Blog powered by Typepad

« Right, pay attention, this is your Corporal speaking! | Main | Wee 'Mrs. McWhinge' has a wee mind to match! »

Wednesday, 24 January 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Social Justice = "Who has the biggest victim card?"

It is division from unity. It neither makes, nor toils. Observe the lilies of the field (or indeed on the red carpet in their plunging back dresses), they do not spin (except your words) and yet they are clad in the gayest of colours (pink hats, generally, and look like twots). This is the definition of Social Justice and what it has done for us. And it will go in a cycle, until we oppress the poor, the weak and the malnourished and someone like Dickens will rise up and we'll all go Danmore once again....

I think the wheel turns and would do wholesomely if we hadn't created this whole new crime, "Wrong Think". If we could simply shout our views at each other, using whatever language seems best, the arguments might be bitter but they would be over and done with. Instead, we watch the rising tide of resentment, and it makes the fights that do break out that much more violent. It is wearisome and frustrating to watch from the sidelines and even more horrifying, since I am starting to back Katie Hopkins as someone who at least seems allowed to say things without reprimand. Well, it doesn't stop her, anyway.

Two hostile camps? The Western World is undergoing this and it springs from a never ending tumor- Radical Leftism.
The engine of the three radical R’s of the left: Resentment, Revolution and Redistribution.
The revolution is here and leftists are running out of other people to feed to the guillotine. Identity politics turns deadly. Why people revere the chains of "victimhood" is why we insist on repeating the 20th century. Those chains seem to be a comfort and are pulled by the masters of Leftism and their apparatchiks.

To keep the battling sides-identities -apart, we have judges and courts that are now called upon to decide. Elected representatives are once again pushed to the side as judges are tempted to make law instead of interpret law.

David, I would like to believe you're too smart to actually believe the FBI is corrupt rather than the Trump administration. If you can believe that, you can believe in the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas.

Bob, I believe the top levels of the FBI, the DoJ and the IRS are floundering in a stinking pond of political corruption aided immeasurably by the real 'Slick Willie', er, that's 'Willie' Obama! In the meantime, I urge you to keep your head stuck firmly in the ground where you will see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil - nothing to see here, move along!

oh dear, Bob.
Strxok-Page debacle + missing 5 months of emails
Secret Society off site meetings!
FISA abuses


"I would like to believe you're too smart to actually believe the FBI is corrupt"

Why not, it has happened before, why just t'other had me mentioning to you I'd enjoy reading any pdf you might produce for me?

Just that, back then the shoe was on the other foot - and like they say (they do say doint they Bob) "What goes around comes around"?

And wouldn't you know it, History doesn't exactly repeat itself but it does rhyme!


Wow. You would need an almost complete lack of understanding of our law enforcement institutions and the limited powers of the presidency to think that possible. It's not that leaders, individuals, or groups of agents never step over lines, but they are not and have never been anything like what you're describing. Right wing smearing of law enforcement in an attempt to protect Trump is beyond the pale, and won't serve Republicans or their supporters well. Nixon's men tried that too.

Sorry, Bob, so are you telling me that J. Edgar Hoover was an upright gentleman of the old school, or that Nixon never told fibs, or that 'good ol' Bill Clinton was standing on a stack of bibles when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" and that when he met Loretta Lynch on the end of a runway in the middle of nowhere it was to discuss flower arranging and that the dismissal of Hillary's e-mails by Comey just before the election was all upright and honourable?

Do me a favour!

Too Bob,

Before you do David his favor (favour reads naughty David, y'all might do well reconsidering our dropping the "u's" in this one instance)

Anyway Bob before you do David, do read page 6 of that above pdf - you'll note in surprise perhaps that - FISA is still with us.

Domestic counterintelligence operations will always pose issues.

missred, we'll see how those allegations play out.

JK, like I wrote, the FBI and others have occasionally crossed lines, but as the Chair and Vice Chair remarked, "...the CISPES investigation was an aberration that contrasts sharply with the FBI's overall record..." then went on to emphasize the importance of congressional oversight. What we're seeing now is obviously partisan oversight that has a bad look and won't stand the test of time.


Hoover was a character and an occasionally dangerous one. How mentioning lying presidents helps your case is beyond me. JK is right that there's always friction between the spy and law enforcement agencies and executive administrations. It shows up glaringly in this one because Trump is completely ignorant of the relationship between the two.

Oh it'll stand "the test of time" Bob.

But it'll take into (at least) the middle of the next Executive or so for our descendants to realize their appreciation for our FBI. We can't do without them and, neither can they - it's just that at the moment, losing five months worth of the very stuff that the FBI does best: filing stuff for later use Stinks to the heavens!

Mueller will (surprised there Bob, "Mueller will"?) get there.


Nope. Not surprised. The other side of the FBI supposedly losing stuff is its' possibly defending itself as best it can. We'll have to be patient until Mueller goes public. It took over two years to nail Nixon.

Bless you, Bob. As JK says, we will all have to be patient, but your faith in the integrity and wholesomeness of the most powerful, and least accountable, institutions of the mighty State is not only inspiring, but charming.

Why, do forgive me, Bob - in my previous I said that the call for patience had come from JK, not you.

Regardless, it is good advice. These things have to be done carefully, and they take time.

Well Bob,

"The other side of the FBI supposedly losing stuff is its' possibly defending itself as best it can."

As I understand it, that "lost stuff" has been subject to subpoena for some time. I'm not sure that, best practices considered, the FBI's defending itself by directly violating statute constitutes what even a halfwit defense attorney might suggest would be so.

Malcolm Pollack, all is forgiven.

JK, exactly which stuff are you referring to, Peter Strzok's emails, the surveillance accusations in Devin Nunes' "secret" memo that he tells everyone about but won't release, or something else? A quick news search shows the usual suspects are pushing various FBI corruption stories. Some still include Hillary's emails.


Almost forgot. Since you like PDFs you might enjoy this one:

I haven't finished reading it, but so far it's interesting.


As Mr. Nunes apparently holds whatever it is he's holding that probably isn't what I'm referring to no?

So far as Hillary's losts go Judicial Watch (among others) would appear to be doing pretty good without my participation also.

So. What is it the FBI has admitted to "losing" fairly recently?

I'll close my final comment on this thread Bob by, pasting the body of the email I composed and sent winging its way toward my Congress-Critter's inbox which, hopefully, gets across the crux of my individual concerns:


"I see on tv you DC folks are doing stuff that would make Arkansas look like a nice place to be so I'll get right to it - I am not one of those people calling for Mr. Mueller to either, cease his investigation or for that matter, "Take a hike." The investigation he leads should be allowed to run its course, regardless of where we wind up."

"However: I am troubled by Mr. Schiff's insinuations that, "Americans are too stupid to understand the memo" if only because, at least in Mr. Schiff's own case wouldn't he have to allow his constituents, presumably just as American as he is that, they elected him? ... That's kinda having a "doofus" take on his part wouldn't one think?"

"I do neither Facebook or Twitter (matter of fact No social media) so if the rumors about the exhortations to release the memo are being driven by Russian bots I for one ought not have been so motivated. I therefore without reservation communicate to you acting as my Representative, release the memo."

"Lastly, it might be a good idea to go ahead and appoint an additional Independent Investigator to check into the alleged shenanigans within the FBI before the mid-terms. I'd recommend going with somebody outside of both law enforcement and government to lead - who I don't know but, maybe consult with James Baker or maybe (don't spill your coffee) Alan Dershowitz to get a recommendation of somebody beyond reproach and non-partisan. Integrity would be a plus."

A Dershowitz enquiry, JK? Damn, I'd pay good money to see the result of that even if, strictly speaking, it's none of my business!


I can't find any reference to Schiff saying Americans are too stupid ... Please supply a reference. Also, I've finished the Glenn Simpson Transcript and it's definitely worth reading.

Well this'll be the last then David, Bob.

Being David as you're not, over here and subject to The Sanctimonious Slug Jeffy Toobin nightly on CNN - one of Jeffy's Harvard Professors was that fellow Dershowitz. "Constitutional Law" as I recall.

Notice Bob my word above - "insinuations"?

I read the entirety of the Simpson testimony within nine hours of its release then, reviewed as many of the relevant backgrounders as I'd seen on C-Span publicly aired - of which there are three.

Not C-Span of course Bob but there've been some entertaining "takes" where Pathfinder Schiff has been analyzed "doing his thang":

From April of last year


And most recently

Happy listening everybody ... oh yeah!

From the Waaaaaayyy Back Machine.


Unless you say otherwise, I assume you're referring to this statement from Schiff:

"When CNN’s Ana Cabrera asked him why not let the American people see the info and decide for themselves, Mr. Schiff went full Jack Nicholson: “The American people, unfortunately, don’t have the underlying materials and therefore they can’t see how distorted and misleading this document is,” he answered."

John Batchelor then helpfully goes on to put words in Schiff's mouth:

"Translation: The American people can’t handle the truth."

So you're translating again what Batchelor has already translated. It's hard to imagine any congressman calling the public "stupid". They run for re-election and need votes, you know.

You might have heard Nunes has gotten himself in trouble with Trump's DOJ over his "secret" memo.

Well Bob,

Schiff runs for office in California for which, Moonbeam Brown is governor. California you may've heard is spending gazillions on a high-speed rail-line which has resulted in achieving what Arkansas and Mississippi have been arguing over which state is "The Capital of Penury."

You're familiar with the phrase?

Well recently California has taken the lead in Poverty. Its more complicated than that of course but, that's pretty stupid.

Far as "Trump's DoJ" is concerned - Stephen E. Boyd (the guy presently exercised over the memo) previously served as the Chief of Staff of the Office of Legal Policy (OLP) at the U.S. Department of Justice and has worked for more than 12 years on Capitol Hill.

My assumption is, seeing as he's been at DoJ at least eleven years prior to the election of 2016, he isn't exactly somebody who's enjoyed a long career beholden to President Trump?

Too Bob,

Schiff appears to be in line to inherit the seat currently occupied by Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Feinstein I'm sure you're aware - unilaterally released that testimony which you've recently so enjoyed. That choice you may be aware, meaning the unilateral release wasn't shall we say, exactly in line with the Judiciary Committee's established and applicable processes for doing so.

Nunes could have I suppose, relied on Senator Dianne's precedent but he didn't.


Otherwise. See above of Thursday, 25 January 2018 at 14:23.

The comments to this entry are closed.