Quote of the Day: Conspiracy or Incompetence?

 

“Whenever you’re faced with an explanation of what’s going on in Washington, the choice between incompetence and conspiracy, always choose incompetence.”  — Charles Krauthammer

I still miss him. Charles Krauthammer was able to observe the political landscape with savvy and insight, and often nailed the Washington scene accordingly. But when I read this quotation, I wondered if Charles would make the same observation, given the events of the last five to ten years.

I think today he would come to a different conclusion.

Instead, he would likely say that rather than choose between incompetence and conspiracy, an astute observer would need to say that both incompetence and conspiracy apply.

A person wouldn’t have to go far to recognize that several events, to be described accurately, would include both attributes:

  • The Russian hoax—clearly the plans of the FBI were insidious and lawless—a conspiracy extraordinaire—but the sloppiness of their efforts has also damaged the agency’s reputation forever.
  • Hillary’s efforts to take down Trump were baked into the conspiracy pie, and her explanation for covering her deletion of 30,000 emails was laughable.
  • The Great Reset continues to proceed in the background, with the international set conspiring with our own elites(so to speak), already wreaking havoc on our economy.
  • Modern monetary theory (MMT) is lauded as the most progressive approach to managing the economy, defying reason and common sense, while its proponents continue to defend it with misguided hopes, expectations, and dreams.
  • Marxism is raising its ugly head again (called only “socialism”), pushed by the elites in their attempt to control society, while choosing to ignore the disastrous results of the Marxist agenda in the past.
  • COVID-19 management has been a farce, as Washington bureaucrats bumbled and stumbled in their efforts to figure out how to protect the population, yet using strategies that are obvious attempts to increase their control over our citizens.
  • The commission investigating the January 6 “insurrection” is an embarrassment to anyone who knows what actually happened. This group is conspiring to ensure that Donald Trump is punished for having been our President, and they are dragging out their investigation with irrelevant interviews of people, just to smear as many people as they can along the way. Their efforts are an insult to our country and the world.

The list could be much, much longer, but it’s clear to me that we are governed by ignorant and incompetent bureaucrats who have exaggerated views of their own competence, and who are determined to unite in an effort to destroy the freedoms that we treasure.

What do you think of my analysis?

Feel free to add to the list!

Published in Group Writing
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 201 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):
    That’s not an assumption?

    I knew you’d get me on that one! But I only made one assumption.

    You make a good point. We don’t know. But my recollection is that Krauthammer grudgingly accept Trump, as did many of us. That means at least he wasn’t a Never Trumper. But let me check on this . . . assumption. . .

    He was pretty much a Never Trumper” although he had some nuanced views.

    What wasn’t nuanced was that he bought the whole Charlottesville Hoax hook line and sinker. I understand how people could have been mislead by the ubiquitous reporting that left off Trumps crucial end of sentence saying “I’m not talking about the white supremisists – they should be condemned absolutely” when the “both sides” which referred to people who wanted to keep the history and those who didn’t.

    EDIT I meant to include this – BUT for someone so smart and knowledgeable and connected to peddle this falsehood is either incompetence or conspiratorial . Either way…

    end of edit.

    Krauthammer also  – to the point of this post, coincidentally, sided with ‘conspiracy’ rather than ‘incompetence’

    Remember the beginnings of the Russia hoax?

    Donald Trump Jr. has defended his meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer by saying he didn’t get anything out of it, but Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer isn’t buying it.

    “It’s a hell of a defense to say your collusion might be incompetent,” he told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum.

    • #31
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):
    Where has the 1/6 Committee demanded Justice Thomas resign?

    Sen. Ron Wyden on Friday called on U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from all cases related to the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, after the justice’s wife was found to have pushed for the overturning of the presidential election.

    I was incorrect, but called for recusal, also an inappropriate demand.

    • #32
  3. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Franco (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):
    That’s not an assumption?

    I knew you’d get me on that one! But I only made one assumption.

    You make a good point. We don’t know. But my recollection is that Krauthammer grudgingly accept Trump, as did many of us. That means at least he wasn’t a Never Trumper. But let me check on this . . . assumption. . .

    He was pretty much a Never Trumper” although he had some nuanced views.

    What wasn’t nuanced was that he bought the whole Charlottesville Hoax hook line and sinker. I understand how people could have been mislead by the ubiquitous reporting that left off Trumps crucial end of sentence saying “I’m not talking about the white supremisists – they should be condemned absolutely” when the “both sides” which referred to people who wanted to keep the history and those who didn’t.

    EDIT I meant to include this – BUT for someone so smart and knowledgeable and connected to peddle this falsehood is either incompetence or conspiratorial . Either way…

    end of edit.

    Krauthammer also – to the point of this post, coincidentally, sided with ‘conspiracy’ rather than ‘incompetence’

    Remember the beginnings of the Russia hoax?

    Donald Trump Jr. has defended his meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer by saying he didn’t get anything out of it, but Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer isn’t buying it.

    “It’s a hell of a defense to say your collusion might be incompetent,” he told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum.

    It’s a hell of a charge to say meeting with a lawyer is ipso facto collusion.

    • #33
  4. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    It is vanishingly unlikely that anyone arguing that the Jan 6 Commission is operating in good faith is operating in good faith. 

    • #34
  5. The Great Adventure Coolidge
    The Great Adventure
    @TGA

    I might say that it really isn’t a choice.  The unparalleled incompetence comes from, well, their complete and total inability to do anything in the correct manner.  The conspiracy comes from their unassailable confidence that they do know what they’re doing.

    • #35
  6. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):
    Where has the 1/6 Committee demanded Justice Thomas resign?

    Sen. Ron Wyden on Friday called on U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from all cases related to the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, after the justice’s wife was found to have pushed for the overturning of the presidential election.

    I was incorrect, but called for recusal, also an inappropriate demand.

    Sen. Wyden isn’t on the committee.

    As for whether Justice Thomas should recuse himself from cases concerning Jan. 6, that depends on the nature of the case.  If he is aware of any other communication his wife had with the WH, he should recuse if the issue before the Court involves release of WH communications.

    • #36
  7. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    genferei (View Comment):

    It is vanishingly unlikely that anyone arguing that the Jan 6 Commission is operating in good faith is operating in good faith.

    Why is that?

    • #37
  8. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Percival (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):
    That’s not an assumption?

    I knew you’d get me on that one! But I only made one assumption.

    You make a good point. We don’t know. But my recollection is that Krauthammer grudgingly accept Trump, as did many of us. That means at least he wasn’t a Never Trumper. But let me check on this . . . assumption. . .

    He was pretty much a Never Trumper” although he had some nuanced views.

    What wasn’t nuanced was that he bought the whole Charlottesville Hoax hook line and sinker. I understand how people could have been mislead by the ubiquitous reporting that left off Trumps crucial end of sentence saying “I’m not talking about the white supremisists – they should be condemned absolutely” when the “both sides” which referred to people who wanted to keep the history and those who didn’t.

    EDIT I meant to include this – BUT for someone so smart and knowledgeable and connected to peddle this falsehood is either incompetence or conspiratorial . Either way…

    end of edit.

    Krauthammer also – to the point of this post, coincidentally, sided with ‘conspiracy’ rather than ‘incompetence’

    Remember the beginnings of the Russia hoax?

    Donald Trump Jr. has defended his meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer by saying he didn’t get anything out of it, but Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer isn’t buying it.

    “It’s a hell of a defense to say your collusion might be incompetent,” he told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum.

    It’s a hell of a charge to say meeting with a lawyer is ipso facto collusion.

    Doesn’t meeting with (someone you believe to be) a foreign government attorney in order to obtain negative information on your political opponent meet the definition of collusion?

    • #38
  9. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):
    As for whether Justice Thomas should recuse himself from cases concerning Jan. 6, that depends on the nature of the case.  If he is aware of any other communication his wife had with the WH, he should recuse if the issue before the Court involves release of WH communications.

    Neil, I appreciate your sincerity and persistence, but rather than ignore your comments and questions, I’m choosing not to respond further to you. I will make these points, and I hope you find them satisfactory. There is no doubt that people on both sides of the aisle have contributed to the polarization. I’m not interested in creating a list that will prove that the Dems are worse than the Reps; that wasn’t the purpose of this post. Can I “prove” many of my criticisms of the Dems? I think so, but you repeatedly choose to give people on the other side the benefit of the doubt. Given the many lies and deceptions that have come from their side (and you can’t prove that they are not lies and deceptions, or their actual intentions), I’m not willing to do so. At some point I think it’s reasonable to draw conclusions from the activities I’ve listed and more. You are welcome to disagree. But I’ll stay with my position. What you haven’t been able to do, IMHO, is discount much of what I’ve said, except to say I’m demonstrating confirmation bias. I would point out that the Dems do the same thing. You are welcome to continue to comment.

    • #39
  10. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    genferei (View Comment):

    It is vanishingly unlikely that anyone arguing that the Jan 6 Commission is operating in good faith is operating in good faith.

    Why is that?

    Why was Ray Epps, the guy who was on the scaffolding with a bullhorn exorting people to go into the Capitol wanted by the FBI right up until he wasn’t?

    Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton questioned federal law enforcement officials about Epps during congressional hearings. The federal officials declined to answer questions about Epps or the involvement of federal agents, citing a long-standing policy to not comment on current investigations.

    • #40
  11. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    genferei (View Comment):

    It is vanishingly unlikely that anyone arguing that the Jan 6 Commission is operating in good faith is operating in good faith.

    Why is that?

    Why was Ray Epps, the guy who was on the scaffolding with a bullhorn exorting people to go into the Capitol wanted by the FBI right up until he wasn’t?

    Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton questioned federal law enforcement officials about Epps during congressional hearings. The federal officials declined to answer questions about Epps or the involvement of federal agents, citing a long-standing policy to not comment on current investigations.

    The 1/6 House Committee does not determine who is or isn’t placed on the FBI wanted list.  You seem to be conflating two very different organizations.

    • #41
  12. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):
    That’s not an assumption?

    I knew you’d get me on that one! But I only made one assumption.

    You make a good point. We don’t know. But my recollection is that Krauthammer grudgingly accept Trump, as did many of us. That means at least he wasn’t a Never Trumper. But let me check on this . . . assumption. . .

    He was pretty much a Never Trumper” although he had some nuanced views.

    What wasn’t nuanced was that he bought the whole Charlottesville Hoax hook line and sinker. I understand how people could have been mislead by the ubiquitous reporting that left off Trumps crucial end of sentence saying “I’m not talking about the white supremisists – they should be condemned absolutely” when the “both sides” which referred to people who wanted to keep the history and those who didn’t.

    EDIT I meant to include this – BUT for someone so smart and knowledgeable and connected to peddle this falsehood is either incompetence or conspiratorial . Either way…

    end of edit.

    Krauthammer also – to the point of this post, coincidentally, sided with ‘conspiracy’ rather than ‘incompetence’

    Remember the beginnings of the Russia hoax?

    Donald Trump Jr. has defended his meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer by saying he didn’t get anything out of it, but Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer isn’t buying it.

    “It’s a hell of a defense to say your collusion might be incompetent,” he told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum.

    It’s a hell of a charge to say meeting with a lawyer is ipso facto collusion.

    Doesn’t meeting with (someone you believe to be) a foreign government attorney in order to obtain negative information on your political opponent meet the definition of collusion?

    They met with the attorneys to find out what they wanted, and when it turned out that they were only there to talk about repealing the Magnitsky Act, the meeting was essentially over. There was no dirt shared. There is no evidence that there was any dirt to share. No crime was committed.

    Sorry if your feelings  were hurt. Rub some dirt on that.

    • #42
  13. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):
    Where has the 1/6 Committee demanded Justice Thomas resign?

    Sen. Ron Wyden on Friday called on U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from all cases related to the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, after the justice’s wife was found to have pushed for the overturning of the presidential election.

    I was incorrect, but called for recusal, also an inappropriate demand.

    Sen. Wyden isn’t on the committee.

    As for whether Justice Thomas should recuse himself from cases concerning Jan. 6, that depends on the nature of the case. If he is aware of any other communication his wife had with the WH, he should recuse if the issue before the Court involves release of WH communications.

    If I was on the Supreme Court, I would never recuse myself from any case.  If I made a decision in a lower court and it comes back to me as a SCOTUS justice, I’ll listen to the arguments and render my position accordingly.  So what if I decide my original decision was correct?  I have 8 other justices to counter any prejudice on my part . . .

    • #43
  14. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):
    As for whether Justice Thomas should recuse himself from cases concerning Jan. 6, that depends on the nature of the case. If he is aware of any other communication his wife had with the WH, he should recuse if the issue before the Court involves release of WH communications.

    Neil, I appreciate your sincerity and persistence, but rather than ignore your comments and questions, I’m choosing not to respond further to you. I will make these points, and I hope you find them satisfactory. There is no doubt that people on both sides of the aisle have contributed to the polarization. I’m not interested in creating a list that will prove that the Dems are worse than the Reps; that wasn’t the purpose of this post. Can I “prove” many of my criticisms of the Dems? I think so, but you repeatedly choose to give people on the other side the benefit of the doubt. Given the many lies and deceptions that have come from their side (and you can’t prove that they are not lies and deceptions, or their actual intentions), I’m not willing to do so. At some point I think it’s reasonable to draw conclusions from the activities I’ve listed and more. You are welcome to disagree. But I’ll stay with my position. What you haven’t been able to do, IMHO, is discount much of what I’ve said, except to say I’m demonstrating confirmation bias. I would point out that the Dems do the same thing. You are welcome to continue to comment.

    I would simply reiterate, https://ricochet.com/1221213/quote-of-the-day-conspiracy-or-incompetence/#comment-6184201

    • #44
  15. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    Lawst N. Thawt (View Comment):
    And I’m not sure the founders realized how incompetent we could become.

    Arahunt:

    I think they did know. They put checks and balances in place against it. Unfortunately, we tore those out of the system, allowing power to be concentrated in Washington. 

    Arahunt nails it.

    Virtually every government on earth that does not have effective checks and balances against corruption and undue influence is corrupt as hell. The “checks and Balances”  were put in place to control government abuse which was  rampant in the  English system.

    Yes, as Arahunt says the Left “tore those (checks and balances) out of the system purposely to corrupt the system and to concentrate power not just in Washington but in their favored Leftist bureaucracies and interest groups  virtually everywhere. 

    Ain’t it funny how the effects of this so-called “incompetence” only benefit the Left ( 99% or so ) of the time. If this “incompetence” was truly incompetence then one would expect to see what economists call a “random walk” of effects benefitting both sides almost equally long term, but that is not at all what we are seeing.

    Time and  again we see these willfully blind commenters here at Ricochet who refuse to acknowledge the truth that our government and our Constitutional Legal framework have been thoroughly corrupted by the Left for their own benefit, likely because these commenters  feel they are too entrenched in the current corrupt  system and don’t want their goodies messed it, while at the same time callously ignoring the tremendous harm done to our once great nation.  

    • #45
  16. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):
    That’s not an assumption?

    I knew you’d get me on that one! But I only made one assumption.

    You make a good point. We don’t know. But my recollection is that Krauthammer grudgingly accept Trump, as did many of us. That means at least he wasn’t a Never Trumper. But let me check on this . . . assumption. . .

    He was pretty much a Never Trumper” although he had some nuanced views.

    What wasn’t nuanced was that he bought the whole Charlottesville Hoax hook line and sinker. I understand how people could have been mislead by the ubiquitous reporting that left off Trumps crucial end of sentence saying “I’m not talking about the white supremisists – they should be condemned absolutely” when the “both sides” which referred to people who wanted to keep the history and those who didn’t.

    EDIT I meant to include this – BUT for someone so smart and knowledgeable and connected to peddle this falsehood is either incompetence or conspiratorial . Either way…

    end of edit.

    Krauthammer also – to the point of this post, coincidentally, sided with ‘conspiracy’ rather than ‘incompetence’

    Remember the beginnings of the Russia hoax?

    Donald Trump Jr. has defended his meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer by saying he didn’t get anything out of it, but Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer isn’t buying it.

    “It’s a hell of a defense to say your collusion might be incompetent,” he told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum.

    It’s a hell of a charge to say meeting with a lawyer is ipso facto collusion.

    Doesn’t meeting with (someone you believe to be) a foreign government attorney in order to obtain negative information on your political opponent meet the definition of collusion?

    They met with the attorneys to find out what they wanted, and when it turned out that they were only there to talk about repealing the Magnitsky Act, the meeting was essentially over. There was no dirt shared. There is no evidence that there was any dirt to share. No crime was committed.

    Sorry if your feelings were hurt. Rub some dirt on that.

    No, they met with the attorney who they believed to be the “Crown prosecutor” of Russia to obtain dirt on Hillary Clinton.

    ”The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.”.

    • #46
  17. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    genferei (View Comment):

    It is vanishingly unlikely that anyone arguing that the Jan 6 Commission is operating in good faith is operating in good faith.

    Why is that?

    Why was Ray Epps, the guy who was on the scaffolding with a bullhorn exorting people to go into the Capitol wanted by the FBI right up until he wasn’t?

    Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton questioned federal law enforcement officials about Epps during congressional hearings. The federal officials declined to answer questions about Epps or the involvement of federal agents, citing a long-standing policy to not comment on current investigations.

    The 1/6 House Committee does not determine who is or isn’t placed on the FBI wanted list. You seem to be conflating two very different organizations.

    You seem to prefer gaslight to sunshine.

    • #47
  18. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Yes, I am feeling the power of “and”.

    • #48
  19. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    genferei (View Comment):

    It is vanishingly unlikely that anyone arguing that the Jan 6 Commission is operating in good faith is operating in good faith.

    Why is that?

    Why was Ray Epps, the guy who was on the scaffolding with a bullhorn exorting people to go into the Capitol wanted by the FBI right up until he wasn’t?

    Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton questioned federal law enforcement officials about Epps during congressional hearings. The federal officials declined to answer questions about Epps or the involvement of federal agents, citing a long-standing policy to not comment on current investigations.

    The 1/6 House Committee does not determine who is or isn’t placed on the FBI wanted list. You seem to be conflating two very different organizations.

    You seem to prefer gaslight to sunshine.

    I prefer truth.  I asked why for reasons to conclude the 1/6 committee was not acting in good faith and you brought up something having nothing to do with the committee.

    • #49
  20. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    genferei (View Comment):

    It is vanishingly unlikely that anyone arguing that the Jan 6 Commission is operating in good faith is operating in good faith.

    Why is that?

    Why was Ray Epps, the guy who was on the scaffolding with a bullhorn exorting people to go into the Capitol wanted by the FBI right up until he wasn’t?

    Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton questioned federal law enforcement officials about Epps during congressional hearings. The federal officials declined to answer questions about Epps or the involvement of federal agents, citing a long-standing policy to not comment on current investigations.

    The 1/6 House Committee does not determine who is or isn’t placed on the FBI wanted list. You seem to be conflating two very different organizations.

    From the Examiner article:

    After senators brought Epps up in a hearing, a Jan. 6 committee spokesperson released a statement last week, saying Epps “informed us that he was not employed by, working with, or acting at the direction of any law enforcement agency on January 5th or 6th or at any other time and that he has never been an informant for the FBI or any other law enforcement agency.”

    Emphasis added.

    I guess Epps’ word was good enough.

    • #50
  21. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):
    That’s not an assumption?

    I knew you’d get me on that one! But I only made one assumption.

    You make a good point. We don’t know. But my recollection is that Krauthammer grudgingly accept Trump, as did many of us. That means at least he wasn’t a Never Trumper. But let me check on this . . . assumption. . .

    He was pretty much a Never Trumper” although he had some nuanced views.

    What wasn’t nuanced was that he bought the whole Charlottesville Hoax hook line and sinker. I understand how people could have been mislead by the ubiquitous reporting that left off Trumps crucial end of sentence saying “I’m not talking about the white supremisists – they should be condemned absolutely” when the “both sides” which referred to people who wanted to keep the history and those who didn’t.

    EDIT I meant to include this – BUT for someone so smart and knowledgeable and connected to peddle this falsehood is either incompetence or conspiratorial . Either way…

    end of edit.

    Krauthammer also – to the point of this post, coincidentally, sided with ‘conspiracy’ rather than ‘incompetence’

    Remember the beginnings of the Russia hoax?

    Donald Trump Jr. has defended his meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer by saying he didn’t get anything out of it, but Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer isn’t buying it.

    “It’s a hell of a defense to say your collusion might be incompetent,” he told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum.

    It’s a hell of a charge to say meeting with a lawyer is ipso facto collusion.

    Doesn’t meeting with (someone you believe to be) a foreign government attorney in order to obtain negative information on your political opponent meet the definition of collusion?

    They met with the attorneys to find out what they wanted, and when it turned out that they were only there to talk about repealing the Magnitsky Act, the meeting was essentially over. There was no dirt shared. There is no evidence that there was any dirt to share. No crime was committed.

    Sorry if your feelings were hurt. Rub some dirt on that.

    No, they met with the attorney who they believed to be the “Crown prosecutor” of Russia to obtain dirt on Hillary Clinton.

    ”The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.”.

    No one provided anything.

    • #51
  22. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    genferei (View Comment):

    It is vanishingly unlikely that anyone arguing that the Jan 6 Commission is operating in good faith is operating in good faith.

    Why is that?

    Why was Ray Epps, the guy who was on the scaffolding with a bullhorn exorting people to go into the Capitol wanted by the FBI right up until he wasn’t?

    Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton questioned federal law enforcement officials about Epps during congressional hearings. The federal officials declined to answer questions about Epps or the involvement of federal agents, citing a long-standing policy to not comment on current investigations.

    The 1/6 House Committee does not determine who is or isn’t placed on the FBI wanted list. You seem to be conflating two very different organizations.

    From the Examiner article:

    After senators brought Epps up in a hearing, a Jan. 6 committee spokesperson released a statement last week, saying Epps “informed us that he was not employed by, working with, or acting at the direction of any law enforcement agency on January 5th or 6th or at any other time and that he has never been an informant for the FBI or any other law enforcement agency.”

    Emphasis added.

    I guess Epps’ word was good enough.

    It is certainly good enough for a statement involving what the person told you.

    The Committee hasn’t released any conclusions regarding Epps, it is bizarre you would use him to claim the committee is operating in bad faith.

    • #52
  23. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):
    That’s not an assumption?

    I knew you’d get me on that one! But I only made one assumption.

    You make a good point. We don’t know. But my recollection is that Krauthammer grudgingly accept Trump, as did many of us. That means at least he wasn’t a Never Trumper. But let me check on this . . . assumption. . .

    He was pretty much a Never Trumper” although he had some nuanced views.

    What wasn’t nuanced was that he bought the whole Charlottesville Hoax hook line and sinker. I understand how people could have been mislead by the ubiquitous reporting that left off Trumps crucial end of sentence saying “I’m not talking about the white supremisists – they should be condemned absolutely” when the “both sides” which referred to people who wanted to keep the history and those who didn’t.

    EDIT I meant to include this – BUT for someone so smart and knowledgeable and connected to peddle this falsehood is either incompetence or conspiratorial . Either way…

    end of edit.

    Krauthammer also – to the point of this post, coincidentally, sided with ‘conspiracy’ rather than ‘incompetence’

    Remember the beginnings of the Russia hoax?

    Donald Trump Jr. has defended his meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer by saying he didn’t get anything out of it, but Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer isn’t buying it.

    “It’s a hell of a defense to say your collusion might be incompetent,” he told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum.

    It’s a hell of a charge to say meeting with a lawyer is ipso facto collusion.

    Doesn’t meeting with (someone you believe to be) a foreign government attorney in order to obtain negative information on your political opponent meet the definition of collusion?

    They met with the attorneys to find out what they wanted, and when it turned out that they were only there to talk about repealing the Magnitsky Act, the meeting was essentially over. There was no dirt shared. There is no evidence that there was any dirt to share. No crime was committed.

    Sorry if your feelings were hurt. Rub some dirt on that.

    No, they met with the attorney who they believed to be the “Crown prosecutor” of Russia to obtain dirt on Hillary Clinton.

    ”The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.”.

    No one provided anything.

    So we are back to the defense of their attempt at collusion being incompetent.

    • #53
  24. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Moderators take note. People can stay within the CoC and still kill a thread. Like this one. 

    I don’t know the solution, but I would like to see one.

    I’m out.

    • #54
  25. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):
    It is the assumption the actions were not done in good faith which I believe is mistaken. Can you not imagine a good faith reason government officials would take extreme measures to prevent the spread of a deadly virus? Or a member of Congress wanting to find out what led to a violent attack on the Congress itself?

    My issue with the virus is the government’s insistence that it is following the science, when in fact it is not, particularly regarding the wearing of masks. They have paid no attention to the studies that the masks are barely helpful, but instead of leaving the decision to wear a mask up to the citizen, they have repeatedly required mask wearing. They choose to accept some “scientific” decisions and reject others, in fact banning the information that contradicts their opinion from social media. The investigation of 1/6 could be justified, except they are demanding interviews with people who were not involved, e.g., Ginnie Thomas, and then demanding that Clarence Thomas resign. It is how they are conducting the investigation, not just the decision to do it.

    Someone justifying or rationalizing their decisions in a manner you find unpersuasive or even factually inaccurate isn’t evidence of bad faith. The conflict between security and liberty is one of the most basic in politics. People accept different levels of risk and that is not going to change and when you add the natural political CYA impulse most public officials are going to err on the side of security. That isn’t evil but human. It takes a certain level of courage for a political leader to do otherwise.

    Where has the 1/6 Committee demanded Justice Thomas resign? What about the investigation is problematic?

    In at least four or five of Susan’s bullet points, lying was employed. That negates any presumption of “good faith”. And my comment about sex, family, and fatherhood revolve around lies concerning so-called gender fluidity, child sexuality, and toxic masculinity. Again, lies demonstrating bad faith.

    You’re assuming the lies. people can, and often do, believe things which are not true. They can also lie to protect themselves rather than harm another.

    No, I’m assuming nothing.  What lies do you state that I’m assuming?

    And to defend a lie, saying that they are just doing it for their own good, to protect themselves, is technically called defending a lie.

    • #55
  26. Headedwest Coolidge
    Headedwest
    @Headedwest

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Moderators take note. People can stay within the CoC and still kill a thread. Like this one.

    I don’t know the solution, but I would like to see one.

    I’m out.

    Amen.

    • #56
  27. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):
    It is the assumption the actions were not done in good faith which I believe is mistaken. Can you not imagine a good faith reason government officials would take extreme measures to prevent the spread of a deadly virus? Or a member of Congress wanting to find out what led to a violent attack on the Congress itself?

    My issue with the virus is the government’s insistence that it is following the science, when in fact it is not, particularly regarding the wearing of masks. They have paid no attention to the studies that the masks are barely helpful, but instead of leaving the decision to wear a mask up to the citizen, they have repeatedly required mask wearing. They choose to accept some “scientific” decisions and reject others, in fact banning the information that contradicts their opinion from social media. The investigation of 1/6 could be justified, except they are demanding interviews with people who were not involved, e.g., Ginnie Thomas, and then demanding that Clarence Thomas resign. It is how they are conducting the investigation, not just the decision to do it.

    Someone justifying or rationalizing their decisions in a manner you find unpersuasive or even factually inaccurate isn’t evidence of bad faith. The conflict between security and liberty is one of the most basic in politics. People accept different levels of risk and that is not going to change and when you add the natural political CYA impulse most public officials are going to err on the side of security. That isn’t evil but human. It takes a certain level of courage for a political leader to do otherwise.

    Where has the 1/6 Committee demanded Justice Thomas resign? What about the investigation is problematic?

    In at least four or five of Susan’s bullet points, lying was employed. That negates any presumption of “good faith”. And my comment about sex, family, and fatherhood revolve around lies concerning so-called gender fluidity, child sexuality, and toxic masculinity. Again, lies demonstrating bad faith.

    You’re assuming the lies. people can, and often do, believe things which are not true. They can also lie to protect themselves rather than harm another.

    No, I’m assuming nothing. What lies do you state that I’m assuming?

    Those you claim were employed in at least four or five of Susan’s bullet points.  As you were no more specific in your assertion I can be no more specific in mine.

    • #57
  28. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    My issue with the virus is the government’s insistence that it is following the science, when in fact it is not, particularly regarding the wearing of masks. They have paid no attention to the studies that the masks are barely helpful, but instead of leaving the decision to wear a mask up to the citizen, they have repeatedly required mask wearing. They choose to accept some “scientific” decisions and reject others, in fact banning the information that contradicts their opinion from social media. The investigation of 1/6 could be justified, except they are demanding interviews with people who were not involved, e.g., Ginnie Thomas, and then demanding that Clarence Thomas resign. It is how they are conducting the investigation, not just the decision to do it.

    Someone justifying or rationalizing their decisions in a manner you find unpersuasive or even factually inaccurate isn’t evidence of bad faith. The conflict between security and liberty is one of the most basic in politics. People accept different levels of risk and that is not going to change and when you add the natural political CYA impulse most public officials are going to err on the side of security. That isn’t evil but human. It takes a certain level of courage for a political leader to do otherwise.

    Where has the 1/6 Committee demanded Justice Thomas resign? What about the investigation is problematic?

    In at least four or five of Susan’s bullet points, lying was employed. That negates any presumption of “good faith”. And my comment about sex, family, and fatherhood revolve around lies concerning so-called gender fluidity, child sexuality, and toxic masculinity. Again, lies demonstrating bad faith.

    You’re assuming the lies. people can, and often do, believe things which are not true. They can also lie to protect themselves rather than harm another.

    No, I’m assuming nothing. What lies do you state that I’m assuming?

    Those you claim were employed in at least four or five of Susan’s bullet points. As you were no more specific in your assertion I can be no more specific in mine.

    You assert without evidence that I am assuming something.  Provide the evidence of my assumption or I know that you are either not being candid or your eyes are closed to the obvious lies.

    Funny.  We’ve been through this before when you defended calling someone a liar without knowing what the lie was, and now you defend liars without knowing what the lies were.

    • #58
  29. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    My issue with the virus is the government’s insistence that it is following the science, when in fact it is not, particularly regarding the wearing of masks. They have paid no attention to the studies that the masks are barely helpful, but instead of leaving the decision to wear a mask up to the citizen, they have repeatedly required mask wearing. They choose to accept some “scientific” decisions and reject others, in fact banning the information that contradicts their opinion from social media. The investigation of 1/6 could be justified, except they are demanding interviews with people who were not involved, e.g., Ginnie Thomas, and then demanding that Clarence Thomas resign. It is how they are conducting the investigation, not just the decision to do it.

    Someone justifying or rationalizing their decisions in a manner you find unpersuasive or even factually inaccurate isn’t evidence of bad faith. The conflict between security and liberty is one of the most basic in politics. People accept different levels of risk and that is not going to change and when you add the natural political CYA impulse most public officials are going to err on the side of security. That isn’t evil but human. It takes a certain level of courage for a political leader to do otherwise.

    Where has the 1/6 Committee demanded Justice Thomas resign? What about the investigation is problematic?

    In at least four or five of Susan’s bullet points, lying was employed. That negates any presumption of “good faith”. And my comment about sex, family, and fatherhood revolve around lies concerning so-called gender fluidity, child sexuality, and toxic masculinity. Again, lies demonstrating bad faith.

    You’re assuming the lies. people can, and often do, believe things which are not true. They can also lie to protect themselves rather than harm another.

    No, I’m assuming nothing. What lies do you state that I’m assuming?

    Those you claim were employed in at least four or five of Susan’s bullet points. As you were no more specific in your assertion I can be no more specific in mine.

    You assert without evidence that I am assuming something. Provide the evidence of my assumption or I know that you are either not being candid or your eyes are closed to the obvious lies.

    Funny. We’ve been through this before when you defended calling someone a liar without knowing what the lie was, and now you defend liars without knowing what the lies were.

    I am familiar enough with the situations referred to and am unfamiliar with any lies that would negate the presumption of good faith.  If you have examples of such lies, cite them.

    • #59
  30. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Krauthammer, sadly, didn’t think that the Russia collusion story was a hoax.  See his July 2017 article on the issue, here.

    I remain fond of Krauthammer.  I do think that he was wrong about Trump, but before the 2016 election, I opposed Trump too.  I don’t know whether or not he would have come around, had he lived longer.  Rest in peace, Doctor.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.