidate. We also identified numerous links between the Russian government and Trump campaign personnel — Stone among them. We did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its activities. The investigation did, however, establish that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome. It also established that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.

Uncovering and tracing Russian outreach and interference activities was a complex task. The investigation to understand these activities took two years and substantial effort. Based on our work, eight individuals pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial, and more than two dozen Russian individuals and entities, including senior Russian intelligence officers, were charged with federal crimes.

Congress also investigated and sought information from Stone. A jury later determined he lied repeatedly to members of Congress. He lied about the identity of his intermediary to WikiLeaks. He lied about the existence of written communications with his intermediary. He lied by denying he had communicated with the Trump campaign about the timing of WikiLeaks’ releases. He in fact updated senior campaign officials repeatedly about WikiLeaks. And he tampered with a witness, imploring him to stonewall Congress.

The jury ultimately convicted Stone of obstruction of a congressional investigation, five counts of making false statements to Congress and tampering with a witness. Because his sentence has been commuted, he will not go to prison. But his conviction stands.

Russian efforts to interfere in our political system, and the essential question of whether those efforts involved the Trump campaign, required investigation. In that investigation, it was critical for us (and, before us, the FBI) to obtain full and accurate information. Likewise, it was critical for Congress to obtain accurate information from its witnesses. When a subject lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s efforts to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable. It may ultimately impede those efforts.

We made every decision in Stone’s case, as in all our cases, based solely on the facts and the law and in accordance with the rule of law. The women and men who conducted these investigations and prosecutions acted with the highest integrity. Claims to the contrary are false.

Abducted in Plain Sight

Jan Broberg from 'Abducted in Plain Sight' says her parents ...
Jan Broberg, Abducted in Plain Sight

I suffered through it and you can too. Following are some links for afterward.

“Trust, shame, and complicity” are three good descriptions.

Asked how Berchtold came up with this extravagant deception plan, Borgman said her only theory is that inspiration struck from the 70s zeitgeist. “This whole idea of science fiction was popular, and tape recorders had just come out. There were also a lot of newspaper articles about U.F.O.s and whether or not they were real.”

“To be able to actually kidnap somebody is incredibly difficult. Then to be able to maintain this ruse for years and years really takes somebody who has very little empathy for anybody else. It really does take a sociopath.”

The Atlantic:

Manipulation and grooming are not understood by so many. It happened to my whole family, this man was a master and my parents saved my life. They’re the bravest people I know, willing to try to help the rest of you see what they didn’t. That is the only reason we told our story.

I’ll browse on my phone and see if I can come up with more facts that are relevant.

Until then, I’ll write two things: The Vanity Fair piece is the better one. Is Skye Borgman a journalist or a film maker or both?

The story of Chad and Lori

I am finally starting to put it together: KTVB, KSL, Fox10 Phoenix, and East Idaho News. EIN is connected to the Idaho Statesman through Nate Sunderland, the managing editor.

There are some internet celebrities (Nate Eaton), real reporters (Justin Lum), YouTube phonies (take your pick), and just plain weirdos (Eric Grossarth).

For now the things that are holding them together are the Mormon church and murder.

Followed by Good Things live. Unfortunately, there is more.

This is the story of Chad and Lori.

Well she ain’t lookin’ back anymore
She said, “Catch me if you can anymore”
Ya know she didn’t want to do it
But he just pushed her too far

Everybody got a breakin’ point
And Baby there you are
She’s a Runaway
Run, Run, Run, Runaway

Does anyone have pictures of Emma making faces? It sure has layers. According to this link, “I’ve seen this before where it’s a bizarre case, it makes no sense and then it comes down to something as simple as greed or avarice or, you know, selfishness.”

Dominick Dunne on Power, Privilege, and Justice could summarize it in one paragraph. But as he once said, he doesn’t do poor people.

They are poor people, what with Lori “five kids and no money” Vallow and Chad with his 25 books bringing in $3000 a year. Specifically, Lori has shown a distinct inability to sustain herself over the years; she is a classic case of rolling up debt and then blaming the creditors.

Chad’s house in Salem, Idaho was bought on the cheap and never upgraded to a house for teenagers. Gravediggers do not make any money. Mrs. Tammy Daybell appeared to hold the family together, financially and otherwise, having worked her way up to full-fledged, tenured librarian. Plus, her work on the covers and sales efforts were a big part of selling the flimsy little 170-page novels. The fact is he had virtually no income of his own and maintaining the inventory of books was a problem.

The D.A. said the way one body was buried was egregious. I always thought egregious was an adjective. Egregious burial? Egregious body? I don’t get it. That is my layer, and I will come back to it.

Nate Eaton has done some fine work. But who wants to listen to Melani, or Melanie, or some other religious fanatic (e.g.,

Just the link.

Earlier a D.A. in the Daybell murders elected to simply bow out. This one, who has been leading the prosecution and investigation for a half a year, waited for a nice Summer day. The house is a mile over the county line.

Oh, George

I do like listening to all sides. I’ll just say I don’t like listening to people like LeBron James all the time.

Who would have known? I certainly did not.

Pretty much anyone who has ever had any contact with a police department is standing up. Statistics take a back seat because it does not happen all the time; of course black people are unduly persecuted by white people. This goes deeper. It is finally coming out. Who do you think you are? What gives you the right?

You are a human being just like me and this is wrong.

These questions are not so hard to answer. They are hard to address, hence the protests.

Jeffco Jeff Shrader

How does a patrolman who went to a tiny, local, religious college become, and survive at, sheriff of a 583,000-person county?

ANSWER: By doing the same old thing and blaming everyone else. That is how to survive at it; the rise comes from supporting and condoning corruption and Shrader learned from Ted Mink.

Mr. Shrader, did you ever think about what you would do after public service?

It is going to be a good story, this one, because it involves dozens of examples, thousands of photographs, and absolutely clear efforts to obstruct it. It is set against a backdrop of defunded police departments. At the very least they are losing a lot of their protections.

Now is a good time.