https://youtu.be/kP8tO14kMx0?si=yBjuwMiHBuinkE4S

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell analyzes the resignation remarks from FBI Director Christopher Wray and explains, through a thorough examination of the FBI’s history, why Trump’s nomination of Kash Patel is unlike anything any other president has even done.

Who’s gonna save you?

Do you know something I don't? Do I need saving?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Do you know something I don't? Do I need saving?

You are beyond saving.....


.

As a retired Army officer and retired Federal agent,
I can voice the displeasure of FBI street agents toward the last 3 Directors. A close friend with whom I hunt and fish is a retired Asst Special-Agent-in Charge of the Bureau. His view of Comey is unprintable. He does agree that Hoover would have fired the last 3 Directors.

Trump is far from perfect, but compared to the recent Obama-Soros-Jarrett-Biden unmitigated disaster-he is a breath of spring air. My guess is that Trump will not lose a US Ambassador ala Obama.

He also is a friend of Israel, which neither Biden,Harris or Obama can accurately claim.

Doubters need to look up all articles by Susan Daniels, a recognized investigator of the Obama Administration. Also see "Obama: It was you".

So what do you think of Kash Patel as Director?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/col...s-fbi-110015529.html

LA Times

Column: Kash Patel, Trump's FBI pick, would turn the agency into the Federal Bureau of Retribution
Doyle McManus
Mon, December 16, 2024 at 6:00 AM EST6 min read

https://youtu.be/KUsLik1E22g?si=JzgUI_vTJdO8ULaP

Brooks and Marcus on Wray's resignation and what's next for the FBI

PBS NewsHour Dec 13

https://youtu.be/-ZJYAcFeoSM?si=ayYpVdG0MEEUVEfh

Trump indicates he believes Putin over US intelligence agencies regarding election meddling

https://youtu.be/soRN_ZRf5gg?si=g23arfU02PgPcQEY

The consequences of Trump turning against his intelligence community

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/s...the-way-they-operate

How Trump’s intelligence agency picks could radically shift the way they operate
Dec 5, 2024 6:30 PM EST

https://youtu.be/cwnCHUbTgHk?si=9bZTe3mi8AVcmbWS

'This is a Red Alert moment': Sen. Murphy on Trump threatening more lawsuits against the press

It is generally accepted, even in D.C.- that both the CIA and FBI were "weaponized" and directed against Trump and his administration by the fatherless Kenyan.

Patel will sweep the agency of dead wood, and then
use disinfectant. Even he has to answer to the courts
if not the Atty General.

That's the answer I expected from you.

So you approve of weaponizing the US intelligence agencies and DOJ against Trump's opponents and enemies and against American citizens and the rule of law as retribution because Trump lied and said that's what happened to him.

You're shitting me and others and yourself if you think Trump or any intel chief will have to answer to the AG. She will answer to them.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/21...ral-trump/index.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/poli...05A?ocid=socialshare

A new report shows how Trump weaponized the DOJ under Barr. Will Pam Bondi do the same?
Story by David Jolly • 5d • 2 min read

There is no doubt the gov agencies are weaponized. But it is happening from with-in.
Look at NSA head Clapper. " we are not collecting data on Americans" Lie. I dont think anyone told him to do so, I think it was internal.
IG Horowitz found lies and doctoring of documents in his report. McCabe lied to his own staff to cover his leak, that he wanted out. It cost who knows how much money and man hours pulled from important cases.
Lois Lerner is another, and look at the hurricane relief, when folks were skipped over.
This is not directed from the president, it's from internal heads.
Not enough oversight on the agencies, and whistleblowers are intimidated who try to speak out.

Correct as to internal agency directed misdeeds and "weaponization". The agency OIG programs need more support from Congress, while also maintaining apolitical status. (Difficult, but not impossible.)

Spent Federal time in D.C. with Dept. of State OIG-it worked well under a 3-star Marine General-retired.
DOJ needs serious house cleaning and oversight.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:

This is not directed from the president, it's from internal heads.

quote:

Originally posted by 450 Fuller:
Correct as to internal agency directed misdeeds and "weaponization".

DOJ needs serious house cleaning and oversight.

So, you two are talking about cleaning up the Deep State.

It seems to me that you are ignoring the fact that Trump wants centralized power to direct loyalists to do exactly what he claims was done to him by the deep state, weaponize the whole system for him to use, at his direction.

Maybe somehow you think that's the remedy to a supposed weaponized Deep State -- Weaponize the office of POTUS. You are ignoring the fact that to accomplish that requires as substitute Deep State, comprised of Steve Bannon's 50,000 shock troop loyalists, and overseers.

In order to do that is contrary to "Oversight" the way you are using the word, but instead the oversight is specific to him, by thwarting the traditional mechanism's goals of checks and balance by realigning the goals to loyalty to Trump.

Oversight should be done by a bipartisan house panel, period.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Oversight should be done by a bipartisan house panel, period.

Like this:

https://cha.house.gov/2024/9/t...deliberately-ignored

Dated September 20, 2024

WASHINGTON - Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) revealed that days before January 6, 2021, President Trump met with senior Pentagon leaders urging them to do their jobs to protect lives and property. The transcripts released show Trump gave senior Pentagon leadership directives to keep January 6 peaceful - including using the National Guard - which the Pentagon leaders ignored. This revelation directly contradicts the conclusions drawn in the flawed DoD IG report on January 6, 2021.

All of a sudden it's "bombshell" news (this is propaganda, BTW)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...4460edad1752779&ei=7

J6 Bombshell: Trump Didn't Just Offer Military to Protect Capitol, He Ordered It but Was Disobeyed
Story by Joe Saunders • 1h ago • 3 min read

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...bers,_118th_Congress

Members

==============================================


There are several articles like this, as a sample:

https://newbedfordlight.org/tr...n-6-is-just-fantasy/

Trump’s claim that Pelosi turned down National Guard help on Jan. 6 is ‘just fantasy’
The story has been deemed false and debunked repeatedly since early 2021, including during the 2024 campaign.

by Arthur Hirsch
October 30, 2024

=======================================

The narrative spin is unrelenting.

The point is that pentagon leaders did not disobey directives or orders from commander in chief. They used discretion. It's interesting that Trump somehow had the innate sense to maintain plausible denial and not give a direct order to deploy the military. He maintained a scapegoat, always.

So, this Oversight Committee is attempting to create a narrative or flip the truth.

This is what loyalists do.

Trump's whole goal on 1/6/21 was to delay the certification, so his loyalists in congress could take into account the fake electors. He wanted martial law as an excuse for the delay. He wanted shooting. It would have been a disaster far greater than it was anyway, but Trump didn't care about that. He wanted to stop the certification. An easier and non-violent trick was one of his loyalists tried to get Pence in the SS car to drive him away, thus the delay Trump wanted. There is no evidence that I know of that Trump ordered that, so it also was discretionary.

Oversite has no teeth, as the pres can claim exec. privilege or any number of things. OBO Trump and Biden have all proved that.
But..... it gets the information to the public, people can then vote their thoughts on matters.
You try to make excuses, and want perfect. There is no perfect. But being kept in the dark is worse.

So Trump did order the NG deployed for 1/6/20?

That does tend to counter your whole argument.

Sure if Trump’s appointees disobeyed him (even if they did so because they thought that’s what he wanted) then while it’s Trump picking bad subordinates and you should be cheering that he’s choosing different people from different backgrounds this time.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
So Trump did order the NG deployed for 1/6/20?

Not according to what I read.

Also, I think the date was 1/6/21.

The way I figure it, not from anything I read or evidence certain, is that Trump wanted some shooting to start at the rioters. so he could declare martial law, thus delay the certification. Yes, I'm saying that IMO he would have been okay with some of his supporters getting shot.

Thus, I'm also saying that the discretionary decisions that day avoided that disaster.

Acting secretary Miller said, quote: "there is absolutely---there is absolutely no way I was putting U.S Military forces at the Capitol" as he was concerned it may provoke "the greatest Constitutional Crisis probably since the Civil War."

Even though not under direct order, he knew what Trump wanted, which was a constitutional crisis and military forces at the capitol that day would have done it. "It" being the delay at the cost of lives. Pence leaving the capitol would have accomplished the same thing.

The repercussions of deaths that day by the military would be so much worse, and Trump would have made the best of it. He has subsequently made the best of what went down anyway by spinning it. I can imagine how he would have spun the other scenario.

He did make a martyr out of the one gal that got shot by the capitol police.

===========================================

I should be cheering - you say.

IMO, Trump is drooling for the opportunity to declare martial law, and he will somehow set it up. When he does that this 2nd term there will be no discretionary resistance from his loyalists. That's the way a fascist regime does it. Mark my words because when it happens, I hope for the opportunity to say, "I told you so".

Declaring martial law in the US would end up looking just like it did in South Korea.

It’s wholly implausible that Trump could accomplish anything by declaring it.

Most of the republicans would revolt if he tried…

And yes, I put in a typo.

Glad you think I’m infallible!


I could see declaring martial law in a riot torn city… I can’t see a nationwide declaration short of a military attack.

quote:

I could see declaring martial law in a riot torn city…

That's how he will do it, then double-down.

Faux News will amplify it.

And Rightists will concur.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

I could see declaring martial law in a riot torn city…

That's how he will do it, then double-down.

Faux News will amplify it.

And Rightists will concur.

So, what you are saying is that the NG shouldn't NOT have been called on jan6?

I'm not saying that.

Deploying the national guard is not the same as declaring martial law.

That's my understanding of it.

Mangina can rant all she wants

Wray quit before he could be fired! Plain and simple!

He and his ilk have destroyed the country's faith in federal law enforcement!

quote:

Wray quit before he could be fired! Plain and simple!

He and his ilk have destroyed the country's faith in federal law enforcement!

Normally I don't respond to your posts because of your first sentence in your above post. But I left that out in the quote.

The other two sentences are relevant and prompted me to delve into something related to "faith" not just law enforcement but the rule of law - big picture.

I thought about starting a new topic, but this thread will do.

Of course, I disagree that Wray had much to do with loss of faith, or confidence in the rule of law. Trump did that. That's what fascists do. Wray is not a fascist.

My goal with this post is to bring Wray's departure and the nomination of Kash Patel to replace him and the other intel, law enforcement and nat'l security nominations into proper perspective.

The first question is: What's the difference in rule of law vs rule of man?

It has always been a contest or contentious concept in idea and practice. The Founders opted for the rule of law, specifically in contrast to rule-of man, with a secular constitution. I'll even go so far as to say they made it secular to thwart or minimize religious influence because such influence falls into the category of rule of man. Man made up, invented, religion and the dogma. Also, man made up, invented, a system of agreed upon rules or guidance, law, that doesn't tie to or draw from religion. Amazingly, the Founders had that distinction. We are on the verge of losing that distinction.

With the rise of Trumpism, Rule of Man has become a big issue, weaponization of law and institutions - lawfare, etc.

My point is that the loss of "faith" or confidence in law in general is associated with the fight or contest between rule of law vs rule of man.

Here's the larger explanation:
Rule of Law vs Rule of Man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._man_vs._rule_of_law

The next question is: How can the (intentional) transition from the Founder's rule of law to Trumpism's rule of man be accomplished?

The first step is to cause a loss of faith in the rule of law. The American Carnage narrative is a good start. It's a constant drumbeat of lies, propaganda and narrative twists. It's a fascist plot or play-book. Making a martyr or victim out of Dear Leader is part of it too.

And people like JTEX bought into it long ago.

quote:

Originally posted by frankinthelaurels:
Huge mistake, he should have forced him to fire him.....president Musk would consult Vice-president Trump incorrectly.

Back in the 80s and 90s, Houston was learning to deal with it's homeless population, including the "shouting at trees and street signs" crazies .. I wonder, how long has it been since frank was relocated "to the laurels" before he began his screaming into the void, in bold?

. . . starting to believe that the only reason you show up here these days is to be condescending. Not sure why. It certainly diminishes you not your target. Maybe give me a cute nickname. Carry on.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . starting to believe that the only reason you show up here these days is to be condescending. Not sure why. It certainly diminishes you not your target. Maybe give me a cute nickname. Carry on.

from the guy that calls me "his dog" - that's rich ..