COLLECTIVE MADNESS
“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."
It makes no sense. If a serious investigation was underway and it rose to the importance of national security, why would the FBI or NSA have tied its own hands behind their backs by excluding phone or data exchanges?
ReplyDeleteSomeone is lying.
ReplyDeleteSomeone needs to make a simple timeline including when the MSM insisted there was an investigation, when it was paranoid to even imagine there was an investigation, when Clapper and the rest said there wasn't and others said there was, when Comey said he couldn't talk, when he said he had to talk,
...and wrap it up with the conclusion that the madness is all inside Trump's head.
Why is it that the House Committee on ‘Russian Hacking’ includes only DNC-hired tech experts?
DeleteWhy didn't the FBI examine the servers of the Democratic National Committee?
.
DeleteWhy don't you work on that, Doug.
Do a little investigating and lay it out for us.
.
I've found no good reasons, which is why I repeated the questions.
DeleteWouldn't want to posit obviously malicious reasons and be accused of being paranoid like Trump.
National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers addressed claims spread by the Trump administration alleging British spooks helped keep tabs on the President before he was elected.
ReplyDeleteHe told the hearing there is no evidence UK intelligence was involved in any wiretap, calling the claims "nonsense".
Russia denies it attempted to influence the Nov. 8 Presidential election.
.
DeleteRussia has always denied that.
What's new is that RT is taking a shifting stance on Trump himself using phrases about him like 'Trump trolled' and that he is the 'butt of jokes'.
.
Representative Trey Gowdy suggested the leaks were unfair to Mr. Flynn, that they may have been orchestrated by former Obama administration officials and that Congress might rein in intelligence organizations if they cannot run a tighter ship.
ReplyDelete...
Mr. Comey also had a warning of his own for the committee. Whatever the outcome of the investigation, the country has not seen the last of the long arm of the Kremlin.
“One of the lessons [Russian officials] may draw from this is that they were successful because they introduced chaos and division and discord and sowed doubt about the nature of this amazing country of ours and our democratic process,” he said.
I would say the MSM has been much more effective than the Russians with their mountains of fake news.
DeleteFire Comey.
ReplyDeleteQuirk would do an equally competent job investigating himself.
DeleteThe Brits have denied, can you imagine it, that they were conspiring against Trump.
ReplyDeleteI will never trust the Brits again.
WHOOOAAAA
ReplyDeleteWhat's happening in all inclusive SmirkLand ?
Backlash: Near majority of Canadians want illegal immigrants fleeing Trump-led U.S. deported
Mar 20, 2017 9:41 PM by Allahpundit
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/20/backlash-near-majority-of-canadians-want-illegal-immigrants-fleeing-trump-led-u-s-deported/
Soon, Smirk will be sneaking south, back over our northern border.
Jail him, I say.
For a real punishment make him live with Quirk.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete.
DeleteTrump: Promises Made, Promises Broken and the Horse He Rode in on
What is Trump's score on that matter?
I responded to this previously though you didn’t repost them.
This may come as shock, but there were two choices, Clinton or Trump. We have been over this before. If you chose Christ on a Harley, you owed for Clinton. I don't vote for sociopathic killers.
No shock on my part. There is little doubt the choices were limited. As for the Christ on a Harley comment, that's a bullshit argument as studies have shown a vote for third party candidates had no effect one way or the other on the major party candidates in the election. In fact, even logic should tell you that Green party voters would draw from Clinton's base rather than Trump's.
For some time, I have considered Trump a scam artist, a bullshitter, and a man with some serious psychological problems. Even so, I have NOT blamed most people for voting for Trump. He promised to ‘drain the swamp’, to make Wall Street and the Banks pay their fair share, he attacked the establishment, the media, he promised to get the corruption out of the political process, he promised to keep us out of foreign entanglements, and most of all he promised to reverse the trend of stagnant wages and to bring back jobs. I can’t blame many in the poor and shrinking middle classes for voting for Trump. He was the only hope many of them had.
But what has Trump done in his first two months? He cancelled TPP, a wise decision but one that would have happened with or without him. He has issued a travel ban and tightened up on immigration something that in no way alleviates the problems of stagnant wages and loss of manufacturing jobs in this country. He has put out a preliminary budget and promised legislation that will only negatively affect the people he promised to help thus making their lives worse not better. He has caved in every instance to the ‘establishment’ he had promised to fight.
And how has he prioritized his time during the first two months? Half the time, he has spent putting out tweets criticizing Schwarzenneger, complaining about Nordstrom cancelling Ivanka’s fashion lines, playing golf, visiting his properties, building up his brand, accusing the former president of a crime based on an alt-news article, accusing an ally of spying on the US based on the ramblings of some ex-judge, and it continues…
I don’t criticize people for voting for Trump. More and more, I blame them for buying a pig in a poke and then seeing what he is actually doing but still holding out hope that he will change and actually try to make good on his promises to them. I find their credulity annoying even though I can understand why they still hold out hope.
I blame Trump for taking the hope he generated and discarding it with no remorse.
And I blame those with the intelligence to see what Trump is doing but still rationalize it and make excuses for it because they either believe in his bullshit or because they are unwilling, like Trump himself, to admit their mistakes.
.
The Quirk Doctrine Is A Dead Door Nail
ReplyDeleteOut of time in North Korea
20 Mar 2017|Richard N. Haass
There is a growing consensus that the first genuine crisis of Donald Trump’s presidency could involve North Korea and, more specifically, its ability to place a nuclear warhead on one or more ballistic missiles possessing sufficient range and accuracy to reach the continental United States. A crisis could stem from other factors as well: a large increase in the number of nuclear warheads that North Korea produces, evidence that it is selling nuclear materials to terrorist groups, or some use of its conventional military forces against South Korea or US forces stationed there.
There is no time to lose: any of these developments could occur in a matter of months or at most years. Strategic patience, the approach toward North Korea that has characterised successive US administrations since the early 1990s, has run its course....
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/time-north-korea/
For the layman, the Quirk Doctrine is basically sit on your arse and do nothing.
March 20, 2017
ReplyDeleteOops! CNN accidentally confirms story that Brit intel passed along Trump communications to Obama admin
By Thomas Lifson
Lawyers are trained never to ask a question of a witness if they don't already know the answer. But it is quite different in journalism – at least in principle, if the principle is getting at the truth. But alas, in these days of fake news and fanatical dead-ender opposition to President Trump, those MSM TV networks committed to driving Trump from office might want to consider retraining for their talking heads. Make them more like lawyers, and avoid embarrassments like that suffered by CNN's Brian Stelter.
Courtesy of Grabien, here is a disastrous interview in which the guest, Larry Johnson, confirmed the story that Judge Andrew Napolitano told on air about British intelligence passing along surveillance data involving the Trump administration.
Here is the rush transcript:
STELTER: "Let me ask you about this thing."
JOHNSON: "Sure."
STELTER: "So my sense is that on Monday, Napolitano says this on TV, he says he has Intel sources who believe this is true. You're saying you were one of those sources, but you didn't know Napolitano was going to use you like that?"
JOHNSON: "What happened was I communicated, when Donald Trump tweeted what he did Saturday two weeks ago, the next day I was interviewed on Russia today. I had known about the fact that the British, through ghcq were information back channel, this was not at the behest of Barack Obama, let's be clear about that. But it was done with the full knowledge of people like John Brennan and Jake clapper. Two people I flow within the intelligence community in January, they were very concerned about this because they saw it as an unfair meddling in the politics, but it was a way to get around the issue of American intelligence agencies not collecting."
STELTER: "To be clear, you have this secondhand? So you didn't get this information directly, you're hearing from others."
JOHNSON: "I'm hearing it from people who are in a position to know, that's correct."
Courtesy of Grabien, here is a disastrous interview in which the guest, Larry Johnson, confirmed the story that Judge Andrew Napolitano told on air about British intelligence passing along surveillance data involving the Trump administration.
Deletehttp://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/03/oops_cnn_accidentally_confirms_story_that_brit_intell_passed_along_trump_communications_to_obama_admin.html
What does our Urban Advertiser say concerning this ?
DeleteHow ya gonna smirk your nasty way out of this one, slicker ?
DeleteFeeling the need for a little *Recticare ?
http://recticare.com/?gclid=Cj0KEQjw-73GBRCC7KODl9zToJMBEiQAj1Jgf7UL1Ta9UCTe-V7g1gzdLCW3ubRfV7CrG0yF3znVPm8aAuUY8P8HAQ
Feeling a little like your swamp needs some draining ?
Deleteheh heh hhheeeeeehhhh
Designed for a life just like your own, Quirk -
Delete*Powerful Relief Designed for Your Life
*RectiCare® products help you deal with the pain and discomfort of anorectal conditions, whether you’re at home or on-the-go.
*With products that offer powerful pain relief, protection or complete hemorrhoid care, RectiCare makes it simple to find the right solution to manage your condition – and help you get through your day easier.
Heh, Slick's plugged his toilet.
ReplyDeleteDon't even think about asking, Quirkie....
ReplyDeleteFire Comey.
DeleteYou got it all right, Dada.
DeleteIf the FBI has been investigating Trump since July over Russia ties, why would the FBI not have tapped Trump's conversations?
ReplyDeleteWhy not, Quirkie Smartie Pants ?
Kellyanne Conway has faced ridicule on social media for a tweet she posted five months ago that poked fun at Hillary Clinton's email saga.
ReplyDelete...
Ms Conway's old tweets were shared widely on Monday as Mr Comey confirmed the bureau had launched a criminal investigation into suggestions of collusion between Russia and Mr Trump's campaign during last year's presidential election.
San Jose police: Naked man shot after pointing caulking gun at officers
ReplyDeleteNeighbor recalled man being angry that police “took all my guns” before violent episode.
===
"Take that, Copper!"
SPLURT
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/20/san-jose-naked-man-shot-by-police-identified-remains-in-critical-condition/
Napolitano may/may not return from doghouse
ReplyDeleteSharing dog run with Quirk and Smirk, two half breeds
Napolitano suspended by Fox over GCHQ claim?
POSTED AT 10:01 AM ON MARCH 21, 2017 BY ED MORRISSEY
Today’s media mystery for prime-time viewer sleuths is … where is Judge Andrew Napolitano? The last signs of the legal analyst on Fox News was his on-air allegation that Barack Obama may have used the British signals intelligence service GCHQ to spy on Donald Trump, a claim he later repeated in a column for Fox. After the story fell apart and his own network’s news anchors debunked it, Napolitano has not appeared on the network.
According to the LA Times, that’s no coincidence:
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano is being kept off the air indefinitely amid the controversy over his unverified claims that British intelligence wiretapped Trump Tower at the behest of former President Obama.
Fox News did not respond to inquiries about Napolitano’s status Monday. Napolitano was conspicuously missing from the network’s coverage of the confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch — an event in which he typically would have played a significant role. He has not been on the air since Thursday.
People familiar with the situation who could speak only on the condition of anonymity said Napolitano is not expected to be on Fox News Channel any time in the near future. Napolitano was not available for comment.
“Near future” may be a term of art, however. While the Associated Press’ source also hinted at a longer and indeterminate suspension, the Washington Post and Dow Newswire both report that the suspension may be short-lived. According to the latter, Napolitano might be back on air “as early as later this week,” according to Dow’s source.
There really isn’t much mystery to this, except why the White House and Donald Trump seized on his speculative allegation in the first place. Absent that, few would have noted Napolitano’s theory that provided a strange reverse-engineering for Trump’s wiretap claim. (Since the “wiretap” accusation was initially based on alleged FISA warrant applications, no one would have needed the GCHQ to accomplish it.) As AP noted at the time, not even Fox took it all that seriously, relegating Napolitano’s supposedly triple-sourced news to commentary rather than running it as a top story. And yet, both Trump and Sean Spicer ran with Napolitano’s commentary, necessitating an embarrassing climb-down within days for having insulted our most trusted ally on global security. Napolitano didn’t create the international incident, of course, but he was certainly a part of it, and no one can blame Fox for avoiding the reminder of that on air for a little while.
Under the circumstances, that will require more than just a new-anchor debunking or two. Fox will have to demonstrate some consequences for rash speculation reported as news to maintain its own credibility as a news outlet. Napolitano is a popular commentator on legal matters, however, and it wouldn’t be too surprising to see him return — perhaps with a more restricted set of topics for analysis — in the somewhat-near future. Perhaps he’ll make it back in time to weigh in on Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation, but if not, there will likely be another Supreme Court nomination in the not-too-distant future for a return from the doghouse.
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/21/napolitano-suspended-by-fox-over-gchq-claim/
What did they expect - that GCHQ would admit it ????
Delete
ReplyDeleteMarket Watch: North Korea has expanded its enriched uranium facility, U.N. nuclear inspector says
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/north-korea-has-expanded-its-enriched-uranium-facility-un-nuclear-inspector-says-2017-03-20
ReplyDeleteSpecial Report
Yes, Obama Did Investigate Trump
GEORGE NEUMAYR
March 20, 2017, 7:00 pm
After all the parsing at the Comey hearing, that remains the bottom line.
Straining at the tweet and swallowing the camel has become Washington’s favorite pursuit, and it was on tiresome display at Monday’s Congressional hearing with Jim Comey. Out of it came two clashing headlines: “Comey Denies Obama Ordered Wiretapping on Trump,” “The FBI is Investigating Trump’s Links to Russia.”
In other words, the core claim underlying Trump’s tweets is true: people acting on the authority of Obama opened an investigation into Trump’s campaign, then criminally leaked mention of it to friendly news outlets in an attempt to derail his election. When is Obama going to apologize for that?
Were the Republicans less feckless and docile to the media-determined parameters of any discussion, they would have kept the focus on the outrageousness of Obama investigating an opposing party’s candidate at the height of an election campaign. But their first instinct is always to distance themselves from Trump, not defend him.
So unlike Adam Schiff, who prosecuted the case for the Dems ruthlessly, the Republicans dithered, striking Comey with the flat of the blade. Instead of probing his vague answers, they complacently accepted them before trailing off into the next series of unilluminating questions....
https://spectator.org/yes-obama-did-investigate-trump/
YES, THE FBI IS INVESTIGATING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN
ReplyDeleteNo, that doesn’t mean the investigation is going anywhere.
March 21, 2017 Matthew Vadum
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266172/yes-fbi-investigating-trump-campaign-matthew-vadum
Watching some of the Gorsuch hearings. A couple of observations: Feinstein asked very good and pertinent and fair questions. Leahy not so much. Besides Sounding like he's trying to pass a turd while he talks.
ReplyDeleteThis man will be our next Supreme. IMO
Deuce asked:
ReplyDelete"If the FBI has been investigating Trump since July over Russia ties, why would the FBI not have tapped Trump's conversations?"
Because it is a very serious charge against a political candidate and a FISA judge would demand some decent evidence in order to grant a warrant.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteHow ya gonna smirk your nasty way out of this one, slicker ?
Damn, Bob, you are one stupid faux farmer.
I saw the interview with Larry Johnson. He said he was one of the guys who gave Napolitano the story. He also said he didn't have any direct knowledge of GCHQ involvement and he never expected Napolitano to repeat the story certainly not on TV. Johnson got the story from another source 'who should know'. No doubt that other 'security source' got it from some other guy 'who should know'. What a line of bullshit.
Napolitano was probably right when he said he got the story from three 'security sources' especially if he started with Larry Johnson and he was counting all the so-called 'security experts that should know' that were in that chain.
The original story was probably started by Breitbart or Trumpworld.com or one of the sites you follow. Hopefully, Napolitano's time out will be a good long one.
What did they expect - that GCHQ would admit it ????
Is that supposed to be an argument?
Bob, don't talk to me anymore today. You give me a headache. It's like talking to a homeless person strung out on dago red.
.
Quirkette, I've been talking to folks that amount.
ReplyDeleteYou'll have to talk to yourself.
Nothing but 'go' from the smaller bank today.
I shall humor you no more.
Like Prince Hal (me) I tell Falstaff (you) to finally flake off.
tee hee hee
I wonder if C-slicker has even heard of Prince Hal and Falstaff.
DeleteAns:
DeleteNaw