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.
The Clinton Foundation and the ‘Deep State’
In my line of work, I take great interest in investigations by law enforcement. Especially that of our federal government’s law enforcement. This is headed by the Department of Justice and specifically by the Attorney General of the United States. This position has been described as America’s Top Cop. You naturally want to think of this function as possessing the highest of integrity and being one hundred percent apolitical.
Boy, has the past couple of years been eye opening or what?! The DOJ, FBI, DHS, DNI, DNS and CIA have not only revealed themselves as extremely partisan, they have been going public about it in the most abasing way. Book tours?! Embarrassing, if you ask me. You would think your average ‘G man’ would scrupulously guard their secrecy, personal privacy and be ultra low-key. I know I do. But I digress.
To me, it is as plain as the nose on your face. There has been a lot of political ‘stuff’ going on in our federal law enforcement and “justice” has been kicked to the curb. There is a deep state. A yuge segment of “embedded grifters in the bureaucracy” (hat tip @franco), with friends in the media and political commentariat. And this group absolutely loves their country clubs, cruises and concertos. How dare this intruder disrupt that! Both the G men and the commentariat were united in this resistance.
But, there have been several “dustups” between the supporters of the President of our (this is a right of center website, right?) political party, and those whom resist and stubbornly join the democrats in constantly attacking him, his ancient(?) history and his current tweeting (or whatever). In the dustup over the VDH book The Case For Trump, one of the things that these resistors (can I call them that?) have to do, in order to find ways to shame and stigmatize the so-called “bad actors in the conservative elite”, is to ridicule this belief in an embedded bureaucracy. A deep state if you will. They refuse to acknowledge any of the facts that exist and have been reported upon in depth for the past couple of years which prove this case. They call it a “conspiracy theory” and those who believe conspiracy nuts. Yes, VDH got a laugh out of being called an “elite” by the elite grifters and a nut by the nuts themselves, but he also took on this denial of the entrenched bureaucracy with facts and substance.
Anyhow, as I was saying, I think that it has been factually proven that the DOJ, FBI, DHS, DNI, DNS and CIA are in cahoots with the DNC. And now a story today from Townhall.com by Matt Vespa … Oh, So This Is Why The FBI Couldn’t View The Clinton Foundation Emails …
Now, we have ex-FBI lawyer Lisa Page saying that there was an order handed down from the DOJ to the FBI, telling them not to charge Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information on her unauthorized and unsecured server from which she did all of her officials business when she served the Obama administration as secretary of state. And now, there was supposedly a deal between the DOJ and the Clinton camp that prevented the FBI from viewing Clinton Foundation emails (via Washington Examiner):
So, my question is … who at this right of center website can argue that this embedded bureaucracy of grifters doesn’t exist?
Published in General
Gary Robbins:
“But I don’t see the tentacles of corruption at the FBI and DOJ to the degree that my fellow Ricochetti do.”
Gary, there is a pretty open and shut case against a group of DOJ/FBI insiders who conspired to commit a very long list of very serious crimes, among them:
A. Lie to the FISA Court and the FISA Court Judge.
B. Fraudulently present a political hit piece ( the Steele Dossier) as evidence to the FISA Court.
C. Set-up innocent individuals for crimes they did not commit like George Papadopoulos and others.
D. Spy on a Presidential campaign without supporting justification.
E. Spy on a sitting President.
F. Open a Special Counsel investigation without a criminal predicate as required by law.
G. Open a criminal investigation against a sitting President without evidence of a crime and conspire to limit appropriate Presidential actions with the threat of “obstruction of justice” of this illegal investigation.
H. Open a Counter-Intelligence investigation without appropriate supporting evidence and conspire to use human intelligence operatives against government regulations and procedures.
I. Mis-state campaign finance laws in a plea bargain to publicly implicate the President.
J. Use a false interpretation of campaign finance laws as a justification to destroy the attorney -client privilege of a sitting President.
K. Leak false details of a politically driven hit piece ( the Dossier) to the Press to influence a political campaign.
M. Ominously use the NSA Data Base to spy and gather information on innocent America citizens for political purposes.
N. And I almost forgot about the obstruction of the investigation into a former Government official ( Hilary) and the threatening of a local law enforcement agency ( the NYPD) from investigating that individual when they had clear evidence of many crimes.
Gary, while you often pose as this holier than thou arbiter of the Truth and Justice, you seem to have an appalling lack of concern for the Rule of Law and the terrible consequences of the wanton criminal misuse by some of our highest Law Enforcement officials in the land of our laws and their authority. I could care less about what the electoral consequences or political consequences of indicting all these miscreants are; this is the Rule of Law we are talking about and without it as you seem to prefer, we will quickly descend into the chaos and violence of a Banana Republic.
Furthermore, I could care less about your innuendos or biblical verses; if you know of a crime that Trump committed as President, get serious and please name it. But if you can’t, then shut the hell up.
I am a Reagan Republican. I last voted for a Democrat for President in 1972 when I was in college. I have run for office as a Republican. I have been a Precinct Committeeperson, and have twice gone to the Republican State Convention.
Like I said, I think YOU are.
Yes, that is my reckoning. Yes we are doomed. There is only one way to stop our collapse into complete socialism now and that is to severely curtail federal power.
The republic is already over and we may as well collect our #yanggang #neetbux
A day may come when the courage of Men fails, when we forsake our friends, and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day.
An hour of wolves and shattered shields, when the Age of Men comes crashing down, but it is not this day!
This day we fight!
Maybe for the same reason people – especially liberals – fork over the big bucks to Yale, Harvard, etc? To appear credible?
One of my favorite Charles Krauthammer quotes was something like “The best thing about having a Ph.D from Harvard is never again being impressed by someone having a Ph.D from Harvard.”
Also, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Lisa Murkowski, and many others call themselves Republicans too. Big whoop.
Yes, but it beats the HELL out of choosing the greater one.🙂
@garyrobbins — I accept your apology for being “demanding and rude“. (See #52, above.) But you forgot to add “lazy“, because the article was very easy to find. (I keed! I keed!)
Anyway, if losing 41 Congressmen and gaining a Senator in 2018 constitutes “massive repudiation“, then what was it when the Democrats lost 64 Congressmen and lost five Senators in 2010? Massive double-secret repudiation with sugar on top? Massive neutron star repudiation?
N.B.: Unexpected Republican losses in California are mostly a sign of the extent to which Democrats there have legalized voter fraud, especially absentee ballot fraud. Let us all give thanks for the Electoral College.
Here’s another quote you won’t enjoy, this time from Carl M. Cannon at RealClearPolitics.com: “Activists in both major political parties touted the 2018 midterm elections as a referendum on the distinctive and disruptive presidency of Donald J. Trump. If so, the verdict was a split decision.”
P.S.: Relax. We all know you’re not Ricochet’s Soros puppet, @valiuth is. (I keed! I keed!)
To keep my sanity, I do not have a computer at home, only my iPad. But I like to think that I wouldn’t have forgotten to say “Please.” Oh well. Thanks for accepting my apology for being abrupt.
There was a twist in the 2012 election. Usually Presidents going for a second term increase their victory margin. Obama didn’t.
Agreed!
I respectfully disagree with Carl. But I could be wrong.
You and I just disagree about Trump. But he won’t be President forever. And there are more Severe Trump Skeptics out there, they just have better things to do than rise to take the bait.
How about a Electoral College reform?
Why not give out the Electoral votes by congressional district?
This will have several benefits, first every state becomes a battle ground state – each campaign will have a plan for and in all 50 states. Rather than just concentrating in 5 or 6 swing states.
Secondly, this will make the election results more responsive to the electorate – minority votes in each state still count, as long as they at least win some congressional districts – they’ll be represented in the Electoral College.
The other reform option – giving all electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, disenfranchises the voters in the state. Just wait until the states who give their votes away – vote against the popular vote, and everyone’s votes in that state, goes to a candidate that didnt win the state. Imagine the headache that would cause?
Because that would be going the wrong direction in reducing federal power and restoring state and individual power.
It would also, for the first time, make the Electoral College vulnerable to gerrymandering.
I could be wrong, but I thought that a few years ago some states were considering doing this on their own. The reason they don’t is that it would make their states into less important battlegrounds in the election. And nobody wants to become less important. No favors would be owed to local politicians, etc.
Actually, Nebraska and Maine have done this.
I can’t stand that the first primaries are in the same states every year. There has to be a better way.
The state law in New Hampshire states that the Secretary of State shall set the date of the New Hampshire Primary which must be at least one week before any other state. (Literally, if State X set the primary for, say, December 15th, then the New Hampshire Secretary of State will set their primary on December 8th.) For many years, New Hampshire had their primary in March, such as on March 8, 1960 and March 12, 1968. However, in recent years, other states have tried to jump ahead of New Hampshire. New Hampshire simply moved their primary date back, to February 1, 2000, and then January 27, 2004. With more pressure from other states, New Hampshire moved their primary back to January 8, 2008 and January 10, 2012. Finally other states gave up, and in 2016, New Hampshire had their primary on February 9, 2016. In 2020, the New Hampshire is tentatively set for February 11, 2020, however, if any state tries to go before New Hampshire, they will again move their primary back again.
The State of Iowa had early caucuses, and historically had had its first of three series of caucuses a week or so before the New Hampshire primary. New Hampshire has decided not try to get ahead of Iowa, as caucuses are different from primaries.
Iowa and New Hampshire will never give up their early caucuses and primary. Even if the national parties go against Iowa and New Hampshire, they will simply ignore the national parties. (The state motto of New Hampshire is “Live Free or Die.” They are serious about this.)
I agree. They should switch it around and not reveal where the first one will be, and anyone who blabs to one of the campaigns gets the death penalty or has to watch Hillary speeches for 36 hours in a row. That way, nobody could concentrate on that state to gain favoritism.
Thanks, Gary.
It’s so tedious and anti-democratic.
It would be so much more interesting and fair if they picked different congressional districts and states with the simple requirement that it couldn’t be won with just media dollars over retail politics.
I want a primary in the ***Fresno, CA area***. Talk about interesting.
In 2020 New Hampshire’s primary is set to occur on February 1, 2020. South Carolina is traditionally the first Southern primary, and happens 1 to 3 weeks after New Hampshire, and at least a week before everyone else. If your suggestion were adopted, South Carolina would immediately set its primary for January 25, 2020, New Hampshire would immediately set its primary for January 18, and Iowa would set its caucuses for January 11, 2020. South Carolina, New Hampshire and Iowa would happily play chicken with the national parties.
Interesting piece of information. What if another state passes a law that states they must be first? What if Congress steps in and passes a law that says the first primary will rotate? Article 1, Section 4 says, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.” I don’t see anything in the Constitution about primaries and who can control them.
Why not set all the primaries to the same day? Get them all over in one swoop?
The Ides of March seems like a good time… The long knives would be out for someone… That would give the candidate 3 or 4 months to run before the convention – have the big party at some vacation spot – and then have 3 or 4 months to the general. Best feature is that all the saturation coverage of primary campaigns would end.
Its seems so much… On March 19, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley (I wonder if her class mates called her “Naughty Notley”?) called an election. Election day will be April 16. Thats how you do an election campaign, short and sweet – get to the point and get out of my face. Leave the voters alone for 4 years. Granted this is a provincial election and not federal. But I bet when PM Zoolander drops the writ federally, he’ll opt for a short campaign as well – less time for negative ads to hammer on his ‘likeability’ numbers.
Well however it is now, they should change it to what I said.
You would pretty much guarantee that the establishment candidate, the early front runner with a lot of money from big donors, will always win.
If an insurgent candidate with no money did better than expected, well, it’s too late to do anything about it.
We could have the New Hampshire Primary before Christmas, Thanksgiving, or even Labor Day the year before the general election. Also, candidates would be cowed from going into the other state to campaign. The motto of New Hampshire is “Live Free or Die.” Those folks are not going to give up.
Right Angels, are you on your fourth icon in as many months? (See Comment #86.) Can you do an icon showing off your tattooes? I suggest a member’s only post where you show all of your icons, and let us vote.
That is the downside. Perhaps the best thing that could happen is that the media stops the practice of saturation coverage.
Perhaps we could take a few minutes of coverage of irrelevant backwater politicking, instead of letting it dominate the headlines of the week. We dont need teams of journalists covering all 45 campaigns for president, and giving breathless hourly coverage of every misquote and misstep. I vaguely remember the old days, when primaries where covered a few minutes per day. Even after the invention of CNN – a lot of things happened during a day – and CNN tried to bring as much of that to viewers as it could.
CNN seems to have the opposite view now. A lot of things happen in a day, and it doesnt matter until in can be shoe-horned into the narrative of the day.