Benjamin Wittes of Lawfareblog joins a special NTK that includes David French to analyze the release of the Nunes memo and the state of our intelligence community in the Trump era.

David, Jay, and Mona then opine on the State of the Union speech, the state of conservatism, and the unpredictable nature of courage.

Music: Aaron Copeland, El Salon Mexico

Subscribe to Need to Know in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsor!

ManCrates

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 58 comments.

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

    Very disappointed in this podcast and I am a huge fan. I couldn’t believe it when Mr. Witte couldn’t find any problem with the FISA court being presented with opposition research from the Hillary Clinton campaign to pursue charges against the Trump campaign. Really?

    • #1
  2. Arizona Patriot Member
    Arizona Patriot
    @ArizonaPatriot

    I am about halfway through this.  I am trying very, very hard to listen to Charon and Nordlinger, who I respected in the past.  They are coming across as completely unhinged.

    They have David French and Mr. Wittes (who I’ve never heard of before) on, to discuss the Nunes memo, and it makes me think that I’m listening to MSNBC.  Even if it’s all true, they seem to say, it’s no big deal.  Well, other significant conservative commentators think that it is a fairly big deal, like Kimberly Strassel and Mollie Hemingway.  I’m still waiting to hear something from Andrew McCarthy, but I don’t imagine that he will be as dismissive, as he thought last week that several of the revelations of the Nunes memo would be important.

    For crying out loud, there are already two articles up at National Review Online — where both Charon and French work — by Dan McLaughlin and Jim Geraghty indicating that it the Nunez memo is evidence of a fairly serious scandal:

    • McLaughlin:  “it does make a persuasive case – pending any detailed rebuttal by its partisan Democratic critics – that flimsily-corroborated Democratic Party campaign opposition research succeeded in influencing law enforcement to spy on a U.S. citizen involved in the political process at the height of a presidential campaign. That may not be an enormous scandal in size, but it is, if true, a scandal.”
    • Geraghty: “The judge in the FISA case should have been told the source of the information. That judge might have granted the request, or the decision might have been the same. . . .lready, we’re hearing objections that the entire Nunes memo is “partisan” and thus can’t be trusted. If the portion quoted above is false, I’d like the FBI to say, under oath, that this is the case and ideally to declassify the full text of the FISA applications. Look, either “we got this information from Steele, who was working for the DNC and the Hillary campaign” is in the FISA application or it isn’t. And if it isn’t, the FBI withheld information to get a FISA warrant that it feared it might not otherwise get. Whatever you think of President Trump, Carter Page, or any of these other figures, it’s bad when the FBI withholds information while applying for FISA warrants.”

    To listen to Charon, Nordlinger, French, and Wittes, you would think that it was all a crazy conspiracy theory dreamed up by Steven Bannon.  Yet they are in disagreement with other folks at National Review, for crying out loud.  Yet Charon and Nordlinger present an entirely one-sided picture — and it’s the opposition’s side.

    I am appalled.

    • #2
  3. milkchaser Member
    milkchaser
    @milkchaser

    I still don’t get what dangerous revelation of sources or methods were made by this memo. Wittes cites them for outing Carter Page as the target of the secret warrant – but Steele had already revealed and Yahoo News’ Isikoff had already published a story claiming that Carter Page was a target of FBI interest for allegedly meeting with close advisers to Putin. So sorry, Mr. Wittes, but you’re blowing smoke. Yahoo leaked that in Sept 2016, long before this memo was made public. Congress never does anything as quickly as private enterprise.

    • #3
  4. milkchaser Member
    milkchaser
    @milkchaser

    This memo reveals that there was an ongoing partisan effort, initially funded by the Clinton campaign, to cast aspersions on the Trump campaign with the primary goal of enabling the Clinton campaign to make a false equivalence between the two candidates by suggesting that both candidates were under investigation by the FBI. But the investigation against the Trump campaign was ginned up by partisans in the US gov’t itself (and partially funded by US taxpayers) specifically to create this false equivalence and based on a now-discredited source.

    This is a big deal!

    • #4
  5. JuliaBlaschke Coolidge
    JuliaBlaschke
    @JuliaBlaschke

    Arizona Patriot (View Comment):
    To listen to Charon, Nordlinger, French, and Wittes, you would think that it was all a crazy conspiracy theory dreamed up by Steven Bannon. Yet they are in disagreement with other folks at National Review, for crying out loud. Yet Charon and Nordlinger present an entirely one-sided picture — and it’s the opposition’s side.

    I am appalled.

    I agree. This is Rubinesque.

    • #5
  6. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):

    Arizona Patriot (View Comment):
    To listen to Charon, Nordlinger, French, and Wittes, you would think that it was all a crazy conspiracy theory dreamed up by Steven Bannon. Yet they are in disagreement with other folks at National Review, for crying out loud. Yet Charon and Nordlinger present an entirely one-sided picture — and it’s the opposition’s side.

    I am appalled.

    I agree. This is Rubinesque.

    OK, where do I send your prize for that one?

     

    • #6
  7. Arizona Patriot Member
    Arizona Patriot
    @ArizonaPatriot

    I am also appalled at Charon’s criticism of the SOTU as racist.  She calls it (at around 28:51) “downright racially inciting and very nasty.”  She goes on to say (at around 36:05) that:  “To stir up people’s rage and fear and hatred by citing MS-13 and going on and on and suggesting that these hordes of criminals are pouring across our border, which he does all the time, first of all, it is just not true. I mean there is abundant evidence that immigrants, either legal or illegal, are less likely to commit crimes by native-born people.”

    This has been disputed, just within the last 2 weeks, by two of Charon’s NRO colleagues (Robert Verbruggen and Peter Kirsanow).  Both of them cite a new study by John Lott (formerly of AEI) showing increased crime rates for illegal immigrants, even after adjusting for demographics.

    For Charon to insist that the facts are on the other side, when solid, recent conservative research suggests the contrary, is very surprising to me.

    What am I to say?  Charon is explicitly condemning the President for racism for raising a fear of crime by illegal immigrants — as if that never happens — and supporting her case by asserting something as fact that has just been disputed in the pages of National Review. Again, for crying out loud, what is going on here?

    I don’t think that I can stand to listen any further.  Sorry, I really tried, because I want to hear both sides.

    • #7
  8. milkchaser Member
    milkchaser
    @milkchaser

    Mr. Wittes pooh-poohs the omission of information that might be used to impeach the source of the evidence presented to the FISA court, stating that this is standard procedure for prosecutors. It’s prosecutorial misconduct, is what it is. Ask the court if they would prefer to have facts left out of the request. Ask the court if they don’t want to hear the whole story. That such things happen often is scary, if true.

    We know that LBJ bugged the Goldwater campaign. Did that justify Nixon bugging the DNC 8 years later?

    They took pains to hide the partisan origins of the Steele dossier. Suppose they had pitched the request by saying, “The Clinton campaign has gone to great lengths to scare up allegations against someone in the Trump campaign and we felt it necessary to act on this by seeking a FISA warrant against him (but we promise not to reveal anything we subsequently find to these interested parties).” What would you expect the outcome of that request to be?

    • #8
  9. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Arizona Patriot (View Comment):
    I am also appalled at Charon’s criticism of the SOTU as racist. She calls it (at around 28:51) “downright racially inciting and very nasty.” She goes on to say (at around 36:05) that: “To stir up people’s rage and fear and hatred by citing MS-13 and going on and on and suggesting that these hordes of criminals are pouring across our border, which he does all the time, first of all, it is just not true. I mean there is abundant evidence that immigrants, either legal or illegal, are less likely to commit crimes by native-born people.”

    This has been disputed, just within the last 2 weeks, by two of Charon’s NRO colleagues (Robert Verbruggen and Peter Kirsanow). Both of them cite a new study by John Lott (formerly of AEI) showing increased crime rates for illegal immigrants, even after adjusting for demographics.

    For Charon to insist that the facts are on the other side, when solid, recent conservative research suggests the contrary, is very surprising to me.

    What am I to say? Charon is explicitly condemning the President for racism for raising a fear of crime by illegal immigrants — as if that never happens — and supporting her case by asserting something as fact that has just been disputed in the pages of National Review. Again, for crying out loud, what is going on here?

    I don’t think that I can stand to listen any further. Sorry, I really tried, because I want to hear both sides.

    It appears modesty is in order.

    • #9
  10. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Arizona Patriot (View Comment):To listen to Charon, Nordlinger, French, and Wittes, you would think that it was all a crazy conspiracy theory dreamed up by Steven Bannon. Yet they are in disagreement with other folks at National Review, for crying out loud. Yet Charon and Nordlinger present an entirely one-sided picture — and it’s the opposition’s side.

    I am appalled.

    Thanks for this as I wrestle with whether to devote the time for a listen.

    Wittes has made a very good rep for himself writing on law and national security issues.  He even has Hoover Institution connections.  But, when you consider the hosts of the podcast, you can see the wheels turning.  He’s been an editorial writer for WaPo, been at The New Republic, and, according to his Wikipedia page, been favorably cited by Paul Krugman for saying the Trump Administration is “malevolence tempered by incompetence.”  Perfect.

     

    • #10
  11. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Moderator Note:

    Personal attacks.

    [Redacted.]

    And they are losing, they all went soft. Overconfident and smug. Lacking in self awareness underestimating their opponents They are outing themselves by promoting this spin.

    • #11
  12. Al Kennedy Inactive
    Al Kennedy
    @AlKennedy

    Arizona Patriot (View Comment):
    I am appalled.

    I am also appalled.  Ben Wittis could not be more wrong.  He comes across as an unconvincing apologist for the intelligence community and for whom the term “useful idiot” is appropriate.  This is a sad day for America.  Untrue derogatory information paid for by a political campaign was used by the country’s premier law enforcement organization (DOJ and FBI) to spy on the opposition campaign and pass the information to the sponsoring campaign.  It is unprecedented and outrageous.  The left will tell any lie to prevent the political corruption typically seen in a Chicago Ward and installed in the federal bureaucracy by the Obama Administration from tainting the legacy of the first black president.  Wittis should have been challenged repeatedly and wasn’t.

    • #12
  13. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    I’ve been critical recently of Jay and Mona, and I’ll admit to a certain satisfaction at the tone of the comments here. I’ll make two brief comments, both referencing the beginning of Mr. Wittis’s commentary.

    In answer to Mona’s question as to the implications of the memo, at 2:35, Mr .Wittis says:

    But even assuming that these facts are all true and that they’re the entirety of the truth there’s a little bit of a “so what” reaction because what the memo alleges is that the Justice Department and the FBI did not adequately inform the FISA court of Chris Steele’s being paid by Democratic Party operatives and, you know, it’s not obvious that anything from the surveillance of Carter Page has played a role, at all, in anything that the Mueller investigation has done…

    So, first comment: “So what?” Am I the only one who found that odd? Why does the usefulness of the information matter, when the question is not whether it helped Mueller indict Trump, but rather whether or not it was gained under false pretenses by politically motivated actors in order to surveil a political opponent?

    Wittis continues:

    and moreover as Orin Kerr, the great Fourth Amendment scholar, has written recently it’s not obvious that there was — it’s probably best practices to have included that information, assuming they knew it, but it’s not obvious that they were legally required to.

    So, second comment: “best practices?” At the risk of committing a minor CoC faux pas, I have to ask: What the hell are “best practices” when it comes to getting a secret court to give you permission to spy on the current administration’s political opposition?

    I mean, when the Department of Justice in a Democratic administration is asking to spy on the campaign of the Republican challenger, what constitutes “best practices,” short of doing everything right and not using the agency as a weapon to spy on your political opponent?

    Is there a little booklet somewhere describing “best practices” for subtly misleading the secret court in order to use the power of the state to spy on political opponents in advanced western democracies? If so, does it contain anything more than “just don’t do it?” Wouldn’t that constitute “best practices” in this case?

    The fact that Mona took it in stride and was using the phrase herself a moment later didn’t sit well with me either.

    • #13
  14. Al Kennedy Inactive
    Al Kennedy
    @AlKennedy

    milkchaser (View Comment):
    Mr. Wittes pooh-poohs the omission of information that might be used to impeach the source of the evidence presented to the FISA court, stating that this is standard procedure for prosecutors.

    I think Wittes used a clearly incorrect analogy here.  He said the prosecution would never tell the defense what it thought were weaknesses in its case.  First, the prosecution is legally responsible to turn over to the defense all information gathered by the police.  The defense then has the responsibility to identify weaknesses in the case to defend their client adequately.  A FISA court is not a trial.  There is no defense attorney.  The judge is being asked to approve a wiretap against an American citizen is suspected of being an agent of a foreign government.  The correct analogy is more like a prosecutor asking approval for a search warrant.  The judge expects the prosecutor to supply him or her with all of the relevant information bearing on why the warrant should be issued.  If the judge subsequently finds out the prosecutor withheld pertinent information he can invalidate all evidence obtained with the warrant.  There is no defense attorney at a FISA request.  The judge has a right to expect that all relevant information is being given.  If you could ask the judge who approved the Carter Page FISA request whether he or she would still do so given the information in the Nunes memo I think the answer would be “No”.

    • #14
  15. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    I gave it a few minutes.  It’s like an orgy of hideous folks at a Burning Man tent.  I was passing by and had to look but regret I did.  Not pretty and they all need a bath.

    • #15
  16. Mona Charen Contributor
    Mona Charen
    @MonaCharen

    Arizona Patriot (View Comment):
    I am also appalled at Charon’s criticism of the SOTU as racist. She calls it (at around 28:51) “downright racially inciting and very nasty.” She goes on to say (at around 36:05) that: “To stir up people’s rage and fear and hatred by citing MS-13 and going on and on and suggesting that these hordes of criminals are pouring across our border, which he does all the time, first of all, it is just not true. I mean there is abundant evidence that immigrants, either legal or illegal, are less likely to commit crimes by native-born people.”

    This has been disputed, just within the last 2 weeks, by two of Charon’s NRO colleagues (Robert Verbruggen and Peter Kirsanow). Both of them cite a new study by John Lott (formerly of AEI) showing increased crime rates for illegal immigrants, even after adjusting for demographics.

    For Charon to insist that the facts are on the other side, when solid, recent conservative research suggests the contrary, is very surprising to me.

    What am I to say? Charon is explicitly condemning the President for racism for raising a fear of crime by illegal immigrants — as if that never happens — and supporting her case by asserting something as fact that has just been disputed in the pages of National Review. Again, for crying out loud, what is going on here?

    I don’t think that I can stand to listen any further. Sorry, I really tried, because I want to hear both sides.

    I want to hear both sides too. Consider this: http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/01/anti-immigration-outfits-peddle-bad-fait

    • #16
  17. Al Kennedy Inactive
    Al Kennedy
    @AlKennedy

    A former FBI executive contradicts everything Wittes says about the FISA warrant.

    • #17
  18. Al Kennedy Inactive
    Al Kennedy
    @AlKennedy

    Mona Charen (View Comment):
    I want to hear both sides too.

    I’m sorry Mona.  I didn’t hear two sides in the podcast’s discussion of the Nunes memo.  I only heard one, and I thought it was misleading.

    • #18
  19. rgbact Inactive
    rgbact
    @romanblichar

    Nice job with fair guests. As usual, Jay nails the investigation hysteria with “its all just foreplay”. Sadly, I think we’re in store for another few years of this media driven foreplay, without the “payoff”.

    I also missed the SOTU….but the panel’s “Bushian” comparisons were fascinating. Many of us suspected thats what we’d get with Trump. Lots of flair, but ultimately…gobs of spending and big government conservatism items like family leave.

     

     

     

     

    • #19
  20. Arizona Patriot Member
    Arizona Patriot
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Mona Charen (View Comment):
    I want to hear both sides too. Consider this: http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/01/anti-immigration-outfits-peddle-bad-fait

    Ms. Charon:

    Thank you for the link.  It appears that this is a significantly disputed issue.  The Reason article criticizes Kirsanow’s study, and criticizes a DOJ/DHS study finding the same thing — that illegal immigrants present a serious crime problem.  The Reason article does not address Lott’s study, which shows the same thing.

    The problem is that you presented the issue as if overwhelming, undisputed evidence supported the other side.  That is plainly incorrect.  You then condemned the President’s SOTU as racist because it raised the legitimate issue of crime committed by illegal aliens.  I know, you didn’t use the word “racist,” but “racially inciting and downright nasty” strikes me as close enough.

    We listeners need to hear both sides from you.  You are an important figure who does this work for a living.  I’m a nobody lawyer from Arizona posting in my spare time.  Your fans rely on you to present a fair and balanced picture — and on disputed issues, to advocate a bit on the conservative side.

    I’m asking you to reconsider your extreme oppostion to the President, as it seems to be leading to serious confirmation bias in your factual consideration of issues and selection of guests.

     

    • #20
  21. NormD Member
    NormD
    @NormD

    Unless David French has practiced before the FISC he should say nothing because he knows nothing.  Extrapolations from normal courts are pure conjecture.  He says that prosecutors hide things from judges all the time, but this makes no sense in the FISC.  How can the FISC make a decision if its lacks critical information?  Suppositions that the warrant was renewed because it was producing useful information (NPR makes the same jump) is beneath contempt without any proof.

    • #21
  22. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    NormD (View Comment):
    Suppositions that the warrant was renewed because it was producing useful information (NPR makes the same jump) is beneath contempt without any proof.

    And, needless to say, sometimes it may seem OK when the poisonous tree yields fruit, provided you are predisposed to like the taste of the fruit.

     

    • #22
  23. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Okay, one more comment.

    At 11:25, Wittes emphasizes how unusual this situation is, when he says:

    There is something profoundly unusual — in fact, unique — about the President of the United States and the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee getting together to disclose a FISA application, the fact of a FISA application and information that supports it. We’ve never seen anything like that before.

    This is the point where a host or hostess might reasonably interrupt, for the sake of maintaining some semblance of objectivity and balance, and say something along the lines of: “But has there ever been a case, as far as we know, of the FBI being granted permission to spy on the campaign of an opposing presidential candidate?”

    If the host or hostess were particularly interested in balancing what is proving to be a remarkably lopsided program, he or she could add: “I mean, isn’t there a legitimate concern that some of our federal agencies were being misused for partisan purposes, given the IRS revelations, the meeting on the tarmac, and the peculiar Comey announcements regarding the Clinton campaign? Isn’t it possible that something very unusual, perhaps unprecedented, was going on in American politics in 2016, and that it’s worth investigating? And, after all, isn’t it the job of the House Intelligence Committee to look into this kind of thing?”

    Something like that would have gone a long way toward redeeming this unfortunate program.

     

     

     

    • #23
  24. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Okay, one more comment.

    At 11:25, Wittes emphasizes how unusual this situation is, when he says:

    There is something profoundly unusual — in fact, unique — about the President of the United States and the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee getting together to disclose a FISA application, the fact of a FISA application and information that supports it. We’ve never seen anything like that before.

    This is the point where a host or hostess might reasonably interrupt, for the sake of maintaining some semblance of objectivity and balance, and say something along the lines of: “But has there ever been a case, as far as we know, of the FBI being granted permission to spy on the campaign of an opposing presidential candidate?”

    If the host or hostess were particularly interested in balancing what is proving to be a remarkably lopsided program, he or she could add: “I mean, isn’t there a legitimate concern that some of our federal agencies were being misused for partisan purposes, given the IRS revelations, the meeting on the tarmac, and the peculiar Comey announcements regarding the Clinton campaign? Isn’t it possible that something very unusual, perhaps unprecedented, was going on in American politics in 2016, and that it’s worth investigating? And, after all, isn’t it the job of the House Intelligence Committee to look into this kind of thing?”

    Something like that would have gone a long way toward redeeming this unfortunate program.

    Perfect.   Letting complete dismissal of  relevant motivations or info on the part of the memo folks is kind of ironic as the memo states that happened to the FISA court too.

    • #24
  25. George Townsend Inactive
    George Townsend
    @GeorgeTownsend

    Mona Charen (View Comment):

    Arizona Patriot (View Comment):
    I am also appalled at Charon’s criticism of the SOTU as racist. She calls it (at around 28:51) “downright racially inciting and very nasty.” She goes on to say (at around 36:05) that: “To stir up people’s rage and fear and hatred by citing MS-13 and going on and on and suggesting that these hordes of criminals are pouring across our border, which he does all the time, first of all, it is just not true. I mean there is abundant evidence that immigrants, either legal or illegal, are less likely to commit crimes by native-born people.”

    This has been disputed, just within the last 2 weeks, by two of Charon’s NRO colleagues (Robert Verbruggen and Peter Kirsanow). Both of them cite a new study by John Lott (formerly of AEI) showing increased crime rates for illegal immigrants, even after adjusting for demographics.

    For Charon to insist that the facts are on the other side, when solid, recent conservative research suggests the contrary, is very surprising to me.

    What am I to say? Charon is explicitly condemning the President for racism for raising a fear of crime by illegal immigrants — as if that never happens — and supporting her case by asserting something as fact that has just been disputed in the pages of National Review. Again, for crying out loud, what is going on here?

    I don’t think that I can stand to listen any further. Sorry, I really tried, because I want to hear both sides.

    I want to hear both sides too. Consider this: http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/01/anti-immigration-outfits-peddle-bad-fait

    You are right, Mona. We must always hear both sides.

    DocJay (View Comment):
    I gave it a few minutes. It’s like an orgy of hideous folks at a Burning Man tent. I was passing by and had to look but regret I did. Not pretty and they all need a bath.

    This comment is disgusting. You don’t talk about good people that way.

    • #25
  26. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Further on the incompetent interview of Mr. Wittes.

    At about 11:30, he sounds quite upset — righteously indignant — that the President would have the temerity to leak the name of Carter Page to the world. This man, after all, has never been convicted of wrongdoing: it’s a grotesque civil liberties violation, Mr. Wittes suggests, to let his name be made public.

    Two things.

    First, Carter Page was put under an FBI microscope, had his personal life minutely examined as he went about his business — and yet, as Mr. Wittes observes, he’s never been charged with a crime, much less found guilty.

    So, if we’re going to wring our hands about civil liberties being trod upon, might we begin by asking if this surveillance was appropriate and justified by credible evidence? Isn’t that the entire point called into question by the memo?

    I find it ludicrous that Mr. Wittes seems more concerned with the name of Carter Page being made public than with the fact that his privacy was surrendered by a secret court using a legal justification that has been called into question.

    Secondly, Carter Page knew almost a year ago that he had been the subject of an FBI investigation and secret surveillance. It was in the New York Times on April 4, 2017. So declassifying a memo that reveals continuing FBI interest in Mr. Page hardly seems to be the earthshaking civil liberties offense that Mr. Wittes would like us to believe it is.

    • #26
  27. rico Inactive
    rico
    @rico

    Arizona Patriot (View Comment):
    She goes on to say (at around 36:05) that: “To stir up people’s rage and fear and hatred by citing MS-13 and going on and on and suggesting that these hordes of criminals are pouring across our border, which he does all the time, first of all, it is just not true. I mean there is abundant evidence that immigrants, either legal or illegal, are less likely to commit crimes by native-born people.”

    The president didn’t suggest that “hordes of criminals are pouring across our border.” Ms. Charen is deliberately framing the president’s statement as as a condemnation of immigrants. This is an inexcusable dodge, not only misrepresenting the intent of President Trump’s statement, but minimizing the fact that thousands of vile criminals have entered this country illegally and are committing extreme violence against Americans and others residing here.

    Apparently, acknowledging sincere testimony of lives being ruined as a result of our failure to control our borders is less important to Ms. Charen than joining Leftists in their false outrage over imagined insults to immigrants.

    • #27
  28. Steven Iverson Member
    Steven Iverson
    @stevenIverson

    Was very disappointed in what I heard on this podcast. Does Mona and Jay also think the DOJ and FBI did a fine job of investigating Hillary’s probable criminal activity in her handling of classified information and her destruction of 30,000 emails which were under subpoena or reasonably expected to be?

    • #28
  29. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    George Townsend (View Comment):
     

    DocJay (View Comment):
    I gave it a few minutes. It’s like an orgy of hideous folks at a Burning Man tent. I was passing by and had to look but regret I did. Not pretty and they all need a bath.

    This comment is disgusting. You don’t talk about good people that way.

    X

    • #29
  30. Theodoric of Freiberg Member
    Theodoric of Freiberg
    @TheodoricofFreiberg

    As “Never Trumpers,” I was hoping that Ms. Charen and Mr. Nordlinger would provide fair criticism of the president and the Republican party in this “Age of Trump.” Doing so would serve to gently push conservatives in good directions. I know they have it in them, but after listening to this and many other recent podcasts, it is obvious that they have no intention of doing anything of the sort.

    • #30