Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Desperation and Denial: The Dems Should Be Very Worried
Western Chauvinist has a post that features a jaw-dropping video interview of attorney, Joe diGenova, regarding details and a timeline of the events leading up to the current discussion of the FISA memo. You really must listen to the whole thing. I was so taken aback that I had to check out who this guy was.
Joe diGenova has been around for years:
For four years, diGenova was United States Attorney, District of Columbia, which is the largest such office, having more than 400 attorneys. He supervised complex Federal criminal and civil matters including international drug smuggling, public corruption, espionage, insider trading, tax fraud, extradition, fraud, RICO, export control and international terrorism.
He and his wife, Victoria Toensing also represented victims in the Lois Lerner IRS scandal and have been in private practice for many years.
In a quick survey of criticisms of DiGenova, I found this piece:
Discredited Republican lawyer Joseph diGenova is baselessly claiming that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her staff will face criminal prosecution by the FBI over her use of private email as secretary of state, despite numerous media reports explaining that Clinton is not the target of the FBI’s investigation, which is also not criminal in nature. DiGenova has been discredited as a result of unprofessional behavior while working for Republicans in the 1990s and false claims he has made about the September 2012 Benghazi attacks.
Need I point out that the article came from Media Matters, a George Soros site?
So I’m getting very excited about the direction of all these recent investigations. I see Devin Nunes continuing to strategize the release of additional information that will target not only the FBI and the DOJ, but also the State Department. I see Chuck Grassley challenging the FBI for the redactions on the letter he and Lindsey Graham sent out, validating the four-page Republican memo. I see Trey Gowdy stating that the Democrats’ memo doesn’t invalidate any facts from the Republican memo. And I see Adam Schiff continuing to defend his positions, looking more ridiculous and desperate every day.
I think the Republicans are finally prepared to fight back. We just need to find a way to get their information out and stop the mainstream media from publishing false information.
Joe DiGenova says that Fusion GPS paid off several people to get out the lies; some of those were reporters. Will the mainstream media finally tattle on their own?
SaveSave
SaveSave
SaveSave
Published in Politics
Look at Medicare Part D. Instant 9 trillion unfunded liability. It’s going to be the first thing to go when the bond market collapses. Karl Rove dreamed it up.
Be sure to vote.
The problem is all of the centralized power created since Woodrow Wilson. Statist inflationism. It “worked” until NAFTA was passed, China opened up, robots etc. Voting just makes it worse.
It is insane. I’m on Medicare and we have to change it. I’ve often said that I’m quite willing to cut back on benefits (because we can afford to), but no one wants to give up their little pot of gold. Soon there will be none for everyone.
Why do some people get taxed on Social Security? Taxes on taxes. It’s insane. Theft.
Is means testing Medicare asset confiscation? Wealth taxation? I think it is.
People need to look at this stuff through a more radical lens.
Think about it. Is there even one government actuarial system that has hard actuarial stabilizers by law? Why not?
I think Canada’s social security system has it. That’s it.
It’s all lies and unicorns.
Dont blame Canada! Canada’s program called the Canadian Pension Plan, was established in 1965 and has almost $340 Billion in assets, (the trust fund invests in all asset classes like a regular pension plan – not forced to buy only government debt) and an unfunded liability of nearly $1 Trillion. (these dollars are Canadian) … So Canada is not a model!
Do your really think there is not such thing as objective beauty? It can’t all really be in the eyes of the beholder.
As to seeming lies of the Republicans I will give one example. Which is one I hear bandied about. Which is that the FISA warrant against Page was an attempt to spy on the Trump campaign yet they did not pursue it until after he had left the campaign. Is this a “damned lie” as Twain would put it? Not really but it ain’t the truth either. It is a bending of facts to serve a narrative. The Dems do it too. Neither seems to want transparency, or else both would be pushing to release all the information. So this is what I mean by seeming lies.
I get this is how politics works in a broader sense, but the hyperbole being generated by both sides is incredible. I don’t know about you guys, but I have made it a point lately to listen to plenty of Liberal Podcasts too. And I hear them week in an week out discussing all the issues that we discuss here, but in a kind of bizzaro world reversal. If there was a Liberal Ricochet I’m sure I would be the MAGAist guy on there. Their world is filled with Republican conspiracies and constant lies, while hapless Democrats get steamrolled because they are too nice to play the game to win. They start for the assumption that Trump conspired with the Russians to steal this election from Hillary, and all of you start from the assumption there is a deep state who with Hillary plotted all of this to overthrow Trump. On this site Steel is a partisan hack spreading lies, on theirs he is a modern day Cassandra.
Which ones? Is there anyone sane over there?
Here’s some more catching up for you! I listened, for the first time, to the Whiskey Politics podcast yesterday, and it was a full hour with Victor Davis Hanson on various topics mostly related to this scandal. I highly recommend it to all who are really interested in a very deep analysis from one of the real scholars of our time who is certainly not given to off the cuff responses to any issue. His thoughts, knowing how cautious he usually is, are actually quite disquieting. Hope you (all!) enjoy it as much as we did.
Sincerely, Jim
I would have gone with the most recent Senator Ron Johnson claiming :
What this is all about is further evidence of corruption — more than bias — but corruption at the highest levels of the FBI,” claimed Johnson, who went on and on about “that secret society — we have an informant talking about a group that were holding secret meetings off-site. There’s so much smoke here, there’s so much suspicion …”
That sounded weird. So weird that Fox host Bret Baier interrupted the senator. “Boy! Let’s stop there,” said Baier. “A secret society? Secret meetings off-site of the Justice Department?”
“Correct,” replied Johnson.
“And you have an informant saying that?” asked Baier.
“Yes,” Johnson announced.
I like Ron Johnson and I hope he was simply misinformed when he said this, but it could certainly fall under the category of “lie”.
But the difference was that Johnson was called out on his statement (presumably by members of his own party) because his statement either could not be proved, or he misinterpreted the underlying facts, or he simply pulled it all out of his ahrse, but either way Johnson’s “lie” was “walked back” the following morning. And this “lie” only hurt the (R)’s in their effort compel the public to take note of this scandal they are systematically uncovering in their constitutionally mandated function of Congressional oversight of the DOJ/FBI/Intel Community.
I put it on my MP3 and will hear it on my morning walk!
@valiuth, I hesitate to respond, since (from our past discussion on another OP) I think we have more in common than different. But I will try to address your comments:
There is such a thing, Valiuth. But people get stuck in thinking that they’re ideas are objective or “the truth,” and it can be very difficult to agree. Especially when you have two polarized political parties arguing with each other.
And your point is? Look–when I first came to Ricochet, I was idealistic like you–I hated the twisting of the truth, the manipulation and deceit. After talking about it a lot, you could either say I caved in and went to the dark side, or I tried to find the balance of being realistic and sticking to my values. Trying to be idealistic and hold political parties to my value set is impossible: first, I have no influence on them; second, they aren’t based on an “objective reality.” I have no power to make the political parties do the right thing. Even when I vote, if I vote for an idealist, he or she will likely get squashed by the political machine.
You are right. But my own ideas and values are more in line with the Reps. To argue about which party lies more, which is more horrible, changes nothing, IMHO.
I watch my share of leftist tv (usually when I work out). In spite of disliking both parties, I believe that I am more in alignment with the Reps than the Dems. Which lies more? Who provides a more honest picture? I think the Reps do, but that is not based in objective reality. I know what both sides are saying, what they believe, what they are willing to do to damage the other. I will stay with the Reps, not because I am proud of them or love them or celebrate them, but because they represent my ideas better than the other side.
I said on this site during the campaign that I thought Hillary was doomed to lose when it was obvious to all that the fix was in on her emails. When Comey “exonerated” her he doomed her, because he took away her victim shield. That depressed turnout on the far left.
Trump now has some victimhood, and you better believe he will use it like no other Republican would.
How would that play out, btn? Would anyone care?
My intuition says it will hurt Democrat turnout in 2018. If incontrovertible proof comes out that the Dems used the DOJ to try to steal the election, the coastal progressive base will love it. But there are enough fair-minded Democrats in the hinterlands who won’t like it and won’t show up.
It’s starting to look like more than just the election — what they have been doing to Trump during the transition and during his presidency is just as bad. This is why so many leftists and media and Dems told us that Trump wouldn’t last out his first year. The fix was in and there were a lot of people part of the conspiracy or knowledgeable about it.
And some of those people (McCabe, Brand, Laufman) are getting out before this blows up probably next month with the release of the IG report.
I think we are all anxious to see that report. My hope is that heads will roll!
BTW, I consider conservative extreme Trump critics who have repeatedly said “nothing to see here” to be useful idiots in this whole shameful affair. There is nothing conservative about using the deep state to remove or undermine the authority of a duly elected president from office or condoning such.
This is interesting. The anti-Trump contingent in the conservative camp is evidence of something truly vile in these (mostly) intellectuals. The old quote about there being things that are so stupid that only intellectuals would believe them. This is where we are in our camp. We need to remove these stupid “smart” people from our advisers and our leaders. The sooner the better because they are literally willing to blow up the whole project in order to stamp their feet.
Some even doing podcasts here at Ricochet.
You can despise Trump and despise the corruption of the Obama/DOJ/FBI/Intel/DNC/HRC at the same time …. it’s really not something which requires you take one side or the other.
So I listen to 538 (which is fairly center left, they try to play it very straight which is appreciated), The Slate Podcast is also informative but they are obviously leftist, but they aren’t very angry about it, and I have recently started listening to Pod Save America which is probably the most progressive and angry, when they discuss republicans they aren’t too nice, but I have found their debates about democrats fascinating to listen too (they do swear too much though). What I have found I like in political podcasts are ones that are conversations between people, and that hopefully also have interviews with experts that can provide some education (even if it is liberal education vs. conservative one). You have to give people some slack for their biases but they all seem up front about them which makes it easier, since you know what you are getting into. Basically these are like honest NPR with more swearing. And the worst thing about NPR is their pretense at objectivity rather than the content.
I get all of my information from the Tom Woods Show, Mises Weekends, ContraKrugman, and Hate Radio. “Problematic Women” here on Ricochet is really good, too for the record. Be sure to try it.
This is the great scam of almost all our major media. What makes it worse for NPR is that they get federal funding from all of us and direct almost all political discussion and “news” to aid the Democratic Party. It’s fraud and someone monitoring their fiduciary responsibility needs to stop funding these liars.
The early retirements, demotions, and firings(Comey) related to these investigations, should give anyone paying attention a strong indication that the DOJ/FBI (while wanting to downplay the malfeasance(corruption?)) certainly recognizes that people had to be reprimanded (ie: asked to leave … so far) ostensibly based on their actions while employed at the DOJ/FBI.
Warning: If the following comment/description does not fit you, please do not assume that I am attacking you.
As Prager says, “clarity above agreement”. I try to give slack to those who are upfront about their biases. Most out of the closet NT’s are at least honest about the fact that they want our president impeached. I disagree with them, but I commend their honesty. At least everyone knows to take their comments with a grain of salt. What I cannot abide is those conservatives who pretend to be calling balls and strikes and then when the administration makes a misstep, they say things like: “what could we expect from a (insert pejorative)? If you hate Trump with the heat of 1000 suns, please don’t pretend you are a neutral observer. That’s all I ask.
I just now saw the article where he said so. He also said something that relates to what Valiuth called a lie, earlier.
According to McCarthy, the warrant would have given the FBI access to any of Page’s emails, texts, etc., that had been stored on his devices, probably including his time on the campaign.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456287/grassley-graham-memo-affirms-nunes-memo-fisa-steele-dossier
Part of the malfeasance was giving people access to the raw data, when that sharing was a breach.part of the malfeasance was holding raw data longer than the laws for the data permitted.
I’m not positive, but I think that unmasking persons in captured data was also an issue. (The term unmasking was not used though)
See the senate memo: the one recommending Steele’s actions be reviewed. (not the nunes memo). The link is in one of these threads on this topic.