this blog develops the idea that a theory of man in history can be worked out around the theme that man's self expression in culture and society is motivated by the desire to find meaning in man's existence. i proceed by summarizing seminal works that provide insights into the dynamics of this process, with the view that the culmination of this exploration was reached with god's self revelation in jesus. i'll hopefully also explore the developments that followed this event.
In an excellent interview with Maria Bartiromo this morning, TX Rep. John Ratcliffe made some powerful criticisms of the Dem run House. The most important--but it's all important--is that Adam Schiff may still be lying when he says that he had no personal contact with the "whistleblower." Ratcliffe won't say that flat out, but you be the judge. In my transcript I've trimmed a bit from some of Maria's questions, but not much.
Bartiromo: There's speculation this morning that in fact Adam Schiff met with the whistleblower directly. Can you confirm that?
Ratcliffe: [Smiles] Well, uh, think about this, Maria. Washington Post, of all newspapers, hadda give Adam Schiff four Pinocchio's, for, when he said that they had not had any direct contact with the whistleblower. That wasn't true. So, what I can tell is, there was contact between the whistleblower and either Adam Schiff and his team on the Intelligence Committee and the details of that we all, I think the President who is, they're attempting to remove from office on the basis of this impeachment, deserves to know what type of contact there was between Adam Schiff and his team and this whistleblower. And we shouldn't have to take Adam Schiff's word for it with a wordsmith press release or tweet that 'There's not much and we really don't need to look at that.' He needs to be put under oath, he needs to answer the questions. And, again, that's the reason he should not be allowed to run the investigation where he and his team are central fact witnesses.
Bartiromo: House Republican Minority leader Kevin McCarthy responded to Pelosi's refusal to answer questions about more information about this impeachment and he sent a letter, he's sending a letter, to her last week basically saying that, 'You need to get Adam Schiff out of that leadership position.' And you talked to me about several reasons why Adam Schiff cannot run this investigation. One of them is that this is being done in the Intel Committee, as opposed to the Judiciary Comittee. Any impeachment process the jurisdiction is Judiciary, right?
Ratcliffe: In the 240 years, plus, of our history, those rare times we have had impeachment process, it's always gone through the House Judiciary Committee, because the House Judiciary Committee is the Committee of jurisdiction over the Constitution and over impeachment. It's not the Intelligence Committee.
Bartiromo: Then why would she [Pelosi] go to the Intelligence Committee, that Adam Schiff runs?
Ratcliffe: I think two reasons. One, I think, Nancy Pelosi I think has so little confidence, apparently, in Jerry Nadler to run this the way she wants it.The other reason is, by moving it to the Intelligence Committee she can accomplish what they did this week. Adam Schiff can say, 'Gosh, this all has to be done behind closed doors,' unlike any other impeachment in our country, which is public, he's conducting this behind closed doors, making up the rules as it goes, as he wants them, as it suits his purpose. And so you have a jurisdictional problem, you have a problem with transparency, and then worst of all the guy who's in charge of running the investigation is a central witness in the investigation, something which we don't allow anywhere in this country and never have. Third world countries are shocked at the kangaroo court, banana republic, make it up as you go impeachment inquiry that the Democrats are running in this country.
If you haven't seen it, Rolling Stone just hit its quota of one worthy article per year with this: "The ‘Whistleblower’ Probably Isn’t" (bit.ly/2OwGlZD).
Matt Taibbi is making the obvious point that, going by history at least, real whistleblowers 1) don't work in groups, and 2) don't exactly get the red carpet rolled out for them like the two frauds of whistlegate.
A couple TDS tidbits aside, this is a really good and, dare I say, honest piece of work.
Thanks, Brad, I'll have to get to it tomorrow. Taibbi has been pretty good on this thus far. I continue to believe that the ICIG hadn't the authority to change the regulations in the way that he did. We'll see about that.
I think it was a group effort, and I also think they do have a frontman for it, but they are all partisan Democrats with a history, and they probably picked the guy with the least partisan looling profile, but even that wasn't enough.
Hah! the rabble-rousing wordsmith Taibbi had to throw in a comparison of Trump to 'autocrats' like Mobute Sese Seko and Enver Hoxha...
But overall, I suspect we all agree with Taibbi's thesis: Schifty's witness is anything but a true 'whistleblower'.
I wonder if Taibbi (a smart guy no question) actually believes the TDS stuff he writes (viz Trump is 'too dumb', 'Donald Trump is a jackass') or whether he has to throw it in to get published by Rolling Stone (and accepted by its hard core lefty readership).
Nevertheless, he does get published by RS and RS's readers do as a result get a flavor of what the Deep State is up to. The comment section suggests that a handful understand what's going on. They won't find out reading anything else delivered to the left wing...
Mark, you probably don’t much disagree with my philosophy that the best way to know what knowledge of guilt and hiding the truth look like is to get real good at knowing what knowledge of innocence and cooperative transparency look like. If you know you don't have the latter two, and especially if you can then combine that with means, motive and opportunity, well...it’s hard to give the suspect any benefit of the doubt at that point.
That's a long way to say I wholly agree the ICIG looks guilty as sin. This latest Sean Davis piece (bit.ly/338pVun), in which he explains that the IG refuses to tell Intel Committee who backdated from Sep to Aug the form changes, and why the backdating was done, kind of seals the deal for me.
Whatever his exact role has been, it’s not been the innocent one he feigns. I know what a clean conscience and cooperative transparency look like, and sorry, this ain't it.
Yes, it is being done in the Intelligence Committee precisely because Schiff wants to keep it out of public view. This allows the selective leaking of transcripts and texts. If I were the Republicans on that committee, I would use the Doug Collins method and start releasing it all on the House floor- literally every piece of testimony Schiff and his minions take.
If you haven't seen it, Rolling Stone just hit its quota of one worthy article per year with this: "The ‘Whistleblower’ Probably Isn’t" (bit.ly/2OwGlZD).
ReplyDeleteMatt Taibbi is making the obvious point that, going by history at least, real whistleblowers 1) don't work in groups, and 2) don't exactly get the red carpet rolled out for them like the two frauds of whistlegate.
A couple TDS tidbits aside, this is a really good and, dare I say, honest piece of work.
Thanks, Brad, I'll have to get to it tomorrow. Taibbi has been pretty good on this thus far. I continue to believe that the ICIG hadn't the authority to change the regulations in the way that he did. We'll see about that.
DeleteI think it was a group effort, and I also think they do have a frontman for it, but they are all partisan Democrats with a history, and they probably picked the guy with the least partisan looling profile, but even that wasn't enough.
DeleteHah! the rabble-rousing wordsmith Taibbi had to throw in a comparison of Trump to 'autocrats' like Mobute Sese Seko and Enver Hoxha...
DeleteBut overall, I suspect we all agree with Taibbi's thesis: Schifty's witness is anything but a true 'whistleblower'.
I wonder if Taibbi (a smart guy no question) actually believes the TDS stuff he writes (viz Trump is 'too dumb', 'Donald Trump is a jackass') or whether he has to throw it in to get published by Rolling Stone (and accepted by its hard core lefty readership).
Nevertheless, he does get published by RS and RS's readers do as a result get a flavor of what the Deep State is up to. The comment section suggests that a handful understand what's going on. They won't find out reading anything else delivered to the left wing...
I suspect some of these guys feel they have to throw in some boilerplate TDS stuff to maintain their presumed audience base.
DeleteMark, you probably don’t much disagree with my philosophy that the best way to know what knowledge of guilt and hiding the truth look like is to get real good at knowing what knowledge of innocence and cooperative transparency look like. If you know you don't have the latter two, and especially if you can then combine that with means, motive and opportunity, well...it’s hard to give the suspect any benefit of the doubt at that point.
DeleteThat's a long way to say I wholly agree the ICIG looks guilty as sin. This latest Sean Davis piece (bit.ly/338pVun), in which he explains that the IG refuses to tell Intel Committee who backdated from Sep to Aug the form changes, and why the backdating was done, kind of seals the deal for me.
Whatever his exact role has been, it’s not been the innocent one he feigns. I know what a clean conscience and cooperative transparency look like, and sorry, this ain't it.
Yes, I agree. I'm puzzled by Davis' article because I thought this was already known.
DeleteYes, it is being done in the Intelligence Committee precisely because Schiff wants to keep it out of public view. This allows the selective leaking of transcripts and texts. If I were the Republicans on that committee, I would use the Doug Collins method and start releasing it all on the House floor- literally every piece of testimony Schiff and his minions take.
ReplyDelete+1 for that comment, Yancey.
ReplyDelete