Kash Patel knows what it feels like to be spied on by the FBI
This is what I’m referring to:
As chief counsel, Patel had no idea [between 2017 and 2018] that the subject of his investigation — the FBI — was collecting his data and increasing the visibility of witnesses he was communicating with, including whistleblowers.
At the time, Patel was demanding to see FBI documents and depose FBI witnesses to find out if the bureau had abused its power in obtaining a FISA warrant to spy on Trump aide Carter Page.
But Patel remained in the dark until 2022, when Google finally was cleared to send him a copy of the subpoena. Outraged, he told me at the time: “The FBI and DOJ subpoenaed my personal records while I caught them doing this to Page back in 2017.”
He said the McCabe FBI didn’t want anybody to find out that it “literally copied and pasted” Democrat opposition research, wholesale, into wiretap-warrant applications.
He added that he hoped those behind the abuses would be prosecuted by a future Trump administration: “They must be held accountable or they’ll only abuse their power again.”
The IG probe reveals that the FBI had renewed the subpoenas each year, snooping on congressional staffers for up to five years. That means McCabe’s successor, Christopher Wray, signed off on the continued collections.
Some would call it revenge. But I think it more rightly should be called justice, and perhaps even poetic justice, that Patel is poised to become FBI director.
The FBI has been out of control for a long time regarding Trump and the right. The people who have been participating have long believed there will be no serious negative consequences for them, and so far they have been correct. Perhaps that’s about to end.
This is not revenge, it is not retribution. It is accountability and justice.
We will never have trust in these institutions if the people who did this do not take responsibility for their decisions and actions.
One new reveal
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ab63MUNhsL0
While I don’t think Patel’s mission at the FBI and Trump’s administration in general should be primarily motivated by revenge, I think it is only human nature to want some type of revenge for what has been done to them. An obsession with revenge can very easily turn toxic, but I think it is unrealistic to think that revenge will play no part in the actions to clean up the corrupt FBI and DOJ. And I don’t have a problem with that.
FBI – Federal Bureau of Investigation – one of the main investigative & enforcement arms of the beloved Rule of Law here in America. The FBI is long past having proper “revenge” or “justice” meted out to it.
Run an AI question thru Gemini, Copilot, ChatGPT, Grok and/or perplexity. I ran ‘how long has federal bureau of investigation been corrupt?’ thru all five__didn’t like the “corrupt” word choice, but my vocabulary is rather limited.
Same imperfect human gene pool to choose agents from—basically same gene pool the Sumerians, Ancient Egyptians, Ancient Indians, Ancient Chinese, Greeks, Persians, Romans, etc. used to select the much earlier ‘Agents’ from – in those earlier versions of the FBI. Yes, civilized societies have had their versions of the FBI and the CIA. Wonder if Dostoevsky mentioned such in Crime and Punishment?
Back to Kash Patel, the FBI, and AIs:
The Rule of Law, the investigating involved in it, and the enforcement of it has been broken since about 4000 BC. I seriously doubt that it is ever gonna be fixed…by humans anyway.
I guess I am more measured in what should be done to those in the FBI that abused the trust of Americans. Sure, you can fire them if still with the FBI, take their pensions, prosecute them if you can find a fair jury. But I will just go with Edward I and what he did to his enemies. Because they are our enemies.
Shut it down; reassign any necessary tasks to other agencies. Prosecute/imprison all who have engaged in criminal activity, starting at the top.
That would be how you take power away from the Left.
Patel was, according to Devin Nunes, the prime investigator who uncovered the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax. He knows where to look and where the bodies are buried. That is the primary reason the Dems don’t want him as director. He knows too much already and will disclose what is still hidden. The MSM will try to smother/ignore the info, but they are becoming irrelevant. It’s going to come out and anyone with any curiosity will learn it. It’s not going to be good for the present FBI.
Can he reform the agency? Aye, that’s the question.
So…was post-WWII de-nazification justice or revenge, tell me true…
(…never mind that it didn’t always work as well as it was supposed to…)
Or was it “merely” a question of pragmatism…? (Or a question of questionable pragmatics…?)
File under: The West Germans owe the USSR a huge debt. (And not just the W. Germans… Discuss amongst yerselves…)
J.J. writes that Kash Patel “knows where to look and where the bodies are buried” at the FBI.
Indeed, Devin Nunes credits Patel with authoring the substance behind the “Nunes Memo” of February 2018 — a four page outline of the “Russia, Russia!” scam connecting Christopher Steele to the DNC, media, and the FBI. Which purportedly but falsely tied Trump to Putin.
The Nunes Memo is readily found online — a trim outline of officially approved corruption that’s been vindicated by subsequent revelations and events. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunes_memo
This Wiki entry seems to lack the full memo!
At the end of Trump’s second term as President, will we find Kash Patel awarded the Medal of Freedom by Trump himself?
Michael Flynn also knew where to look.
Knew where the bodies were buried, so to speak.
The Democrats must NOT be allowed to do that again.
(Any of it.)
Shut it down; reassign any necessary tasks to other agencies.
==
Agreed. It has a rancid culture. Federal law enforcement should be distributed among about seven departments with distinct functions, each encompassing a set of specialized bureaux. Also, the federal penal code needs to be stripped of extraneous matter, it’s nominated offenses in their various degrees more precisely defined, and the sentencing schedule re-calibrated. We might also benefit from some radical revisions to the federal rules of criminal procedure, such as replacing grand juries with preliminary hearings in front of magistrates, hearings which would incorporate adversary proceedings now and again.
Today’s FBI reminds of East Germany’s Stasi, the communists semi-secret police.
Credibility? Since When? Since When have we given the FBI a clean bill of health? Maybe in the days of prohibition, but now? In the 50’s they were rigging elections in the 60’s they asked MLK to kill himself, they spied on everyone that was a threat to the FBI, the Kennedies, MLK, half of the senate, every democrat when democrats were actually liberal, hell, even Elvis and Muhammed Ali. They weren’t threats to America, they were threats to what the FBI thought was important. After Hoover, They went after Nixon. Felt was a pissy bureaucrat in the cesspool of the “I know things” FBI. The FBI has hidden tapes, and documents, and stopped recording their own observations in order to protect their own position, so I ask; Since when? since When has the FBI been a sacrosanct entity that only served the people?.
I never bought the idea of the the untouchables, who BTW were members of the department of the Treasury.
Since When?
“While the FBI has had notable successes in fighting crime, terrorism, and espionage,”
quoted by
Karmi on December 14, 2024 at 5:27 pm said:
Again, I ask, “When?” When did the FBI make a notable success in those area’s?
Since When have we given the FBI a clean bill of health?
==
They seemed all right during the period running from 1974 to 1992 and even today I’ll wager you could locate strata and loci which are on the level.
==
Outside my wheelhouse, but it seems to me that the odious behavior of the FBI is one aspect of the crooked nexus which has formed between the HQ of the Justice Department, the US Attorneys offices, the federal courts, the FBI, and other investigatory agencies. IMO, the way back toward liberty is going to have to incorporate reducing the word count of the federal penal code and of the segments of other codes which define criminal offenses. It’s going to have to incorporate a broader definition of entrapment as a criminal defense. It’s going to have to incorporate some serious screening in order to secure an indictment, not pro forma grand jury proceedings. It’s going to have to incorporate strict separation of investigatory functions from those of representing the government in court (which will require putting prosecutors in their own department and federal investigators in other departments). It’s going to require indemnities for people stuck with huge legal bills. It’s going to require institutional sanction for misconduct by judges and prosecutors. It’s going to have to incorporate an end to judicial discretion over sentencing.
==
Every time we hear of a federal case being made against someone, we should ask ourselves why it is that state courts and local police are not handling the matter.
Art Deco: “Every time we hear of a federal case being made against someone, we should ask ourselves why it is that state courts and local police are not handling the matter.”
Thinking about the laboratory of the states idea within Federalism, I wonder if someone has done a study of the better vs. poorer examples. That might be useful information to have to avoid experiencing Karmi’s version of “rule of law” in the wrong states. But it is probably a big grab bag and depends on the offense, the law enforcement folks involved, etc., with too many such variables to fully tie down a “best approach”; or better locales if you are indicted.
It also raises the question for me of what are the merits and limits of electing vs. appointing judges, supreme court justices, DA’s, sheriffs, police leadership, etc. Presumably most of these offices have term limits at the state level, but I could be wrong there. Examples like DC and George Floyd cases also suggest we need an easier way to move cases to less biased venues.
What exactly constitutes a “peer” for jury duty purposes?