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.
When You Get Matt Taibbi, Well, That’s a New Thing
I have read numerous articles by Matt Taibbi over the last few years, rarely agreed with his major conclusions although there were frequently points he made with which I did agree. Now, a sea change, where I find his major points in agreement with my own view, and that’s a new thing.
Published in PoliticsI’ve lived through a few coups. They’re insane, random, and terrifying, like watching sports, except your political future depends on the score.
…We have long been spared this madness in America. Our head-counting ceremony was Election Day. We did it once every four years.
That’s all over, in the Trump era.
I guess you are very pro-CIA? What’s your basis for that? Do you have any real information about what they are doing or have done? I very much doubt it.
Please define “ whistleblower”, it seems you are using that term to mean different things. You do realize the media is dependent and influenced by our intelligence agencies, or do you just believe ( without evidence) that that’s a conspiracy theory?
Of course Tabbibi has a hatred of the CIA and some of their activities because of his differences politically. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong about this.
Us “Trumpers” don’t want Tabibbi. We want truth, some modicum of transparency, and for these intel shenanigans to end. That, instead of the blind faith you obviously hold regarding mounting evidence of rogue elements and corruption within our intel agencies.
You might have been reflexively defending them from leftist attacks for so long you never noticed they’ve changed into rather rambunctious political operators. The fact that Democrats are protecting them should cause you some alarm, or at least some skepticism. If you are a patriot, that is…
The comments against Taibbi’s post by rgbact and Jon1979 are simply personal attacks against Taibbi that don’t even have a whiff of substance or credibility to them. They come from the school of “if you can’t successful attack the message, attack the messenger.”
The CIA has been rogue for quite some., RG. Defending them does nothing for your credibility. If you remember back in the late Dubya administration we were very publicly assured by the CIA that Iran was absolutely not trying build a nuke, and that very public, very inappropriate and very wrong assessment limited appropriate action by Dubya. The CIA has always been far left going back to the early 50’s , and run by Ivy League elites out of touch with the rest of America. Kennedy was so pissed off by their feckless behavior at the Bay of Pigs that he formed the DIA. Their assessments far too often have been simply wrong. But wrong assessments are one thing; actively trying to overthrow the President is quite another.
The recent illegal antics of the CIA, the FBI and the DOJ regarding this attempt to unseat Trump should give any patriotic American great pause. These antics are severely criminal and should be forcefully and ruthlessly prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman were arrested for “campaign finance violations” after disclosing that they had very incriminating information against Joe Biden should scare the bejesus out of any American. This sort of Gestapo type intimidation – so typical of the Trump Coup plotters, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Mueller et al is a direct threat to our Constitutional form of government.
I didn’t even consider what I said as an attack on Taibbi — just saying that he’s a progressive who, like Greenwald, has broken from the conventional wisdom of U.S. progressives (and a few of the more irate #NeverTrump people), who have a Pavlovian reaction to oppose Trump simply on the grounds Trump supports it. And his distrust of American intelligence agencies is the cause of that.
Wait, Taibbi is far Left and you’re claiming he despises this agency that is also far Left? Does that make the CIA pro-war or anti-war? Which one is far Left in TrumpWorld? Cuz I could’ve swore that opposing Matt Taibbi (or even Bernie Sanders) was not far Left….up until Trump got elected.
As for wrong assessments, their assessment of Trump’s shakedown phone call looks really accurate, and no amount of conspiracies or Bay of Pig deflections will change that sad reality. But hey, its all you’ve got, so I can understand it.
Oh, the idea that there aren’t different strains of leftism is foreign to you? I can’t speak for Unsk, but I think he means leftist statists. There are those on the left who find a police/surveillance state abhorrent. They don’t know as we may that socialism inevitably leads to that end. They are lefty idealists. You haven’t heard of them? Read history.
As though the world is all black and white absolutism.
Also, how can someone else’s assessment of something “look accurate” when you have no knowledge? A little epistemological humility on your part would bolster your credibility.
Not only are there different strains of thinking on the Left, there are some who are honest and objectively deal with facts and others who make it up as it suits the narrative and the need. We have differing strains on the Right, as well, with this Administration obviously having to deal with that. The intelligence agencies are, without a doubt, our greatest domestic enemy to be dealt with at the moment.
Different strains? Well, they should at least have something in common. But when you’re at odds on national security and not all that similar on economics…hard to say you’re on the same team. I honestly can’t remember ever hearing that the CIA was “far Left”….before Trump.
Its the distrust of the CIA, and federal law enforcement in general, is practically the only area where the left makes sense.
Its quite a piece of cognitive dissonance, that while they distrust these people, they also want to grant these people unimaginable powers – like a monopoly on firearms…
“As for wrong assessments, their assessment of Trump’s shakedown phone call looks really accurate, and no amount of conspiracies or Bay of Pig deflections will change that sad reality.”
It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ukraine had reopened the Biden investigations prior to the Trump call. How can it be a shakedown if they were already doing what Trump wanted? Oh, btw as Chief Law Enforcement Officer Trump has every legitimate right to look into the obviously criminal influence peddling of the Bidens and as it turns out several other Democrats.
But let’s talk about a real shakedown; from Marc Theissen of Washington Post:
“It got almost no attention, but in May [2018], CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.””
These Democrat Senators were pressuring Ukraine to give them dirt on Trump to be used by Mueller, pure and simple. The hypocrisy of those who call the Trump phone call a shakedown knows no bounds.
What kind of question is this? Are you of the opinion that someone placing himself in a certain part of the political spectrum then automatically endorses all actions and opinions of others thought also to be so placed? This view is perhaps expected of those Leftists dimwits (a large component but not all Leftists) but rarely seen here.
You called Trump the Chief Law Enforcement Officer before. He is not. Again, the presidency is not a law enforcement job.But Trump has purposely tried to push this narrative and new power…..and Trumpists are happy to go along. Barr being used as a lackey for Trumps political investigations could be the thing that gets Trump removed. Barr better have some good answers.
As for your Mueller deflection……he was actually charged to run an investigation (unlike what you think Trump’s job is). So, that letter might’ve been nice to talk about when that investigation was ongoing. Then we could debate which side was squeezing Lutsensko more. Now, its just a deflection.
From the United States Constitution, on the duties of the president: “…he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.”
In other words, he’s the chief law enforcement officer. If you’re saying he’s not because he only hires the officers to do this work and does their performance reviews, you’re splitting a pretty fine hair.
And here are some more fun facts for our supporters of the new American Gestapo to defend:
From Debra Heine at American Greatness:
“Ousted U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch ( who was given a behind closed door interview with the House Intelligence Committee where Republicans were not allowed to attend)may have violated laws and government regulations by ordering subordinates to monitor prominent conservative figures, journalists and persons with ties to President Donald Trump, conservative watchdog Judicial Watch reported on Monday.”
“Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) first raised the possibility that conservative journalists were being monitored last Wednesday on Fox News, telling host Sean Hannity that Yovanovitch had made a number of “strange” and “irregular” requests to monitor their communications.”
“He said that a number of Ukrainians and officials in the State Department had raised concerns about the ambassador which is why Trump ordered her removal.
According to Judicial Watch, she had created a list of individuals who were to be monitored via social media and other means, and Ukraine embassy staff submitted the request to the Washington D.C. headquarters office of the department’s Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs.”
“This is not an obscure rule, everyone in public diplomacy or public affairs knows they can’t make lists and monitor U.S. citizens unless there is a major national security reason,” a senior State Department official told Judicial Watch.”
“If true, Yovanovitch’s brazen behavior suggests that in the past, a less scrupulous administration allowed or even encouraged such improper snooping.”
“The conservative figures allegedly unlawfully monitored by the State Department in Ukraine at the request of Yovanovitch include:”
“Jack Posobiec
Donald Trump Jr.
Laura Ingraham
Sean Hannity
Michael McFaul (Obama’s ambassador to Russia)
Dan Bongino
Ryan Saavedra
Rudy Giuliani
Sebastian Gorka
John Solomon
Lou Dobbs
Pamella Geller
Sara Carter”
“So, that letter might’ve been nice to talk about when that investigation was ongoing.”
In fact, I believe there is still an ongoing investigation regarding the appropriateness of the Mueller Special Counsel and the illegal activities that led to the appointment of that Special Counsel by the DOJ. Also the inappropriate behavior of these Democratic Senators is clearly relevant to the Ukrainian inquiry now ongoing. How can it not be? These Democratic Senators did exactly what you accuse Trump of, but did not do.
But of course no amount of treason, influence peddling and outrageous Gestapo like treatment of American citizens by the Democrats and their minions warrants any discussion or investigation according to you Mr. Conservative.
The problem with Republicans for the Rule of Law types is that they are reading from a copy of the Constitution were the President isn’t the head of the Executive Branch, with all that entails.
I don’t want to ascribe thoughts to @rgbact , but I find that most people making his argument have adopted the position that executive agencies as either independent of the President or under the legal control of the legislature. Yeah, it’s a product of tortured logic, and patently false when said plainly, but it’s the invention they’ve settled on.
RGB – what is your position on that question? Are agencies of the executive, like DoJ, FBI, NASA, DoS, usw directly subsidiary to and under the complete legal control of the President? If not, to what authority do they answer? Who or what grants them their authority?
“I don’t want to ascribe thoughts to @rgbact , but I find that most people making his argument have adopted the position that executive agencies as either independent of the President or under the legal control of the legislature. Yeah, it’s a product of tortured logic, and patently false when said plainly, but it’s the invention they’ve settled on.”
Damn right Barfly.
The clearly unconstitutional rulings in the 1930’s by the Supreme Court set up our bureaucratic agencies of the Executive Branch as some sort of unelected but super legislative bodies that could not only legislate, but were also, prosecutor, judge and jury, and have been a dangerous and destructive judicial abomination ever since they were written culminating in the infamous Chevron decision that granted these unaccountable bodies deference above all else. Further decisions seem to have said that the Attorney General does really report to the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch, our President, but is granted powers that seem to supersede that of the President.
This is simply the Marxist Progressive Left ripping apart the Constitution to free itself from having to obey the Bill of Rights , the Rule of Law and the Constitution. Anyone who supports this line of legal reasoning clearly does not either understand our system our government or is wanting to severely undermine it.
“compete legal control” is a dicey term.I’d go with the president being allowed to appoint heads of those agencies, that run them according to his policy vision. BUT….DOJ, FBI, and IRS are special cases…..since they are agencies that mete out punishment on private citizens. So, people are keenly leery of them being weaponized for political attacks. Hence, if a president tries to wield “complete legal control” of DOJ, FBI, or IRS…..they are on their way to impeachment. If they did it with NASA, people wouldn’t be so concerned.
But I encourage Trump and his minions to use the “Trump has complete legal control of DOJ” defense in the coming months of impeachment inquiry. See how that works out.
Where can I get a minion card to prove my membership in this group?
Cut him some slack – he did answer, fairly straightforwardly. See, things aren’t going very well for the left right now, and they need to
fling as much poocast aspersions. It’s all they have, rhetorically speaking.I appreciate your answer; that’s what I was looking for. I’d like to explore it a little further.
Are these points correct?
I’m sure you realize that none of those have any resemblance to actual law. But your phrasing indicates you’re thinking more functionally – what matters is what people in power can actually do and get away with. Is that correct?
I could analyze this some more, but I’d better toss it back to you for now. Don’t want to go too far down a mistaken path.
Sure. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal proceeding. If Trump is shown to be running agencies of the government more for his direct political benefit than Americans benefit (which he can legally do)…..the remedy for that is impeachment and removal, if the political will exists.
As for Trump appointing a cabinet…..I think the threshold for appointment in the Senate should to be returned to 60 votes. With it only being 50 votes, presidents will increasingly appoint political hacks and yes men like Pompeo and Barr and hyperpoliticize the agencies of government.
Assuming you had any proof of this at all, this statement can be seen as nothing but willful ignorance in these post-Obama times. How pathetic.
Maybe here to test the Ricochet CoC.
Maybe the Code needs a clause limiting the number of derogatory word choices in a post or reply. It’d have to be statistical rather than a hard limit, like maybe the mean-gratuitous-putdowns-per-sentence or something. @rgbact is difficult to understand because of his pejorative density, but if you just drop all of them then you can make out what he’s trying to communicate.
I think of them like parallel markup, the SGML of the left. Lefties’ vituperations tell us what they feel and fear, of course, but if you scrape them off you can often find the skeleton of what they believe.
@rgbact, I’ll respond to your last comment later but now it’s time for fiery Mexican food. All I had time for now was some quick snark.
@rgbact is using this meme in other posts-@garyrobbins‘ ‘George Will and the Republican Party’
Observe that several sharp minds have questioned the above bolded paragraph.
Need I point out how this follows precisely the Far Left practice of accusing the Trump Administration of what the Obama Administration had been doing for the last several years. This comment is so purely from that source it makes for amusement and should really get afire when Barr and Durham show up with their findings.
No, it’s impossible for Trump to increasingly hyperpoliticize these agencies. That’s already been done to the max before Trump. People who claim to be concerned about it now but who weren’t publicly and loudly concerned about it before Trump are fakes, and should withdraw in shame.
Still, I’m not sure what difference 10 additional votes will matter with respect to “hyperpoliticization” when the Senate will vote blatant criminals into top spots with votes like 94-2 without even faking real advice and consent. Thanks John (R-
MaverickTool):