Author Topic: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State  (Read 347363 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69125
    • View Profile
If the Military Industrial Complex does not run Washington, then who does?
« Reply #1550 on: January 12, 2023, 05:07:38 PM »
The Military-Industrial Complex Doesn’t Run Washington
Something else does

N.S. Lyons
3 hr ago
Osprey-Pentagon.jpg

https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/the-military-industrial-complex-doesnt?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email


A little while ago I found myself interested to read a frustrated Glenn Greenwald argue that, given the context of the “enormous” $858 billion U.S. defense budget recently passed by Congress along with an additional $44 billion in military aid for Ukraine, the only thing anyone can now inevitably rely on from Washington D.C. is that “the U.S. budget for military and intelligence agencies will increase every year no matter what.”

I felt this merited some reflection. Greenwald’s explanation for why perpetual growth of the defense budget is an inevitability (which it basically is), and for why American foreign policy is relentlessly hawkish more broadly, is a popular one: that the American arms manufacturing industry, the military, and our politicians are all engaged in a circle of corruption and collusion to make each other rich. The big defense contractors bribe the politicians with large donations and the generals and other government officials with board seats and other lucrative positions, and they in turn come up with reasons to justify shoveling ever-increasing piles of taxpayer money into buying new weapons from the arms makers. This, Greenwald says, is precisely the “unwarranted influence” of the “military-industrial complex” that President Eisenhower gravely warned our country to guard against in his famous farewell address some 62 years ago.

Eisenhower was, I must point out, attempting to draw attention to an even broader issue, i.e. the rise of an unaccountable technocratic administrative state, which accelerated in the wake of the technological-managerial revolution produced by WWII, and the “danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” The influence of this transformation of American republican governance, of which a military-industrial complex was but one part, was likely, he predicted, to be “economic, political, even spiritual” in scope, and threaten to change “the very structure of our society.” But I will leave all that aside for the time being, as “military-industrial complex” is the phrase that stuck in public memory, along with the narrower, more common understanding of what Eisenhower was warning about that Greenwald is using in this case.

As described above, this understanding of the military-industrial complex – and a common understanding of how politics in Washington works in general – is essentially conspiratorial. Its primary mechanism is individuals, or groups of individuals, cynically manipulating the procedures of the state to advance their material self-interests. Thus Washington has turned into a “multi-tentacle war machine,” Greenwald says, because “No matter what is going on in the world, they always find – or concoct – reasons why the military budget must grow no matter how inflated it already is.” (Emphasis mine.)

Let’s call this the Corrupt Conspiracy Model of how Washington functions (or dysfunctions). It is a model that can be powerfully convincing, because it taps into the truth that people really are naturally flawed and self-interested creatures, demonstrably prone to corruption. Applying Lenin’s maxim – “who benefits?” – appears to provide players (the “they”) and the motive. Combine that motive with the means and opportunity produced by systems of collusion, and you seem to have a straightforward explanation for most of the policy that comes out of Washington: it’s all basically a con game led by a pack of greedy psychopaths. As Greenwald notes with some frustration and confusion, this used to be a characteristically left-wing critique of government and corporate power, but following the Great Political Realignment it’s now become common to the disaffected right instead.

Reading his argument made me recall how, back when I was younger and left-leaning, I too believed in this model, at least implicitly. As noted, it can be quite persuasive, even satisfying, in its simplicity. It’s also actually a subtly idealistic and optimistic theory: the American system would work great, just as it was designed to do, if not for all the selfish bad actors taking advantage of the system, etc. The only problem was that, after enough time in Washington, I had no choice but to reevaluate. Because what I found is that the swamp is populated almost wholly not by cynics, but by true believers.

True believers in what? Answering that will require trying to nail down a second, more complex model to explain how people in the Imperial City make decisions – and why it’s still always a good bet to invest in Lockheed Martin.[1]

First, let me qualify by acknowledging that yes, Washington is indeed awash with lobbyists, corrupt politicians, psychopathic executives, cynical operators, and backstabbing climbers. It is a veritable hive of scum and villainy. They just aren’t what really makes the place tick. In fact all of these people conform themselves parasitically to that which does.

The real issue to contend with is that almost no one in Washington actually thinks in the terms of the Corrupt Conspiracy Model. I.e. they don’t think “I will advocate for a hawkish, interventionist foreign policy so that the resulting wars will benefit the arms industry and make me and my friends rich…” – even the people with seats on the boards of defense contractors. The reality is more disturbing than that, honestly.

What runs Washington is a Spirit. Or, alternatively, a Story. Let me try to explain.

Share

There is a useful saying in Washington, which is: “Where you sit is where you stand.” This refers to how individuals’ interests, and even their values, almost inevitably come to be determined by their position within and among bureaucracies. Whatever motivations they may enter with, they soon find themselves defending and advocating for whatever will most benefit the bureaucracy of which they have become a part. It is a relatively common phenomenon for even loyal top-level political appointees, dispatched by a new president to head a particular department or agency specifically so as to bring it into line with the president’s policy goals, to quickly be coopted into acting against that president’s wishes and working to advance their bureaucracy’s self-interests instead. Even those who enter and discover the truth that “the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy,” as Oscar Wilde memorably quipped, find they desire nothing so much as to help it do so. Their own interests and incentives have been subsumed by the bureaucracy’s interests and incentives.

How does this happen? And what is a bureaucracy, really? How is it that, as the critic Brooks Atkinson once wrote, bureaucracies are organizations “designed to perform public business,” but seemingly “as soon as a bureaucracy is established, it develops an autonomous spiritual life and comes to regard the public as its enemy”?


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18353
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1552 on: January 17, 2023, 07:45:17 AM »
" According to The Australian, Wise had no regrets signing onto the letter and said it was "no surprise" that the emails were genuine"

Democrats never have any regrets - ever - that I can think.
(unless it hurts themselves - like when Clinton had regrets - in  appointing Janet Reno who then appointed the special counsel)


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: January 23, 2023, 08:10:58 AM by DougMacG »


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
War on rule of law; Deep State, IRS TARGETING, never forget, TTT
« Reply #1555 on: January 25, 2023, 06:22:09 AM »
From these threads.  Not only was Obama not impeached for this but his VP went on to run and win again - unquestioned - about it.

100% of the conservative groups organizing, for one thing to oppose Obama's reelection, were denied organizing status by the IRS while 100%of the liberal groups were approved.  That FACT is on page 188 of the defining Senate report.  Besides here, it went no further than that.  Nothing like "transparency".
----------------------
IRS Targeting - 700 conservative groups were prevented from raising money and participating (against Obama's reelection and policies) by action / inaction of the federal bureaucracy, while the IRS commissioner was visiting the White House 500 times more often than his predecessor.
-----
Page 188 of the report claiming, "both liberal and conservatives groups received the same bad treatment and were targeted by the IRS" story:
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/REPORT%20-%20IRS%20&%20TIGTA%20Mgmt%20Failures%20Related%20to%20501(c)(4)%20(Sept%205%202014,%209-9-14%20update).pdf

"104 conservative groups were asked 1552 questions.  7 liberal groups were asked a total of 33 questions.

100% of liberal group applications were approved."

[100% of conservative groups were denied approval over that time period.]

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/REPORT%20-%20IRS%20&%20TIGTA%20Mgmt%20Failures%20Related%20to%20501(c)(4)%20(Sept%205%202014,%209-9-14%20update).pdf

100% (all) of the 292 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "tea party", "patriot", or "9/12" were denied tax-exempt status for two years coming into Obama's reelection.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323873904578571363311816922

https://firehydrantoffreedom.com/index.php?topic=1718.msg120464#msg120464
« Last Edit: January 25, 2023, 09:54:35 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69125
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1556 on: January 25, 2023, 07:39:09 AM »
Quality work there Doug.  Thank you.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1557 on: January 25, 2023, 10:28:33 AM »
Thank you.  Now let's get the word out.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
NYT, Biden docs screw up the Trump case
« Reply #1558 on: January 25, 2023, 10:32:00 AM »
How so?  Are they admitting Biden will never be prosecuted, therefore there is no case against trump? Pathetic reasoning. What the hell does biden's case have to do with Trump's case? Isn't it just how facts line up with the law, the law being an immovable object?

https://dnyuz.com/2023/01/24/bidens-handling-of-secret-documents-complicates-the-case-against-trump/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69125
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1559 on: January 25, 2023, 11:50:52 AM »
Wasn't there a Talking Heads song/video/album called "Stop Making Sense"?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Crimes were committed
« Reply #1560 on: January 28, 2023, 09:08:15 AM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18353
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1561 on: January 28, 2023, 09:19:01 AM »
"But no one will go to jail, as usual."

true

but they will get jobs with big tech or CNN or MSPCP

 :x

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69125
    • View Profile
AMcC: Congress must not tolerate the Biden Admin obstruction
« Reply #1562 on: January 29, 2023, 04:33:20 AM »
As usual, quality legal-political analysis from AMcC:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/01/congress-must-not-tolerate-the-biden-administrations-obstruction/?bypass_key=Qmt4aDBxU3pkeDJNVDRTTUFzcGludz09OjphakJoVEVGQ2RWRTJUM2xMUVhsSk4wUldTa1pxWnowOQ%3D%3D&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Saturday%202023-01-28&utm_term=NRDaily-Smart


Congress Must Not Tolerate the Biden Administration’s Obstruction
President Joe Biden delivers an speech in Springfield, Va., January 26, 2023. (Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
January 28, 2023 6:30 AM

Lawmakers have not only the power but the duty to investigate executive misconduct, hold public officials accountable, and enact legislative remedies.

Many a liberty is taken by today’s commentators when imagining what the Constitution’s Framers would or would not have thought about how the modern American government works — or, more often, doesn’t work. Generally speaking, unless the commentator’s name is Rick Brookhiser (our eminent historian and author of, among other gems, What Would the Founders Do?), you’d best take such deductions with a grain of salt.

Yet, there is something about which we can be confident: The ingenious men who designed our framework of government, premised on the principle of discrete branches that check each other’s misconduct by exercising separate powers, would have scoffed at the notion that presidential corruption could be policed by prosecutors who work for the president.

The check against abuse of executive power, including any criminal misconduct committed by the president, is Congress.

Republicans, now in control of the House, would do well to remember that fact. When it comes to the Biden scandals, whether it is the millions of dollars the president’s family raked in by leveraging Joe Biden’s political influence or the president’s egregious misconduct in hoarding classified intelligence, administration officials are determined to stonewall the people’s elected representatives. Their rationale is that to comply with congressional demands for evidence, testimony, and other relevant information regarding misconduct by executive officials (the chief executive very much included) would interfere with the work of the special counsel and other prosecutors assigned by Biden’s attorney general and Biden’s Justice Department to investigate Biden.

To state this rationale is to refute it. Yet Avril Haines, the unelected, Biden-appointed director of national intelligence, contemptuously told the Senate Intelligence Committee to pound sand earlier this week when it asked to inspect the classified documents discovered in Biden’s private office and residence, as well as in Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate and a nearby storage facility. Mind you, we are talking about a “select” panel, whose members all qualify for the highest possible security clearances, and whose leaders — Chairman Mark Warner (D., Va.) and Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) — are members of the “Gang of Eight,” the congressional leaders to whom the executive branch is obliged to report the nation’s most sensitive intelligence operations.

Constitutionally speaking, even if we were not in an age of secrecy classifications and security-clearance levels, the Article II branch would have no legitimate authority to withhold information on government activities and records from the Article I branch that created, funds, and must conduct oversight of the agencies that make up the government’s law enforcement and intelligence apparatus. As it happens, however, the design of modern government ensures that committees of Congress can implicitly be trusted with the nation’s secrets — obviating the need for executive officials to trigger a constitutional crisis over their supposed fears that disclosing intelligence to Congress would result in leaks that imperil methods and sources. (Because, as we all know, executive officials would never, ever abuse their privileged access to the nation’s secrets by selectively leaking.)

That being the case, DNI Haines is not quite audacious enough to tell lawmakers they can’t be trusted. What she is saying, however, is even worse. Her claim is that there is no higher priority in our government than the completion of investigations currently being conducted by special counsels the Biden Justice Department has appointed, and that providing information to Congress would threaten the integrity of those investigations. Ergo, the administration won’t cooperate.

This is factually frivolous and constitutionally impeachable.

I was a federal prosecutor for 20 years and handled a good many cases in which investigative secrecy was imperative because, without it, violent criminal enterprises would likely kill people, destroy evidence, or flee. In those cases, the two highest public interests were to prevent acts of violence from happening and to prosecute hardened criminals so they would no longer prey on society.

Those considerations do not apply in the ongoing probes of the mishandling of classified information by public officials — or, indeed, in most political-corruption cases.

To begin with, when there has been executive misconduct, the highest national interests are, first, protecting our security and, second, holding the implicated officials publicly accountable so we can determine whether they are fit to serve in public office and whether any additional safeguards need to be enacted by Congress.

As for the first interest, when highly classified information has been mishandled — and particularly if it has been stored in an unauthorized place and potentially exposed to unauthorized persons — the highest security priority is for the government to conduct a risk assessment. This is essential in determining whether sources (such as deep-cover informants) may have been exposed (and thus need to be extracted lest they get killed, captured, tortured, etc.); and whether secret methods of acquiring intelligence have been compromised, which could not only imperil sources but could also give hostile countries the opportunity to feed disinformation into our intelligence databases, with the result that important national-security decisions are made based on false premises.

Remember, for example, when a judge in Florida tried to bar the government from using classified documents seized at Mar-a-Lago until privilege issues could be sorted out. The Justice Department was adamant that such an order would obstruct the intelligence agencies in the completion of a vital national-security risk assessment. This was said — and rightly so — to be of greater consequence than whether a criminal prosecution of Donald Trump was warranted.

Furthermore, the Framers did not require a prosecutable criminal offense to trigger impeachment, removal from power, and disqualification from holding future office. That is because when executive officials abuse their authority or show themselves unsuitable for high office, the imperative is to strip them of their power. If the misconduct is not serious enough for impeachment, Congress first and foremost must develop a full record of it and then propose legislative fixes to prevent it from happening again — which can include stripping the executive of funds and statutory authority. The question of whether the offending official should also be subject to criminal prosecution in court is, again, a second- or third-order concern.

Moreover, even if prosecution were our top priority, the need to maintain investigative secrecy would still only arise when public disclosure could imperil informants and other witnesses, and induce suspects to destroy evidence, suborn perjury, and/or flee. Those concerns are inapposite in Biden’s case, since (a) we are talking about disclosure to members of Congress who have security clearances, (b) the evidence is already substantially in the possession of investigators, (c) no one is going to be killed over these probes, and (d) the fact of the investigations is already public, so even if we were worried about evidence- or witness-tampering, disclosure to Congress wouldn’t increase the risk of either.

That is to say: It is sheer nonsense to claim, in the context of these classified-information scandals, that disclosure to Congress could compromise the ability of prosecutors to locate evidence and to prevent witnesses from constructing a false exculpatory story based on publicly disclosed facts.

Now, let’s leave these public-interest and practical considerations aside and get down to constitutional brass tacks.

In our system, the principal check on executive misconduct is Congress. The Framers did not need to trouble themselves with the farcical proposition that executive misconduct could be contained by prosecutors — i.e., middling executive officials who are subordinate to the president and may be fired by him at any time. When the Constitution went into effect in 1789, federal law enforcement barely existed. It was the states that exercised the police powers of investigation, prosecution, and punishment. The Constitution does not provide for an attorney general; the first Congress did, in the Judiciary Act of 1789. Congress did not create the Justice Department until 1870, and the FBI was not established by statute until 1933. The Framers did not give much thought to federal prosecutors, much less “special” federal prosecutors tasked with probing the executive branch itself.

But, as I related in my 2014 book Faithless Execution, the Framers did give a great deal of thought to how best to rein in potential abuses of the awesome powers they were endowing in the office of the president. Their solution was to make Congress the most powerful branch. (Contrary to popular belief, the three departments of government were not conceived to be “co-equal,” though they are peers.) Congress was given the tools necessary to check executive excess — the power of the purse, the power to create or dismantle executive agencies, the power to conduct oversight of executive operations, the power to reject presidential appointees and treaties, and the power to impeach federal officers up to and including the president, among others.

Needless to say, unlike federal prosecutors and directors of intelligence agencies, Congress does not work for the president; to the contrary, it has an institutional obligation to investigate and effectively address presidential misconduct. If presidential administrations attempt to thwart Congress in that constitutional mission, Congress has the power not just to fight but to overcome such obstruction. All it requires is the will to do so.

The Biden administration is using special counsels as a ploy to obstruct Congress. As we’ve previously discussed (see here and here), there was no reason to appoint a special counsel in Trump’s classified-information case. As for Biden, under long-standing Justice Department guidance, he is not subject to indictment by any federal prosecutor, special or otherwise, while he is a sitting president. It would be wrong under any circumstances for Congress to be told it had to suspend its public-interest and national-security inquiries while prosecutors took their time deciding whether to file charges. It is flatly ridiculous for the administration to take such a position when no criminal charges can be filed for, one presumes, at least two years.

It is particularly rich for a Democratic administration to claim, in 2023, that, because doing so could compromise the work of prosecutors, Congress may not be given the information it needs to assess and address executive misconduct. We just spent nearly two years watching the machinations of the House January 6 committee. It proceeded with its highly aggressive investigation even as the Justice Department proceeded with what are now more than 900 criminal cases stemming from the Capitol riot. The committee was not the slightest bit concerned about interfering with prosecutors. It liberally subpoenaed evidence and witnesses that the Justice Department needed, and it withheld what it learned from prosecutors until it was good and ready to share. It took the position that Congress’s investigation was the highest national priority. Far from fighting the committee on that score, the Biden administration waived executive privilege, sided with the committee in court challenges, and used its prosecutorial authority to indict key witnesses (Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro) who defied congressional subpoenas.

Given that recent history alone, to say nothing of the fact that the Constitution and investigative practicalities are overwhelmingly on its side here, Congress should not abide the Biden administration’s claims that committee investigations of executive wrongdoing could undermine the work of prosecutors.

DNI Haines ought to be handed a congressional subpoena and told that she must immediately produce the documents demanded by the Senate Intelligence Committee or she will be held in contempt of Congress forthwith. If she continues to defy congressional demands for evidence and/or testimony, the House should commence impeachment proceedings.

The same should be true with respect to any executive-branch officials — such as the leaders of the National Archives and Records Administration — who defy congressional information demands by claiming that producing documents or testimony could harm law-enforcement investigations, or that it must be left up to the Biden Justice Department–appointed special counsels to decide whether congressionally created executive agencies should provide information demanded by Congress.

In the meantime, Senator Tom Cotton is right that the Senate should refuse to consider any Biden nominees for executive or judicial offices until the Biden administration surrenders documents and fully cooperates in Congress’s investigations. If the administration’s defiance continues even so, Congress must then use its power of the purse. Special counsels could not stonewall Congress if lawmakers declined to fund their appointments and investigations. Furthermore, cutting swaths of the Justice Department’s staggering $38 billion budget — such as the money underwriting the Civil Rights Division’s campaign to impose woke dogma on schools, police departments, etc. — would be addition by subtraction.

Congress has not only the power but the duty to investigate executive misconduct, hold public officials accountable, and enact legislative remedies. That is what we were told throughout the House January 6 committee probe. Members of that committee made many dubious assertions, but they were right about that much. The Senate Intelligence Committee and House Republicans must make the Biden administration understand — using measures that have teeth, not fulminations on cable-news shows — that obstruction will not be tolerated.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
How the Deep State removed Trump
« Reply #1563 on: January 30, 2023, 08:05:14 AM »







G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18353
    • View Profile
NYT waiting for leaks from Spec. Counsel
« Reply #1573 on: February 13, 2023, 08:01:12 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/jack-smith-special-counsel-trump-124659226.html

investigate investigate investigate thru infinity or till Trump is dead ........

Jack Smith the icon of legal integrity will finally get to the bottom of something
as though we don't already know everything .



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69125
    • View Profile
WSJ: Clapper's Disinfo
« Reply #1576 on: February 17, 2023, 09:10:11 AM »
James Clapper’s Disinformation
Politico ‘distorted’ the 2020 letter signed by 51 ex-intel officials? Now he tells us.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Feb. 16, 2023 6:18 pm ET


Whether or not GOP House oversight yields answers about 2020 election meddling, it is at least producing some fantastical squirming and finger pointing. See this week’s incredulous Clapper defense.

That would be James Clapper, the Obama director of national intelligence, one of 51 former intelligence officials who in October 2020 issued a highly consequential letter. The New York Post had revealed contents of a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden. The information raised ugly questions about his use of the Biden family name in his foreign business dealings and the extent to which his father knew about them. With weeks to go in a close presidential campaign, the laptop bomb might have derailed Joe Biden’s White House bid.


Instead, the intel cabal neutralized the threat almost overnight. “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say,” blared a Politico headline on Oct. 19, 2020. The Clapper & Co. letter explained that the supposed Hunter emails had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,” making the signers “deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.” They had no evidence, but the letter served its purpose by providing the news media, Democrats and social-media censors the excuse to suppress the story.

But the laptop was real, and Republicans suddenly have subpoena power. Hence the remarkable sight this week of Mr. Clapper and fellow signatories resurfacing to blame their 2020 tradecraft on the press. The catalyst for this convenient claim is a batch of letters sent last week by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan to 12 of the letter’s signers, demanding documents and interviews about their decision to issue a public statement that “falsely implied” the Hunter story was bogus.


This inspired the Washington Post’s “fact checker,” Glenn Kessler, to provide the conspirators a favorable forum to make an early defense. “Politico deliberately distorted what we said,” Mr. Clapper complained, saying the writers were merely raising a “yellow” flag. “Journalists and politicians willfully or unintentionally misconstrue oral or written statements,” lamented Thomas Fingar, who protested the letter had been “carefully written to minimize” that likelihood. Several unnamed signers meanwhile told Mr. Kessler they believed at the time that a significant amount of the material the Post reported was true—since Russians tend to build disinformation campaigns on facts. That would seem a crucial point, yet the signers somehow omitted it from their letter.


As blame-shifting goes, the press is usually a solid dumping spot. Yet in this case, the signers’ claims are laughable. Start with the partisan motivations. Mr. Clapper and John Brennan, President Obama’s director of the Central Intelligence Agency, were the most politicized officials to ever hold their posts, and were hip-deep in the 2016 Russia-collusion hoax. Most of the rest of the signers were Biden supporters or Never Trumpers. The press made hay of the “bipartisan” quality of the letter, but the conservative side featured folks like Mike Hayden, George W. Bush’s CIA director, who prior to signing the letter had cut an ad beseeching the country not to vote for Donald Trump.

Also consider the hand-picked messenger. Former Brennan aide Nick Shapiro didn’t approach any old Politico reporter with the letter: He chose Natasha Bertrand, who served as one of the key outlets for the outlandish Russia-collusion claims that opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and former Obama officials shopped four years earlier. The letter writers knew exactly what they were getting by going to this reporter—and more likely than not the headline reflected their intent. This was no press sandbagging; it was press cooperation.

And then there’s the silence. No signers complained about the Politico letter after its publication. None corrected the record as dozens of outlets repeated the supposed distortion. No one said a word when Joe Biden, in a presidential debate and a CBS interview, used the letter to declare definitively that the laptop story was “disinformation from the Russians,” “a bunch of garbage,” a “Russian plan” and a “smear campaign.”

As to the muteness, Mr. Clapper claimed to be “unaware” of how Mr. Biden described the letter. Did he and his 50 co-signers make a pact to skip the presidential debate, to tune out all subsequent coverage, and never to communicate again? Surely one would have noticed the “distorted” claim and felt compelled to alert the others. And surely a group capable of collaborating on the letter was capable of correcting the record.

They didn’t, because they didn’t want to. The letter served its purpose. It was written by an intel community that knows well how to manipulate a narrative. It was written by a group of officials who abused their titles—and the public’s belief that their backgrounds gave them unique insights—to peddle a claim for which they had no evidence. It was written to benefit Mr. Biden’s election bid.

Any claims to the opposite are what you might call disinformation.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
Re: Where is Deep State Andy's keen legal insights on this?
« Reply #1579 on: February 20, 2023, 09:35:29 AM »
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/02/15-facts-on-the-dozens-of-federal-operatives-who-infiltrated-the-trump-crowds-on-january-6th-at-the-us-capitol/

When will he address Ray Epps?

https://thelibertydaily.com/shocking-court-disclosure-shows-undercover-cops-urging-jan-6-protesters-including-ashli-babbitt-to-enter-capitol-building/
.

Why are they withholding video - seems like a fair question. At this point in a criminal matter it would seem to be a crime to be withholding evidence.

This wasn't the JFK assassination. Or was it?

Who is Ray Epps? Why isn't that answered yet?

If he committed the same crime, then he gets the same criminal charges as the others. If it's any different than that, we deserve an explanation.

Regarding McCarthy, he just called for impeachment of Mayorkas, or was it Biden, for not enforcing our border laws. 

The war against our own side detracts from the point being made, IMHO.  Attacking a former prosecutor when there is a real one out there apparently not doing his or her job.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2023, 09:56:47 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Where is Deep State Andy's keen legal insights on this?
« Reply #1580 on: February 20, 2023, 04:53:50 PM »
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/02/15-facts-on-the-dozens-of-federal-operatives-who-infiltrated-the-trump-crowds-on-january-6th-at-the-us-capitol/

When will he address Ray Epps?

https://thelibertydaily.com/shocking-court-disclosure-shows-undercover-cops-urging-jan-6-protesters-including-ashli-babbitt-to-enter-capitol-building/
.

Why are they withholding video - seems like a fair question. At this point in a criminal matter it would seem to be a crime to be withholding evidence.

This wasn't the JFK assassination. Or was it?

Who is Ray Epps? Why isn't that answered yet?

If he committed the same crime, then he gets the same criminal charges as the others. If it's any different than that, we deserve an explanation.

Regarding McCarthy, he just called for impeachment of Mayorkas, or was it Biden, for not enforcing our border laws. 

The war against our own side detracts from the point being made, IMHO.  Attacking a former prosecutor when there is a real one out there apparently not doing his or her job.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Controlled%20opposition

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
As usual, above the law
« Reply #1581 on: February 21, 2023, 10:55:06 AM »
https://ace.mu.nu/archives/403252.php

Laws are for the little people.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69125
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1582 on: February 22, 2023, 07:24:34 AM »
Fk.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18353
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1583 on: February 22, 2023, 07:39:29 AM »
this was on newsmax

last evening
 I think it was Rob Schmidt show and he was interviewing Congressman who sent letter to DOJ demanding investigation

Rob asked him if he really thinks the Garland DOJ/[and the majority Federal employees who work there voting Democrat] will take this seriously

and the Congressman responded by stating the evidence is clear cut
or something to that effect

who here would not be SHOCKED if in the end no one is held accountable ?

defending the "rule of law" the DEMS always screach on the airways....

 :x


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69125
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1585 on: February 22, 2023, 09:25:51 AM »
Perhaps of greater likelihood and greater utility will be what Tucker does with all the footage that has been given to him.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18353
    • View Profile
Emily Kohrs
« Reply #1586 on: February 23, 2023, 02:04:05 PM »
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-grand-juror-stirs-uproar-230624170.html

after she made a mockery of the judicial system
with her blatant bias

on CNN and elsewhere

CNN's Anderson Cooper will have his every nightly discussion of the deep state's
quest to *get* Trump with a couple of attorneys to placade his viewers fears

that they need not worry
the goal to get Trump is still on course

no worries you little lads
we'll get him!

will the little beady eyes man with the horn rims have his yes men attorneys tell us.

 :wink: :-P






DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
Re: Good thing the republicans voted to give them more money!
« Reply #1592 on: March 03, 2023, 08:22:10 AM »
Lying by omission.  Didn't DEMOCRATS also fund these agencies?

Too bad to cheapen otherwise good points.  And to cheapen the value of the forum with the one sided attacks.

Still no response.   Who is YOUR political party?  What is their platform?  Who are their elected officials?  What did they de-fund lately?  What mistakes have they made?

Even Donald Trump, who ran against both parties, knew you only win and govern in the current era by capturing the nomination of one of the two major parties.

IMHO, fine to criticize our own side or either side, but your mission to tear down the right while leaving leaving the Left in power is destructive to everything I believe in.  - Doug

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Good thing the republicans voted to give them more money!
« Reply #1593 on: March 04, 2023, 10:32:56 AM »
Lying by omission.  Didn't DEMOCRATS also fund these agencies?

Did the dems fund their KGB? They certainly did, and the majority of the republicans go right along with them. We aren't betrayed by our enemies, we are betrayed by those who are supposed to be on our side.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/02/02/kevin_mccarthy_the_police_officer_who_shot_ashli_babbit_did_his_job.html

Too bad to cheapen otherwise good points.  And to cheapen the value of the forum with the one sided attacks.

I thought we were supposed to seek truth here, not be an echo chamber. I am going to criticize our side when they deserve it, and they really deserve it.

Still no response.   Who is YOUR political party?  What is their platform?  Who are their elected officials?  What did they de-fund lately?  What mistakes have they made?

I am registered as a Libertarian, but almost always vote R, although it's increasingly obvious that voting at the national level is an utter waste of time.

Even Donald Trump, who ran against both parties, knew you only win and govern in the current era by capturing the nomination of one of the two major parties.

And once he was in office, he was sabotaged and targeted from every angle by the deep state. His lawful orders were ignored, including by the Pentagon. Do you understand that means that you are ruled by the deep state and that elections (Even if we had honest elections) are FUCKING MEANINGLESS.


https://thehill.com/policy/defense/441240-mattis-ignored-orders-from-trump-white-house-on-north-korea-iran-report/

https://www.iflscience.com/pentagon-ignores-trumps-orders-continues-preparing-climate-change-43721

IMHO, fine to criticize our own side or either side, but your mission to tear down the right while leaving leaving the Left in power is destructive to everything I believe in.  - Doug

The people in power ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ELECTIONS. The country you grew up in is gone. It's an ugly truth, but it's the truth. Meanwhile, the republicans can't be bothered to use the tiny bit of power left to them because they aren't on our side.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1594 on: March 04, 2023, 11:59:29 AM »
You cherry pick facts to fit your narrative not unlike the other side. Kevin McCarthy is dead wrong on Ashley Babbitt, and there are plenty of other examples of Republicans wrong and Republicans not taking action when they should. But that pushes away 437 posts of Republican accomplishments in just the Trump years and those were mostly in the first two years.

If if your intent is to spread hatred and disparagement of the only party that has a chance to save us, mentioned one too many times here already, I don't want to be any part of it.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1595 on: March 04, 2023, 12:02:52 PM »
You cherry pick facts to fit your narrative not unlike the other side. Kevin McCarthy is dead wrong on Ashley Babbitt, and there are plenty of other examples of Republicans wrong and Republicans not taking action when they should. But that pushes away 437 posts of Republican accomplishments in just the Trump years and those were mostly in the first two years.

If if your intent is to spread hatred and disparagement of the only party that has a chance to save us, mentioned one too many times here already, I don't want to be any part of it.

I cherry pick facts? Was Trump illegally surveilled by the IC/FBI before and during his presidency? Yes or no?

Did the Pentagon follow Trumps lawful orders, as mandated by the constitution? Yes or no?


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1596 on: March 04, 2023, 12:14:51 PM »
You quote my whole post and miss my whole point. I guess that is the point.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1597 on: March 04, 2023, 01:25:17 PM »
You quote my whole post and miss my whole point. I guess that is the point.

The whole point is a coup took place in 2020. I guess that fact is too scary for you to recognize, so you are going to cling to your “Vote Harder” fantasy.

Please point out where a coup was reversed by voting. I’ll wait.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18128
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1598 on: March 04, 2023, 04:04:02 PM »
"where a coup was reversed by voting"

Two examples with almost exact same circumstances:

In 1960, Democrats stole the presidential election.

The Mayor Daley machine rigged Chicago to steal Illinois. Everyone knew that, and most know LBJ's machine stole Texas. JFK won the popular vote by 0.1% with razor sharp margins in those two states.
One or both of those states would have swung the election the other way.

By 1980, Reagan won 44 states including both Texas and Illinois by wide margins. 

In the year 2000 we had the butterfly ballots and all the shenanigans in Palm Beach County, Broward and Dade. After uneven recounts using "imputed intent", the Florida Court awarded the state (and nationa)l election to Al Gore. The US Supreme Court reversed that based on specific language in the Constitution that some Democrat appointed justices were unable to read or recognize.  Coup reversed by previous election wins.  By 2022, Florida had Republican supermajorities at all levels, and Miami-Dade County is now majority Republican.

How did those things happen? Hard work, better messaging and the successful politicking that you mock.

No one said this would be easy.

No one said this was instantly correctable.

You say we are here to seek the truth. I say we are here to seek the truth AND to advance or restore the American Creed.

Fighting our own side is the opposite of what I'm here to do.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1599 on: March 04, 2023, 06:15:06 PM »
"where a coup was reversed by voting"

Two examples with almost exact same circumstances:

In 1960, Democrats stole the presidential election.

The Mayor Daley machine rigged Chicago to steal Illinois. Everyone knew that, and most know LBJ's machine stole Texas. JFK won the popular vote by 0.1% with razor sharp margins in those two states.
One or both of those states would have swung the election the other way.

By 1980, Reagan won 44 states including both Texas and Illinois by wide margins. 

In the year 2000 we had the butterfly ballots and all the shenanigans in Palm Beach County, Broward and Dade. After uneven recounts using "imputed intent", the Florida Court awarded the state (and nationa)l election to Al Gore. The US Supreme Court reversed that based on specific language in the Constitution that some Democrat appointed justices were unable to read or recognize.  Coup reversed by previous election wins.  By 2022, Florida had Republican supermajorities at all levels, and Miami-Dade County is now majority Republican.

How did those things happen? Hard work, better messaging and the successful politicking that you mock.

No one said this would be easy.

No one said this was instantly correctable.

You say we are here to seek the truth. I say we are here to seek the truth AND to advance or restore the American Creed.

Fighting our own side is the opposite of what I'm here to do.

"Two examples with almost exact same circumstances:"

The circumstances are radically different.