Andrew C. McCarthy: Flynn was framed as a Russian agent
Well, the mystery is solved, at least if you can believe what the usual sieves — those courageously anonymous “former U.S. officials” — have told their notetakers at the Washington Post. As I surmised in last weekend’s column, Michael Flynn was not “unmasked” in connection with his controversial phone call with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. He was never masked in the first place…
Though I was right that Flynn was never masked in connection with the Kislyak call on December 29, 2016, I was off the mark in hypothesizing that the conversation may be been intercepted by an intelligence agency other than the FBI — perhaps the CIA or a foreign intelligence service. Sadly, this owes to my giving the FBI the benefit of the doubt: Had Flynn been picked up on a FISA surveillance of which he was not the target (i.e., a surveillance of Kislyak), I reasoned that the FBI would have masked his identity under statutorily required “minimization instructions.” Indeed, we now know that Flynn’s identity was masked (and then unmasked) dozens of times before and after December 29, precisely because the government knew those minimization rules applied to him.
Alas, in this as in so much else throughout the Trump–Russia farce, the Bureau played fast and loose with the rules. When investigators are so inclined, it turns out the privacy vouchsafed by the minimization rules is illusory. FBI officials — if they thought about it at all — figured Flynn need not be masked because they did not see him as an innocent American incidentally caught up in foreign surveillance. They purported to suspect that he was a clandestine agent of Russia.
Of course, they had no proof of that. And they knew they had no proof. That’s why they never sought a FISA-court warrant targeting Flynn. Doing so would have required showing probable cause that he was an operative of Russia; and as to Flynn, they didn’t even have a fabulist “dossier” to rely on for such a smear.
It’s hard to read that without getting sick to your stomach.
And, as commenter “AesopFan” wrote earlier today about McCarthy himself: “I think he is finally over his former admiration of his beloved agency, but it’s been a long hard battle.” Yes, a mind is a difficult thing to change. But I think McCarthy actually changed his – substantially if not entirely – at least a year ago, maybe more. And he’s mostly been spot on in recent years with his columns about Russiagate/Spygate/Obamagate/Flynngate. In the above quote from McCarthy, you can feel (at least, I can feel) the drip of his contempt and disgust for what the FBI did to Flynn.
Please read the whole thing. But here’s one more excerpt:
Here’s a more plausible explanation of motive. The Obama administration was actively constructing the Trump–Russia collusion narrative. Obama officials saw Putin’s “no retaliation” pose as an opportunity to float the fiction that the Kremlin had cut a sinister deal with Trump to gut Obama’s sanctions as a reward for Russia’s hacking of Democrats during the campaign. Obama officials and the FBI hoped to conceal the Trump–Russia investigation from the incoming Trump administration for as long as possible, and to continue the investigation of Trump’s campaign — remember, by December 29, they had already gotten a FISA warrant based on the representation that Trump’s campaign had conspired with the Kremlin, and they were preparing to reaffirm that claim in order to get a second 90-day warrant (the second of what would eventually be four).
The Flynn–Kislyak call was intercepted because the FBI had FISA coverage on Kislyak, and both the Bureau and the Obama White House instantly recognized that hyping the call could advance all these objectives. Then, they really hit the jackpot: Even though Flynn had done nothing wrong, Trump officials amateurishly misled the public about the call — claiming that Obama’s sanctions were not discussed, rather than that the topic came up but Flynn made no concessions to Moscow. This, naturally, stoked a few “Flynn discussed the sanctions, then lied” news cycles. These amplified the frenzy over publication of the Steele dossier — choreographed by Obama-administration leaks about the Russia briefing our intelligence agencies gave Trump. Flynn’s days were numbered. By Valentine’s Day, he was cashiered as national-security advisor . . . no longer an obstacle to the Obama-driven strategy of continuing the Trump–Russia investigation after Trump took office.
The point of all this was politics, not national security.
I repeat: please read the whole thing.
ADDENDUM:
It’s interesting to go back in time and read McCarthy. Some of his columns – particularly those that expressed his faith in the integrity of someone like Comey, with whom he’d worked long ago – don’t age well. But I think the majority age extremely well. Case in point, this one from March 3, 2017, after Sessions’ recusal (which McCarthy criticized).
McCarthy had not been a Trump admirer. But this is what he wrote only a little over a month after Trump’s inauguration [emphasis added]:
…[R]est assured, this does not end with Jeff Sessions. No more than it ended with Mike Flynn [he’d recently been forced to resign]. No more than it would end if the media-Democrat complex were to obtain the much coveted scalp of Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, Seb Gorka, or one of the other Beltway gate-crashers we’ve come to know over the last six improbable months. The objective is President Trump: preferably, his impeachment and removal; but second prize, his mortal political wounding by a thousand cuts just in time for 2018 and 2020, would surely do…
Democrats…have an iron-cast stomach and an unseemly zeal for upheaval. They’re ready to build. All they lack is a case. No problem: They have made one up, and they are confident not only that they will build it into a national crisis of confidence in the presidency but that the Republicans will help them.
And lo and behold, Republicans are helping them. Unwittingly perhaps, but helping all the same…
it’s not like the FBI and the Obama Justice Department didn’t try to make a case against Trump. In fact, they scorched the earth.
Besides the illegal leaks of classified information that have fueled the “Russia hacked the election” scam, this is the most outrageous and studiously unmentioned scandal of the election. While the commentariat was rending its garments over the mere prospect that Trump might have his political adversary, Hillary Clinton, investigated if he won the election, Obama was actually having Trump investigated. [emphasis in the original]
There’s a lot more in that McCarthy column from over three years ago. It’s long, but fascinating and impressive. He didn’t get all the details right, but he can hardly be faulted for that, given the information with which he had to work.
OMG. That’s all I can think to say: OMG. They really were as bad as their worst critics said they were. They really did violate the Constitution numerous times and with total impunity (thus far).
I’ve said it before, only half jokingly, but now it is really true: the time has come for pitchforks and torches, for tar and feathers. Nothing less suffices for these malefactors and their misdeeds.
Gosh, might one wonder if THAT’s how Judge Sullivan KNEW that Flynn was a TRAITOR TO HIS COUNTRY?
A little tip off, a smirking hint, some extra-curricular conversation with the good-ole boys?
(Keeping in mind that they were NEVER, EVER going to be caught.)
Meanwhile, what are the chances that the Democrats are rolling on the floor laughing their heads, crying through tears of mirth, “Those idiots, those fools, those clowns really think that Flynn was UNMASKED! HA HA HA HA….”
Should be “…laughing their heads off…”
As for McCarthy, seems to me he’s often been most unfairly maligned for himself trying to be fair, for trying to give the benefit of the doubt to government LE agencies that he probably never in a million years would have believed that they’d be subverted by a rogue government.
But that’s because he likely never considered the Obama regime to be just such a rogue, out of control, government (in spite of everything it was doing).
How easily decent people can be fooled and made to look naïve.
That seems to be one of the greatest successes of POTUS 44 and his supporting cast.
Ripley: These people are here to protect you. They are soldiers.
Newt: It won’t make any difference.
–“Aliens” (1986)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9yAfQ3CTnc
That’s about how I feel these days when it comes to the FBI and DOJ.
For those who might have wondered what happened to the child actor who made that spectacular debut as Newt, her name is Carrie Henn and she became a fourth-grade teacher.
“Kevin Smith Geeks Out With Newt From ‘Aliens'”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDeW92lK4k8
“As for McCarthy, seems to me he’s often been most unfairly maligned for himself trying to be fair”
Fair to whom? The people he now acknowledges were trying to undermine and even overthrown a democratically elected President and his administration?
It’s all well and good that the scales have fallen from McCarthy’s eyes but what is he going to do now? Is he going to become an ardent advocate for the re-election of Donald Trump, because that’s really the only way to truly punish those responsible for the Russia collusion hoax, or will he mildly defend Trump when it’s convenient while making clear what contempt and disdain he has for the man? Is he going to publicly call out and shame his NeverTrump “friends” like Jonah Goldberg for allying themselves with the people McCarthy now supposedly finds so reprehensible?
I’m not asking McCarthy to lie or even forget his policy disagreements with Trump but if he truly believes the national security state was used as a weapon to attack the Trump campaign and Presidency…what’s he going to do about it?
Mike
McCarthy’s an experienced and responsible prosecutor.
He looks for evidence. He respects the law.
For example, he assumed a while back that Comey, with whom McCarthy claimed to be friendly at one time, for example, was not crooked.
When he finally understood that Comey was up to no good, the gloves were off.
Read neo’s original post regarding McCarthy changing direction.
The question then is when did this change take place. I think it’s been far more than a year.
I wonder how many Democrats and never-Trumpers would even object if they knew for a fact that the Obama administration used the FBI and intelligence agencies to undermine Trump. Their hatred of Trump is so great that I think almost anything would be justified to get rid of him. You can see this in their support for the almost beyond parody Biden campaign. I’m not really sure if even half the country believes in the founding principles of this country anymore.
Gregory Harper:
Agreed.
It’s all well and good that the scales have fallen from McCarthy’s eyes but what is he going to do now?
He’s doing fine as is. The NeverTrump pests who’ve left National Review either manufacture excuses for Justice Department’s conduct (David Frum) or they assiduously ignore it (David French, Mona Charen). All these people went to law school, btw, so they’re a tad more familiar with the issues than others.
I would feel somewhat better about the FBI, DOJ, State Dept, etc. if there were signs of “resistance” to the clear government malfeasance with regard to attacking Trump and letting Obama people off.
But aside from the occasional, usually unnamed, source, I’ve heard nothing. All this stuff is apparently A-OK with those in these agencies from top to bottom.
I get that many of them are protecting their quiet lives and their pensions, but they swore oaths to protect the Constitution and if they can’t do that, well, I would shed no tears if the FBI, for instance, were abolished and all its employees had to compete for jobs at Wal-Mart.
Early in the morning, on their first full day at the FBI Academy, 50 new-agent trainees, dressed in conservative suits and more than a little anxious about their new careers, stand as instructed by the assistant director of the FBI and raise their right hands. In unison, the trainees repeat the following words as they are sworn in as employees of the federal government:
I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
At the end of their academy training, and as part of the official graduation ceremony, these same new-agent trainees once again will stand, raise their right hands, and repeat the same oath. This time, however, the oath will be administered by the director of the FBI, and the trainees will be sworn in as special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.1 Similar types of ceremonies are conducted in every state, by every law enforcement agency, for every officer across the country. And, each officer promises to do one fundamentally important thing—support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
https://i-uv.com/fbi-our-oath-of-office-a-solemn-promise/
huxley,
I think for the most part the problem at the FBI is at the very top. I’m not sure that the rank and file agent is any worse (or better) than they have ever been. Personally I’ve always been too cynical to buy the rosy perception of the G-Man so this stuff doesn’t surprise me I’m sure there have been other really corrupt episodes attempted or even executed by the political leadership at the FBI.
Maybe I’m too fatalist but it is just where we are as a country. It’s hard to be too optimistic big picture for us in the long run. All good things…
I think for the most part the problem at the FBI is at the very top. I’m not sure that the rank and file agent is any worse (or better) than they have ever been.
Griffin: I’m not sure either, but it does seem that the entire DC culture is so weighted to the Deep State — indeed any culture tied to the government, academia or the media — I’m not much inclined to give the benefit of the doubt.
Until 9-11 I was a leftist and I was deeply skeptical, often rightly so, of the FBI.
The tide turned against Nixon in Watergate when even Republicans took principled stands. I’m not seeing Democrats do that today.
I wonder how many Democrats and never-Trumpers would even object if they knew for a fact that the Obama administration used the FBI and intelligence agencies to undermine Trump.
They know. Now they’re ignoring and spinning. The imperatives are to maintain one’s inflated self-image while getting what one wants. The Democrats have more practice at that than the NeverTrump crew. Also, the Democrats are willing to savage establishment Republicans, which is a bridge too far for NeverTrumpers not named ‘Jeff Flake’.
“He’s doing fine as is.”
Actually, not so much.
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2016/02/15/conservatives-against-trump/
Looking at what McCarthy wrote in the infamous “Conservatives Against Trump” article at National Review, the fears he expressed about a Trump Presidency have proven to be almost 100% wrong. He also expressed a mindless antipathy toward Russia (which is also echoed in his latest piece on Flynn) while any sane person realizes that as we wanted China on our side against the Soviet Union 50 years ago, we want Russia on our side against China today.
It’s like another NeverTrump I just got around to reading who in January 2020 whined about how Trump was just as protectionist and harmful to free trade as he predicted. The fact that Trump’s trade policies either contributed to the very strong economy we had before the pandemic lockdown or that they weren’t nearly as damaging as the NeverTrumper predicted goes completely unacknowledged.
Now, if McCarthy writes the Trump equivalent of the “I’d vote for Biden even if he boiled and ate babies” column, my concerns will be assuaged. I suspect that we’ll continue to get a bunch of ineffectual blather.
Mike
MBunge:
That’s four years ago, before Trump was elected or even nominated.
I couldn’t stand Trump back then.
I strongly doubt McCarthy would write that column now.
Mr Burge:
Citing a column from 4 years ago to criticize Andy McCarthy today is pretty weak, I expected much the same as your response to every other Andy McCarthy article but this is a new low.
Now, if McCarthy writes the Trump equivalent of the “I’d vote for Biden even if he boiled and ate babies” column, my concerns will be assuaged. I suspect that we’ll continue to get a bunch of ineffectual blather.
If he builds his case in his idiom, that’s fine. We don’t need everyone to be waving pom poms. I’ve seen Trump detractors in a rage at Ann Althouse, Jonathan Turley, and Alan Dershowitz because standing for conventional legal procedure and conventional definitions of what constitutes an offense undermines their self-understanding.
One real problem we face is the unwillingness of the Democratic Party elite to respect conventional procedural norms and courtesies. The Democratic base is perfectly happy with this. The optimistic scenario going forward is that they offend just enough swing voters to cost them about eight federal elections in a row while criminal malefactors in their ranks get prosecuted. Then maybe they think better of it. I’m not an optimist myself.
Mr Bunge:
Has Andy McCarthy always been a witch? Or will you accept the floats/burns test for his giving up the witchcraft? He may have turned you into a newt, you haven’t gotten better it seems.
“the time has come for pitchforks and torches, for tar and feathers.” F
That’s another trigger wire for civil war. It would be counter-productive for our side to be seen as initiating it.
“I wonder how many Democrats and never-Trumpers would even object if they knew for a fact that the Obama administration used the FBI and intelligence agencies to undermine Trump.” Gregory Harper
What percentage of commentators on the left object or even acknowledge the actual facts as have now been revealed? I strongly suspect that a similar percentage would be found among the Democratic base.
The democrat leadership are a reflection of that base. Leftist activists would have no leverage if their liberal useful idiots weren’t enabling their influence.
At least half of America has swallowed the left’s kool-aid and are utterly blinded by their virtue signaling to see that they are facilitating the chains of their future enslavement.
Huxley..
if you dont believe in god, whats the point of such a swearing?
a phrase like this which is solemn
So help me God.
becomes
So help me spaghetti monster in the sky
and the rest is a farce
I will not respect the law until the law respects me. I have no criminal history, I have a history as a good and generous citizen, and a loyal patriotic citizen of the real rule of the law, aka the Constitution of the United States of America. Don’t tread on me and I’ll return the favor. Otherwise FOAD.
McCarthy’s legal analysis is usually clear and well thought out. BUT he screwed up in a major way by choosing to believe, for 3 years — without evidence — the LIE that “Russians hacked the DNC server”, including in his book “Ball of Confusion”
“So, to be clear,” McCarthy writes on p. 179, “I accept, and have always accepted, the intelligence agencies’ conclusion, echoed by Mueller, that Russia was behind the hacking of Democratic email accounts. There are skeptics who do not accept this conclusion, and they are not all crackpots as the media-Democrat complex would have you believe. But I do accept it.”
http://dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/4011/What-To-Do-About-the-IC-Big-Lie-That-Russia-Hacked-the-DNC.aspx
That lie was the foundation of the coup d’etat. Now the release of the Shawn Henry (Crowdstrike) 2017 congressional closed door testimony has proved Crowdstrike NEVER had ANY evidence the Russians hacked the servers. So far, McCarthy hasn’t publicly reacted to that fact. So even though it was always clear that the only “evidence” to support it was hearsay from a biased source, and even though it was clear that lies and bias lay behind the coup, McCarthy’s eyes were blinded by bias. Even in times when otherwise sane people think the stupidest things, this is a sobering lesson.
Howard Glickstein:
I agree that was an error of McCarthy’s. But it was a forced error. Although there were reasons to doubt the server was ever hacked, I think it’s understandable why McCarthy believed it was. It’s only recently the much stronger proof has emerged that it wasn’t hacked, and that the report of hacking was fake news. McCarthy has been so right on so many things that I don’t fault him for some mistakes. He was too trusting of a system he felt had worked honorably back when he was active in it. And maybe it did, back then. At any rate, I think he will be much more cynical going forward.
As far as him not addressing that issue at this point, I hope he does. But he’s been churning out so much good writing so quickly that he can’t cover everything. Now, if he continues to assert it was hacked, that would be a different story.
I will cut a short bit of slack, but his early praise of Comey does not taste well on the palate. However, none of us hasn’t been in error. Good to see he has developed some common sense.
neo,
I agree with almost everything you say in response to my comment, but I don’t see how it was “a forced error”. Please explain.
…if you dont believe in god, whats the point of such a swearing?
Artfldgr: I think most American citizens, even atheists, understand that an oath to defend the Constitution is a solemn, true oath which matters as one’s word, whether one believes in God or not.
Atheists aren’t necessarily adherents of “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” because they are atheists. Most atheists in my experience share a basic “Don’t lie, don’t cheat, don’t steal, don’t kill” morality with theists.
The real problem IMO is that people are good at rationalizing their behavior, as in Comey’s book title, “A Higher Loyalty.”
I Don’t believe Atheists follow Crowley (or many even know him)…
some pagans and satanists definitely.
Alexandrian no, Gardnerians definitely no, Eris followers no…
Maybe sub clinical sociopaths atheists?
operatives? revolutionaries? ideologues?
probably but each for their own reasons
Barry Meislin on May 23, 2020 at 4:24 pm said:
…
How easily decent people can be fooled and made to look naïve.
That seems to be one of the greatest successes of POTUS 44 and his supporting cast.
* * *
Con artists are well aware that the best targets are either greedy people, or honest ones.
The first will bite any hook with enough bait, and the second don’t really understand that bad people bait their hooks.
I love hearing these stories about how all the problems at the FBI were at the top levels, and that 99%, wait 95%, wait 96% (pick a number) of all FBI employees are dedicated, decent hard-working aspirational idealists trying to do their job the best they know how. Yah. Right.
What has Christopher Wray done to actually assure that? If we want to have confidence in our institutions, in this case what has happened so far? The bad actors have been shown the door and now have their book deals and MSNBC / CNN gigs, intact pensions and no jail time, soooo……
If you want the average citizen to believe in the FBI’s mission, Chris Wray must take a public stand to tell us why we ought to think things have changed, and what he has put into place to make it happen – and by what metrics he will hold himself accountable. Yah, I haven’t seen it either. In fact, I’ve seen nothing. It’s a shame, huh?
If you want the average citizen to believe in the FBI’s mission, Chris Wray must take a public stand to tell us why we ought to think things have changed, and what he has put into place to make it happen – and by what metrics he will hold himself accountable. Yah, I haven’t seen it either. In fact, I’ve seen nothing. It’s a shame, huh?
You’ll note that Wray isn’t a cop and his executive experience has been modest. He was in charge of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice from 2003 to 2005. The four divisions of the Department of Justice – Civil, Criminal, Civil Rights, and Environment – had about 360 in sum employees at the time. (The Antitrust Divisions personnel summery was listed separately in the budget). NB, he reported to … James Comey. He was employed in the U.S. Attorney’s offices prior to that. The average U.S. Attorney’s office in his era had about 14 employees, and he wasn’t the boss. Since 2005, he’s practiced law. Lawyers seldom have that many people working under them. I have no clue why or how Trump was snookered into appointing this empty suit.
Just the News is becoming the Go To for serious reporting without leftist slant.
Back to the ridiculous Papadopoulos theory, but now with documents proving the FBI knew it was ridiculous from the start.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/declassified-doc-reveals-fbi-apparently-launched
Indeed, John Solomon is one of the investigative journalists who MUST be read.
(We know this not only from his reportage but because he’s been in the crosshairs of all the “right” people. QED.)
John Hinderaker breaks down the news on the Strzok memo into understandable observations. This memo should have been on page 1 of Mueller’s report, and page 2 should have been “case closed.”
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/05/origin-of-crossfire-hurricane-discovered.php
“If this really is how the Russia investigation began, several points are obvious. First, it all had to do with Peter Strzok, who apparently both proposed and approved the alleged “investigation,” and kept it secret from most of his colleagues at the FBI.”
And this is important —
“Fourth, it is interesting that the Papadopoulos rumor included a suggestion that the Russians had “dirt” on Barack Obama. Perhaps this has been reported before, but if so, I don’t remember it.”
The George Popadopolos case was far from a simple plant evidence on a Trump associate abroad case. Instead, or in addition, his case – especially when Mueller hoods get involved – is much more like a witch hunt that Flynn has endured.
That’s my take on the two part interview just completed with Rudy Giuliani
“A Rogue Counter-Intelligence Trap, Part of OBAMAgate | Ep. 36 with George Papadopoulos”. May 14, 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5Yg3o-kbQg
“The Attempt to Destroy George Papadopoulos #OBAMAgate | Part 2 | Ep. 38” May 22, 2020. Just spill on Trump and this will all go away, he’s told
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-PlzNqe7Mo
AesopFan writes on the Poweline blog post: “Fourth, it is interesting that the Papadopoulos rumor included a suggestion that the Russians had “dirt” on Barack Obama. Perhaps this has been reported before, but if so, I don’t remember it.”
Perhaps I missed a confirm in the Popadopolos interview, but I can’t recall any such indication. Thus dunned, I hope others will check!
“I strongly doubt McCarthy would write that column now.“
Why not? Is it because he was…you know…wrong?
I’ll grant that McCarthy isn’t a total fool or fraud, like many NeverTrumpers, and abandoned everything he used to believe just because OrangeManBad. But while I commend him for actually acknowledging reality, that’s a pretty damn low bar isn’t it? Not being a soulless hack like Jonah Goldberg or utter whack job like Jen Rubin isn’t exactly something to boast about.
Four years ago, McCarthy was horrified at what Donald Trump might do to American foreign policy and national security. As opposed to what? The previous eight years of Obama? The eight years of George W. Bush before that? How did McCarthy think Trump could be more of a disaster than Bush the Younger? Did he think Trump was going to nuke Belgium?
And today, McCarthy is still banging on about the awfulness of Putin. Which is at least true but Russia is absolutely no threat to the U.S. today economically, militarily, or geopolitically. As opposed to China, which is actually a genuine threat AND has scores of water-carriers in our political/media establishment.
McCarthy can recognize reality but I see no sign that he “gets it.” I see no indication he understands WHY he was wrong. Not about Flynn. Not about Trump. Which means there is every reason to fear he’ll make the same mistakes again.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe McCarthy will spend the next five months forcefully making the case for Trump’s re-election. Maybe McCarthy will stop perpetuating the “Putin as boogeyman” nonsense. Maybe he’ll consider what people like him did to open the door for someone like Trump. We’ll see.
But I’m not going to be surprised if it doesn’t happen.
Mike
Mr Bunge:
It appears that Andy McCarthy is still a witch and you are still a newt. Sad.
That indeed is a very big hole you have dug (most recent post) but you might want to stop at some time. We have a poodle that is hell bent on digging under the fence to get at the neighbors chickens. She won’t get past the concrete foundation and we won’t let her succeed. Your fixation with Andy McCarthy is much the same. Gives you something to do I guess. Productive use of your brain? Not so much.
Carrying the water for Putin too. Doubly sad.
John Solomon (cont.).
Reporting from a year ago when he wrote for “The Hill” demonstrates why he’s a real thorn in the side of “the resistance”:
https://thehill.com/author/john-solomon
(He’s since moved to other platforms — “John Solomon Reports” and from there to “Just the News”)
Flynn was framed, illegally.
And his name was leaked to the news, illegally.
And HR Clinton had an illegal email server with illegal Top Secret documents.
When will there be indictments for crimes?
No indictments, no real “crime-crime”.
And let’s not forget that Watergate was the FBI getting rid of a US President who refused to promote the #2 FBI guy into the #1 spot after J. Edgar died in 1972. Mark Felt, AKA Deep Throat.
Checking… who was Clyde Tolson? Oh yeah, Hoover’s boyfriend and #2 at FBI.
wiki:
After Hoover’s death on May 2, 1972, Tolson was briefly the acting head of the FBI.[13] L. Patrick Gray became acting director on May 3.[26] That same day, Tolson contacted Mark Felt and instructed him to write Tolson’s letter of resignation.[27] Citing ill health, Tolson retired from the bureau on May 4, the day of Hoover’s funeral.[28][29] Felt was appointed to Tolson’s position.
The top dogs at the FBI believe they are above the law.
So far, they have been. No indictments, no crime.
Tom Grey:
Here’s a dissenting opinion about J. E. Hoover being gay:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2080431/Forget-Richard-Nixons-gay-lover-This-J-Edgar-Hoovers-secret-love-child.html
MBunge: I’ll reserve my opinion of McCarthy but my take on Russia is not far removed from yours.
And let’s not forget that Watergate was the FBI getting rid of a US President who refused to promote the #2 FBI guy into the #1 spot after J. Edgar died in 1972.
No one from the FBI Jedi-mind tricked Gordon Liddy and his crew into burgling the DNC offices at the Watergate complex. Neither did they trick Nixon, a mess of White House employees, and employees of the CRP into arranging a monetary pipeline to the defendants to persuade them to plead and keep quiet. Operation Gemstone was Liddy’s brainchild. (BTW, the notion that ‘Deep Throat’ was anything but a composite is difficult to credit. Mark Felt did a favor for Woodward-and-Bernstein when commentaries were circulating online demonstrating how the procedure they described in their book they’d supposedly used for meeting with Deep Throat was unworkable nonsense).
Note, the culture of the Nixon White House had its pathologies. For one thing, it was perk mad. John Dean gave a precis of the amount of redecorating being done while he worked there. Speechwriters were receiving portal-to-portal limousine service. Another was that Nixon had a great deal of difficulty with unstructured give-and-take. His face-to-face contact with anyone but H.R. Haldeman was strictly rationed and many meetings with subordinates were staged, with some participants unaware that the ‘decisions’ they were making had already been made. Henry Kissinger told Ron Nessen years later that Nixon did not bargain with foreign heads of government. He proceeded according to prepared scenarios. Another was that they employed rogues beavering away at the oddest things. Charles Colson at one point was developing plans to have a crew of people run by John Caulfield and Anthony Ulaszewicz firebomb the Brookings Institution, then send a clandestine crew in behind the firefighters and take back purloined archival material that Morton Halperin had deposited there.
Nixon really had no business in an executive position, certainly not in the position he held.
Checking… who was Clyde Tolson? Oh yeah, Hoover’s boyfriend and #2 at FBI.
wiki:
The past is another country, and borders are closed. The prurient contemporary imagination no longer understands the fraternity of my grandparents’ generation. Mark Felt did offer an opinion about this: Tolson was a brother substitute for Hoover, not a sex partner. Ralph de Toledano, Hoover’s biographer, also weighed in on the issue making reference to repeated failures of Hoover’s detractors to establish that he was homosexual. Arthur Schlesinger read one of the efforts which was published ca. 1995 and adjudged it a mess of embroidery.
‘The optimistic scenario going forward is that they offend just enough swing voters to cost them about eight federal elections in a row while criminal malefactors in their ranks get prosecuted.‘
It is starting to show the Independents are very offended.
UndercoverHuber is taking up the climactic months, January and February of 2017, for George Popadopolos (SEE links, his interview posted above), by examining the FBIs charging statements. Many people know that he pled guilty to false statements. Few know that obstruction was also on the menu:
“…but not everyone knows that SCO *also* initially charged GP with ANOTHER major felony at the same time: 18 USC §1519 “obstruction” for destruction/concealment of records. And unlike the 5 years maximum for false statements, this can attract up to *20 years* imprisonment”
Flynn prosecuting attorney Brandon van Grack makes recurrent appearances. “GP” like Flynn is a naïf in the nest of power mad Deep State vipers.
For example, the F B I threatens GP with a serious obstruction charge, after GP buy a new cell phone and deletes his Facebook accounts, containing emails from (The still today missing) Josef Mifsud.
As George says in his interview, the FBI wanted him to wear a wire in London and meet Mifsud.
But the FBI lacks intent. GP was actually frightened into getting a new phone in order to prevent further contact by phone from a Mifsud! So, apparently, the FBI paid naïf and Boyscout GPS college buddy to offer to buy George an untraceable burner phone! The set up attempt fails because George declines.
Just like with Flynn, GP gets neglectful or absent legal advice. George does not know what’s going on, just like Flynn.
Here’s the link to UndercoverHuber’s documentary review thread:
https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1264599255366459399
Again, while Obama wanted a form of insurance policy for his Iran Deal. What his real crime went further, ithe persistent, recurrent use of the security state to protect his power. THAT can’t be exposed.
Remember, because of George W. Bush’s concessions to the Institutional State, like Senator Burr of NC, the IC failed upward after 9/11. 3,000 was the body count of failure in 2001. Yet the IC gained new funding and two additional agencies, Homeland Security and Department of National Intelligence. In addition to their old portfolio of 15 or 16 intel agencies (numbers are debated because certain ones may be secret).
After 9/11, the IC failed upward. They have 20 years invested in accumulating a cushy sinecure. Why would they suddenly let outsider Trump and his lackey Flynn come in and upset all this vast power and comfort?
Flynn planned to reduce their size and number and seriously reorganise the IC for efficiency. In other words, doing what Bush failed to do.
The question must be asked is did Obama own the IC, or was it the reverse? Legitimacy is a fragile form of human capital in popular government.
Here’s a refreshing walk down memory lane, fromFISA court Judge Rosemay Collyer through the spying on the Trump campaign from Spring of 2016 and IC “help” onwards. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/obamagate-trump-tweets-tucker-carlsons-crushing-breakdown-why-former-president-should-be
“Your fixation with Andy McCarthy is much the same.“
Part of my problem is that I’m not a fanboy. I don’t develop emotional attachments to public figures and don’t feel any need to defend or forgive them,
The other bit is I’ve been around long enough to notice when the same problems keep cropping up and ponder why that happens. For example, why has the conservative movement been so persistently unsuccessful at winning cultural and policy victories? The American Right has access to enormous financial resources, scads of legitimate intellectuals, a roughly equal or even greater share of public support than the Left, has won six of the last 10 Presidential elections, and has controlled one or both houses of Congress for much of the last 26 years. And what do we have to show for it?
A big reason for that conservative futility has been atrocious intellectual leadership. McCarthy is far from the worst offender in that category but that is who we’re discussing right now and it doesn’t help anyone to give him a pass. Error unacknowledged is ultimately repeated.
Mike
Mr Bunge
Keep digging in that hole, you will reach those chickens eventually. Andy McCarthy will probably write another column about something in the future maybe you should conserve your resources for that battle, or not.
A big reason for that conservative futility has been atrocious intellectual leadership.
I wouldn’t blame Jonah Goldberg for your problems. He’s not consquential, never has been.
1. Our institutional set up is wretched and allows ample opportunity for obstructive veto groups to frustrate reforms.
2. The Republican Party has generally not had a secure majority in Congress. There isn’t the opportunity anymore to pick off more than a few Democratic votes. It’s quite possible for a small caucus of careerists and chronic temporizers to frustrate efforts at reform, especially if they’re in gatekeeper positions.
3. So you see these cock-ups where a Republican legislature will pas tax cuts and then the careerist caucus frustrates an effort to pass matching spending cuts. The state runs red ink and the tax cuts have to be rescinded by a subsequent legislature.
4. NB, people who acquire seniority in legislatures and who politick well in caucuses are often vacuous on policy. See AM McConnell for a fine example of the breed.
5. A great many Republican legislators are bought off by the Chamber of Commerce. Big business is not your friend. They regard politicians as fungible, they’re inveterate carve-out hunters, and their extensively educated executives will default to the faculty worldview on subjects where they don’t have much expertise.
6. The federal courts are the enemy.
“Keep digging in that hole“
Here’s a tip: when you respond to someone without actually engaging with their argument, it doesn’t make you look grownup and smart. It makes you look like a child throwing a tantrum.
Mike
Art Deco, all of those are ADDITIONAL reasons for conservative cultural and policy futility. They say nothing pro or con about the awfulness of right wing intellectual leadership.
And while the Doughy Pantload Jonah Goldberg is inconsequential as a thinker, a writer, and a person, he’s a great example of the atrocious conservative intellectual in that:
1. He’s not a legitimate intellectual.
2. He’s a nepotism/legacy hire who has spent almost his entire life sheltered from the “creative destruction” of the market.
3. He is, by all appearances, kind of a wimp both mentally and physically.
4. He has more regard for fellow elites, even ones he supposedly profoundly disagrees with, than he does the conservative public he theoretically leads/represents.
5. He has not only learned NOTHING from the rise of Donald Trump but has actually doubled down on his every terrible instinct and attitude.
Mike
Mr Bunge:
That hole you’re digging is big enough for Jonah Goldberg too? It’s starting to look like the Grand Canyon. Jonah went off the rails into TDS, but stay focused sir, it’s about ideas not physical appearances? Or did he take your lunch money back in the day; you have been around for a while after all. 🙂
I still say Jonah Goldberg’s books, “Liberal Fascism” and “Suicide of the West,” were great contributions and Jonah, himself, is a helluva writer.
That said, I can’t support Goldberg’s positions on Trump. I’m not sure how he got there, though I suspect it has as much to do with the tidal wave of viciousness he experienced from Trump supporters as his corruption by the Beltway set.
People aren’t computers. We evolved to survive, not to perform logical computations. Our minds are limited and we have all sorts of emotional thumbs on the scale when we weigh our assessments.
It’s a big reason I read neo’s blog that she regularly contemplates this mystery.
Mr Bunge
You appear to be fixated but don’t recognize it 🙂
Art Deco, all of those are ADDITIONAL reasons for conservative cultural and policy futility. They say nothing pro or con about the awfulness of right wing intellectual leadership.
No, those are the reasons. That the floor leader of the U.S. Senate is a vacuous careerist is a real problem. That magazine writers are largely useless is a minor problem.
1. He’s not a legitimate intellectual.
2. He’s a nepotism/legacy hire who has spent almost his entire life sheltered from the “creative destruction” of the market.
3. He is, by all appearances, kind of a wimp both mentally and physically.
===
1. No, he meets a standard definition of ‘public intellectual’. He may be less educated than others in that trade and may be superlatively bad at it, but that doesn’t make him ‘illegitimate’. It makes him a poor performer.
2a. Supposedly, he was, in essence, broke when Richard Lowry hired him to set up and run National Review Online. He’d previously had positions at AEI and in production companies which contracted with PBS. His successor had a similar background when she was hired at National Review for a different position. The two notable differences between the two were that he was hired to start something from scratch and she was promoted to run a going concern. I don’t think Miss Lopez had any connections in the world of foundation-supported publishing. It wouldn’t surprise me if landing the positions he did in the seven years prior to his hire at National Review were crucially assisted by his father being an official of a newspaper syndicate and his mother a literary agent, but unless it’s your view that every position he holds until he dies or retires is to be deemed to have been derived from nepotism, I’m not seeing how that’s relevant to his being hired at NR. While he’s not the most educated of their contributors, he does have talent in the realm of topical commentary. One thing that became evident when Heritage put the Townhall site up was that there actually weren’t that many people who could produce satisfactory newspaper columns every bloody week, and most of their contributors were meh on a good day. Goldberg actually knew how to do this.
2b. Some people work for the government and some work in the philanthropic sector. He might write better columns if he’d been employed by a business concern all these years. NB, Jack Dunphy is career government and writes well. His writing is his writing. His history is only relevant if you can attribute some recurring fallacy to that history. As for ‘creative destruction’, only a modest minority of people ever attempt to make their whole living by founding a business. At any one time, about 12% of the workforce have some self-employment income, but most of these make their real living doing something else.
3. He’s 51. It’s not unusual to be out of shape when you’re that age. Not sure what it means to be a ‘wimp mentally’, but his writing bears little resemblance to that of Conor Friedersdorf or Ross Douthat, who actually are capons.