Any time Tucker Carlson issues a public apology, that's somewhat noteworthy. He did so last night, and in unequivocal terms, without excuses. You can catch this apology starting around the 10:00 mark, but watch from the beginning for the full context:
Here's the apology:
A lot of us missed this the first time around, and you are due an apology. And we're proffering it on television right now. We didn't see the obvious. If you empower the government to violate civil liberties in pursuit of a foreign terror organization--and there are foreign terror organizations--it's just a matter of time before ambitious politicians use those same mechanisms to suppress political dissent. And that's what we're seeing now. We should have seen it earlier.
This came on the same day that the FBI repeated its absurd evocation of the QAnon boogeyman--surely a low point for the Bureau. However, in fairness to Tucker I suspect this apology was in the works for some time, rather than a response to an event of the same day.
Which it was, it's welcome.
It's Obama and we're going to have to recognize that he is the one man of the Left who could galvanize the disparate factions of the Left and corrupt the bureaucracies under the guise of racial justice. First president to stay in Washington DC. I mean, c'mon man! If African Americans don't call him out as a Marxist Totalitarian, I really despair that captured white Americans ever will. Civil War was started in essence the minute Obama started the race baiting. Think of that "conversation" with the Harvard police officer. Innocent enough until you realize that all the elements of "police are systemically racist" are right there and then get reinforced and amplified by Michael Brown, George Floyd et Al. The fact that BLM is an AstroTurf Marxist outfit and all their issues are ginned up hoax racism, only goes to show that CRT and social justice and, and Jan 6, and the beefing up of the DOJ civil rights division are all of a piece. RACE, CLASS, GENDER whichever will do the trick, eh Trotsky ? I guess this time it's race. Mark A. (Gina Haspell never wanted it to come to this)ReplyDelete
This is not on Obama. The tools that he weaponized were built by conservatives.Delete
Conservatives have always supported law enforcement and the intelligence agencies. Even when I was growing up and generally apolitical, this much was obvious. The liberals always sought to curtail IC and LE, and conservatives mocked them along the lines of "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear."
Shame on us. We have forgotten the face of our fathers.
Yes, good point.Delete
Bingo!!! We make the mistake of falling for safety over liberty far too often.Delete
Personal growth comes from taking responsibility for our own actions / advocating and seeing the long path we've taken to get here vs pandering blame and deflection is absolutely required.
Else "we" will never learn...
Yeah, mistcr, and it went steroidal w/ the Patriot Act, thanx to Dubya, Mueller, the whole GOPe, etc.Delete
@mistcr I don't disagree that Obama did not build the tools, nor do I believe he is the "leader" of the revolution. My only point is this: if you watch Merrick Garland at the podium as the Attorney General of the United States lay out a patently deceptive justification for criminalizing ideological nay political opponents of the democrat left, you have to ask yourself, what is in the mind of such a person as would do that, what is he thinking? Does he know full well he is lying? Does he know full well his actions are leading and will lead to the persecution of innocent people? Why doesn't he know better, why doesn't he act more honorably? And the answer I come up with when I ask myself those questions is that the historical and mythical figure of Obama as the First Black President and his continued alinskyite efforts to "fundamentally transform" The USA under the cover of that myth by race baiting at every turn, has got to be addressed head on, right now. No church commission will happen so long as Obama lives comfortably in Washington DC. Mark ADelete
Obama's legacy is very much in need of public scrutiny.Delete
But I doubt we will ever have that satisfaction. I'm reminded of Deuteronomy 21, which prescribed a sacrificial ritual for unsolved murders. There's a reason scripture exhorts us to trust God for vengeance.
Yeah, I've been wondering what is in the mind of the men like Garland, Austin, et al for years. It sure isn't honor and rectitude. Austin's Senate testimony last week was an exemplar of gaslighting. Cotton asked Austin some pointed questions, but as usual for Cotton, didn't ask the killer follow-up questions: "If you (Austin) believe that the military isn't racist, if you believe that a person's race is not a salient, dispositive criterion in leadership, then why are you pushing CRT? What changed between the time when you made four star general and now? What convinced you that there are is a substantial treasonous / seditious cadre among the troops? What evidence have you seen? Is this a new phenomenon and, if not, why are you just now raising the alarm? Is Bishop Garrison an appropriate person to be charged with vetting so-called extremism when he holds the outrageous view that Trump supporters are de facto extremists merely for supporting him politically? Why should you be in a position of power in this country when you clearly believe that your judgment should be substituted for the political process?”Delete
These short-haired, coiffed, well-dressed leftists (see Los Angeles DA Gascon) are the slipperiest enemies. What is going through their minds is the same as what went through Herbert Marcuse’s mind but what is coming out of their mouths is something quite different. They’re not going to be honest and the GOP is apparently never going to even make them uncomfortable.
Yes, as much grief as i gave him for his appalling treatment of Sidney Powell back in November I have to give him credit now for owning up to this.ReplyDelete
Looking back now on those months after 9-11 I am amazed how easily I was gulled into supporting all the federal overreach.
I was so much wiser then, I'm older than that now.
"If you empower the government to violate civil liberties in pursuit of a foreign terror organization...it's just a matter of time before ambitious politicians use those same mechanisms to suppress political dissent."ReplyDelete
Isn't this exactly what the Government has done to Donald Trump? The Government violated civil liberties of many Americans during the period 2016-2021 to suppress the political rights of the opposition party.
I can't help but add that (to my way of thinking) Tucker's exposition of how FBI standard operating procedure is to insert government agents in the activities of those it opposes reinforces my belief that nothing that unfolded in Crossfire Hurricane was unplanned. There were no coincidences. It was all carefully scripted.
So I will now repeat my firm belief, formed over literally thousands of hours of review and research over the last five years, that the Government intentionally inserted George Papadopoulos, Carter Page, and Sam Clovis (and undoubtedly others) into the Trump campaign and then used them to spy on Trump and then try to destroy his Presidency.
Specifically, I contend that Carter Page was inserted into the Trump Campaign in order for the Government to be available to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on...Trump. There was no other reason. There are no coincidences.
I have argued with Mark about this, literally, for years now. I don't believe Carter Page had a political bone in his body. Mark has criticized my analysis in the past for (inter alia) calling Page a 'spy'. Semantics aside, I'm doubling down here. Page was a government operative. The only reason he joined the Trump Campaign was so that a FISA warrant could be obtained if and when necessary.
In fact, it looks like the Government had used Page as a putative 'foreign agent' (at least) once already in 2013 or 2014 to obtain a FISA warrant. The idea that Page (an honors Annapolis grad and former military intelligence officer who frequently worked with our intelligence forces) was ever a agent of an adversary of the United States was and is preposterous and ridiculous...and utterly untrue. He was always a United States Government operative and he was used by the Government to assist it in spying on Trump.
An article in Just Security published in 2018 (https://www.justsecurity.org/59837/reports-carter-page-subject-fisa-warrant-2013-2014/) suggests that the likely existence of prior FISAs on Page proves that the Government had reasonable grounds in 2016 to believe Page was a Russian agent. I reach the exact opposite conclusion. The existence of FISAs on Page in 2013/2014 prove that he was working with the Government to facilitate operations against Russians then...and that he was working with the Government in 2016 to facilitate operations against Trump in 2016.
I know there is some evidence that Page was surprised and outraged when he 'discovered' that he was the subject of a FISA to spy on Trump. How convenient. All part of the act. His 'surprise' bolsters the arguable veracity of his role as an innocent volunteer on the Campaign. Nothing more.
I'm bothering to review this ancient history this morning because I believe Tucker Carlson confirmed this strategy on his show last night.
"If you empower the government to violate civil liberties in pursuit of a foreign terror organization...it's just a matter of time before ambitious politicians use those same mechanisms to suppress political dissent."
"the likely existence of prior FISAs on Page proves that the Government had reasonable grounds in 2016 to believe Page was a Russian agent. I reach the exact opposite conclusion. The existence of FISAs on Page in 2013/2014 prove that he was working with the Government to facilitate operations against Russians then...and that he was working with the Government in 2016 to facilitate operations against Trump in 2016."Delete
Is this part of contest to see how many non sequiturs can be fit into one paragraph?
"Likely" doesn't "prove" anything.
That article is quite foolish. As I've written at great length, the FISA in 2013-2014 would have been on the Russian officials--much easier and more logical than seeking a FISA on an USPER. Page would be picked up from that.
The fact that Page worked for the gov in 2013-14 does NOT prove that he worked for the the gov against Trump. To the contrary, FBI paperwork indicates that Page was NOT working for the FBI after 3/2016. As does his openly published letter to Comey in about 9/2016.
The Just Security article is rather foolish as well, failing to distinguish between FISAs on foreign officials and FISAs on USPERs. A FISA on the Russian officials is a GIVEN. It happened, no ifs, ands, or buts. A FISA on an USPER is nothing of the sort and is, in the circs of the case, IMO highly unlikely.
If the FBI had obtained prior FISAs on Page as a foreign agent they would have unquestionably included that in their 2016-17 FISA applications, as that would have greatly strengthened a very weak case. Instead, they chose to deceive the FISC re Page's past cooperation precisely BECAUSE they did not want the FISC to know that Page was a long time intel asset--a fact which would have nixed any FISA on Page under the FISA law.
One thing you can't dispute, Mark, is that you and I disagree about Carter Page's bona fides. You don't really dispute it in your reply.Delete
I won't dispute your reply point by point, except
1. to disagree with your assertion that "[i]f the FBI had obtained prior FISAs on Page as a foreign agent they would have unquestionably included that in their 2016-17 FISA applications."
Why? Because the FBI was otherwise scrupulously honest in giving the FISA court full disclosure in its applications?
I think the question answers itself.
2. to dispute your assertion that "[t]he fact that Page worked for the gov in 2013-14 does NOT prove that he worked for the the gov against Trump. To the contrary, FBI paperwork indicates that Page was NOT working for the FBI after 3/2016. As does his openly published letter to Comey in about 9/2016."
To believe this, I would have to believe the Government and Carter Page are shooting straight. At this stage of the game, why would I believe the FBI or a career Government operative recruited to spy on the Trump Campaign? Because I believe what the Government told me about the Steele Dossier? Or the Flynn Entrapment? Or Impeachment #1? Or Impeachment #2? Or the 1/6 Insurrection? Or the Bat to Human Covid theory? Or the 2020 Election Was Fair Narrative?
No. I don't believe the Government was honest in its FISA applications and I don't believe Carter Page.
But, as I say, Mark and I simply disagree here. Time will tell who is right. In the meantime, skepticism, in my judgment, is certainly warranted. Tucker's monologue last night underscores this.
#1 For the FBI to have obtained a FISA against Page in 2013 to 2014 they would have needed to present probable cause to the FISC that Page was a clandestine Russian agent. If they had done that as recently as 2013-14 they would have included that as a fact in their 2016 application because it would strongly support probable cause that Page was continuing to work as a clandestine Russian agent.Delete
#2 This is NOT a valid syllogism:
Page worked for the FBI in 2013-14,
Therefore Page worked for the FBI in 2016.
Here's another line of reasoning that is totally invalid:
Cassander has a law degree,
Therefore Cassander has a clue about FISA and internal FBI procedures.
I think this round goes to Mark.Delete
Mark's point #1 really is convincing, if you pause to consider it. It's not about the FBI's reputation for honesty; it's about them making the strongest case possible for the FISA in their coup attempt. If they had reason to think Page a Russian agent, that would have made probable cause for the FISA and suspicions about Trump a slam dunk.
I do agree that the gov has earned our skepticism. I find it conceivable that they nudged Page toward the Trump campaign with whatever assets they may have been able to use (I'm not citing any history, just conceiving a scenario), but very doubtful that Page knowingly entered the campaign as an informant.
Excellent. I'll add two points.Delete
1. "If they had reason to think Page a Russian agent, that would have made probable cause for the FISA and suspicions about Trump a slam dunk."
Precisely. That's what the probable cause section of a FISA application's affidavit against an USPER is all about. That's what they tried to show using the Steele dossier, but they got a bunch of pushback about Steele's reliability from DoJ--Stu what's-his-name. Therefore, if they had a recent FISA that established PC that Page was a Russian agent OF COURSE they would have used that.
2. FBI paperwork that has been made public shows that within no more than a month of Page joining the Trump campaign the FBI was trying very hard to find a way to get even with or punish Page for having disclosed to Russian officials that he had been working for the FBI. That's why the FBI closed him as an asset--they regarded him as a loose cannon and unreliable. The notion that the FBI would turn around and employ Page against Trump--knowing that Page might reveal to Trump that he was an FBI informant--doesn't pass the laugh test. I guarantee one and all--the FBI is smarter than that. No one needs to believe everything the FBI says, nor should they, but they should not think that the FBI is that stupid.
Something that’s been left out of this discussion is that - as I understand it - Stefan Halper (the guy who set up Papadopoulos) attempted to join the Trump campaign as a “foreign policy advisor”; if that had indeed taken place they could have - with Halper’s machinations- made the Russia hoax stick. Halper appears to be a quintessential deep state operative.Delete
"Cassander has a law degree,
Therefore Cassander has a clue about FISA and internal FBI procedures."
I think that's kinda insulting, Mark...but not surprising.
Here's what's kinda insulting:Delete
Mark has a law degree;
Mark was an FBI agent for ~30 years;
Mark worked CI for at least 22 years;
Mark received advanced legal training in matters relating to FBI investigations;
Mark received advanced training in matters relating to CI investigations;
Mark worked FISA matters and interacted with FISA related investigations for most of his career.
Cassander repeatedly ignores Mark's explanations of these matters.
"Time will tell who is right."
And, btw, the reason I didn't enable your second comment was to spare you further embarrassment.Delete
Me, pouring water on you two.Delete
Mark runs my go-to blog and Cassander is one of the best commenters on that blog. To quote a modern American saint: can't we all just get along?
I prefer to get along, and I've tried to be patient because of Cassander's past contributions. However, he's made it very clear that he isn't interested in getting along--after all my patient explanations. In his comments that I've declined to enable he has asserted that I claim the FBI never does anything stupid--and many similar misrepresentations. Where I draw a line is repeated misrepresentation.Delete
Fact is, no we can not always get along but we can choose make amends when its required of us.Delete
I can't fault either of you for sticking to your beliefs. FBI corruption and Cater Page is a ripe subject for contested debate, but not worth of getting personal over. You'll both be regretting the viciousness of that exchange later and hopefully a private conversation is in order.
On a lighter note... If I even need counsel your both hired because, wow!
Beliefs? What are my "beliefs"? My experience is available on the internet. I know all about FBI stupidity and dishonesty--from hard personal experience. Any notion that I'm a diehard Bureau loyalist, defender or 'true believer' is absurd. If I were I'd hardly have posted this Tucker segment. My knowledge of national security law--as regards FISA related matters--and internal FBI procedures is not up for "contested debate."Delete
Please. No one forced the democrats to lie and pretend that people walking around the capitol is equal to people firebombing government buildings with the government employees still inside is equal to organized terrorist acts like 9/11.ReplyDelete
The republicans didn't even take the one step down to treat the actually violent protesters as if they were Al-Queda. Trump may have DELCARED Antifa to be a terrorist organization, but have you seen mass arrests, people accused of being Antifa being held in special prisons complete with 23 hours of solitary confinement per day?
So Tucker's apology likely (your link is broken) assumes that giving a republican-majority administration a pass on their behavior is what enabled democrats to dial it up to 11. No, it did not. Democrats who can even conceive of using big-lie tactics to hold dissidents in solitary until they are released into mere trespassing charges are only going to be slowed by what they can get away with, which is completely unrelated to what republicans did or did not do.
Page and Papadopoulos seem like useful idiots.ReplyDelete
With the amount of fbi informants that keep on popping up, I understand the questioning. Capital incident is sounding more and more like a set up with provocateurs / informants that helped create the situation. And then the Whitman kidnapping with 5 of the 13 being informants. Hmm…
Revolver article that Tucker mentioned about possible fbi informants at the so-called insurrection event.ReplyDelete
If true, very troubling.
And add on to this how capitol police seem to have been deliberately letting people in. And not getting reinforcements before.
Sounds like a set up with many involved parties.
Thanks Cocaine Mitch for keeping that blithering idiot Attorney General off the Supreme Court.ReplyDelete
one bullet dodged!
@ PD QuigReplyDelete
"Yeah, I've been wondering what is in the mind of the men like Garland, Austin, et al for years. It sure isn't honor and rectitude."
They think they're acting with honor and rectitude. They think everyone who doesn't agree with them are brainwashed capitalists, so it's ok to lie and cheat, because they're saving us.
Good thread by John Hayward about what they're thinking:
"This is one of the things that makes Marxism so durable - it gives adherents a moral framework for breaking the rules, subverting society, and winning at all costs. A key element is the belief that people are bought or brainwashed by the corrupt order, tricked into voting for it."
"Marxists think they're not disenfranchising people by stealing elections - they're *liberating* people who don't know what's good for them. They're shattering false consciousness by stealing your ballot and using it to cast the "correct" vote, the one you can't make for yourself."
"If your political movement really thinks nobody in their right minds, nobody with a functioning moral compass, nobody who understands their place in the class and racial struggle, could possibly vote against you, why not steal their ballots? Why not rig elections on their behalf?"
Good thread. I suppose that's as good a theory as any. I just want to see my commies with Che berets, camou fatigues, or wool suits, trench coats, monocles, and Van Dyke beards. Instead, they look like Harvey Milquetoast (Garland) or Rosey Greer (Austin). How the heck are we supposed to tell them from normal people?Delete
I'll bet that a huge amount of this is self-deceit.Delete
Quoting my comment a day or so ago, on the "Bolshies" thread:
"The "great insight" of Lenin was, to stress that the proletariat would *need* a Vanguard (the intelligentsia), to lead the charge toward the dictatorship of the proletariat, which would of course actually be a *dictatorship of the intelligentsia*, in the name of the proletariat."
Once Commies latched onto the dream of a *dictatorship of the intelligentsia*, they were guaranteed much backing from that group.
This thread is old and I get that no one will see this comment, but I just want to throw out there anyway that Angelo Codevilla - no surprise - gets it just about as well as Glenn Greenwald, and that's saying something.ReplyDelete