Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the reappearance of Obama officials in the contemporary debates over surveillance and health care. Here is the column.
In the midst of the raging controversies over secret surveillance and new healthcare plans, there were some curious and unsettling sightings in the coverage. Individuals once thought to have passed from political existence reappeared to hold forth on the very subjects of their demise.
In ancient times such figures were called druagr or, in Old Norse, revenant. The two most recent revenants were James Clapper and Jonathan Gruber. They are ample proof that no one really dies in Washington; their scandals just fade away.
Clapper on Surveillance Programs
James Clapper is being widely quoted as proof that President Donald Trump was lying in saying that there was surveillance of Trump Tower carried out by President Barack Obama. Clapper went public to say categorically that no such surveillance operations occurred. That ended the issue for many in the media. After all, as the former Director of National Intelligence, Clapper would know right?
Of course, all of the members of Congress and media widely quoting Clapper as the final word on the issue are ignoring that, in the Obama administration, some felt that Clapper should have been indicted for perjury in denying the existence of the most massive surveillance program in the history of the country. Not one FISA warrant intercept (like the one alleged by Trump), mind you, but a whole program that literally put every citizen under potential surveillance.
When then-National Intelligence Director James Clapper appeared before the Senate, he was asked directly, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper responded, “No, sir. … Not wittingly.”
Note this was not a situation like the controversy over Attorney General Jeff Sessions who went beyond a question asked him about how he would respond to any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Sessions voluntarily stated that he had no interaction with Russians in responding but failed to mention two brief meetings with the Russian ambassador.
Sessions insisted that he was thinking of campaign discussions not any meeting with any Russian at any time. In comparison, Clapper denied a direct question about the existence of a program that he was fully aware of and the question itself was all too clear.
Clapper later admitted that he did not want to answer the question and said that his testimony was “the least untruthful” statement he could make. Yet, of course, that would still make it an untrue statement — which most people call a lie and lawyers call perjury.
What was particularly disturbing was the portrayal of Clapper — and the Obama administration generally — as denying that the administration would ever surveil political opponents in such a matter. This is the same administration that hid the massive secret surveillance program and put journalists under surveillance. Clapper himself played the most controversial role in misleading Congress on the existence of the program.
Unless media is looking for “the least untruthful” answer, Clapper would hardly seem a compelling witness on the existence of surveillance operations. This is not to say that the media was wrong in asking Clapper about the alleged surveillance given his earlier position. However, he has emerged apparently shed of his highly controversial history.
Gruber on Healthcare
With the move to repeal and replace ObamaCare, various media outlets turned to MIT professor Jonathan Gruber who is widely referred to as “an architect of Obamacare.” Gruber promptly denounced the replacement of the law and warned that it could result in 30 million people losing health insurance coverage. He previously juxtaposed “a strong and coherent health care agenda” of President Obama as opposed to Trump’s “garbage salad of right-wing talking points.”
Gruber’s resurrection as “an architect” of ObamaCare is impressive even by Washington metrics. It was not long ago that no one in the Obama administration appeared to know Gruber’s name. While a key person in the drafting of ObamaCare (who received $400,000 to work on Obamacare and made over $2 million from the Department of Health and Human Services), Gruber became persona non grata after he spoke frankly about what was something of a bait-and-switch used to pass Obamacare.
Gruber told an audience at the University of Rhode Island in 2012 that they were able to pass Obamacare because of “the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”
In another view from at an October 2013 event at Washington University in St. Louis, Gruber said “that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference.” Likewise, in 2009, Gruber denied that they were really trying to reduce costs as opposed to increase coverage — saying that Obamacare might not produce lower cost health care for many citizens. This statement was made five months before the passage of the Act but not publicly known until long after passage.
Following these and other remarks, Democratic leaders suddenly began saying “Gruber who?” Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi expressed a complete lack of knowledge of who Gruber is, was, or will be. The Obama administration denied that he was really all that important after all.
So, with the move to repeal and replace, who surfaces to evaluate the proposals? The man who said that he and others secured passage of ObamaCare in part on the basis of the “stupidity” of the American citizen. Suddenly he is an architect again and a reliable source.
What is fascinating is that there are ample reasons to question both the surveillance allegations and the proposals for a new healthcare system. Yet, there is no interest in the rather checkered history of either of these key players from the prior administration.
There are, of course, Republican revenants who seemed to rise Phoenix-like from their political ashes like Gov. Chris Christie or Gov. Rick Perry. Yet, the use of revenants like Clapper and Gruber reflects the limited attention span of modern media coverage.
It is too much to expect that the credibility of a former official would be relevant for a revenant, particularly when they fit a narrative of a story. It is Washington’s version of soap opera characters: major figures can suddenly return to life with a simple change in storyline like being found on a desert island or defrosted in some cryogenic lab.
The Obama administration itself had controversies of the veracity of statements on surveillance and health care. That does not make the statements of Trump or his administration any more true. As the “New York Times’” new ad campaign states, “Truth is hard to find.” But it is all the more difficult when you are looking in all the wrong places.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
The Hill Newspaper, March 8, 2017
BB,
This is over at Glenn’s twitter: “As I documented at the height of the controversy over the Snowden reporting, top government officials — including President Obama — constantly deceived (and still deceive) the public by falsely telling them that their communications cannot be monitored without a warrant. Responding to the furor created over the first set of Snowden reports about domestic spying, Obama sought to reassure Americans by telling Charlie Rose: “What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls … by law and by rule, and unless they … go to a court, and obtain a warrant, and seek probable cause.”
The right-wing chairman of the House Intelligence Committee at the time, GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, echoed Obama, telling CNN the NSA “is not listening to Americans’ phone calls. If it did, it is illegal. It is breaking the law.”
Those statements are categorically false.”
https://theintercept.com/2017/03/13/rand-paul-is-right-nsa-routinely-monitors-americans-communications-without-warrants/
Mike A. If you have a chance to read this on Glenn’s site I was wondering how you choose which liar, Obama or Trump that you believe. I’m not being sarcastic, I just don’t know how one chooses. (You had said you don’t believe Trump because he’s a liar. But so is Obama.) This type of information and analysis is why I don’t dismiss Trump’s claim. At the same time feel he should provide evidence for what he said.
It’s interesting to see how the press rarely presents evidence of how much surveillance is actually happening to everyone. Instead they are choosing to present known liars to opine (lie) on all sorts of matters for which we have answers or actual information.
Thanks JIll, I just read it and responded above. Trump has quite a choice here. It’s one thing for Rand Paul to say this. Let’s see them all do something about it starting with Trump. What a great thing to do in your first hundred days as President: Defend the Constitution of The United States.
OK, everyone, big gulp of air. And holding, holding, holding…
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Left interviewed Dr. Kermit Gosnell to provide his take on the the proposed defunding of Planned Parenthood.
Politics of the left. Circle the wagons. Never eat your own no matter who they are, how corrupt they are or how much they knowingly lie to and deceive the American people. Protect the lies and stay on message at all costs. How about Pelosi’s lying garbage-talk: “I don’t know who he (Gruber) is. He didn’t help write our bill.” Liars, all. And bold about it too. So please don’t whine about Trump’s lying (talking to you Isaac). They all do it.
“Note this was not a situation like the controversy over Attorney General Jeff Sessions who went beyond a question asked him about how he would respond to any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Sessions voluntarily stated that he had no interaction with Russians in responding but failed to mention two brief meetings with the Russian ambassador.”
I disagree with the above commentary. It’s all perjury. Distinguishing between degrees of perjury is a political game. If Sessions had told the truth about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, the substance of those contacts could have been examined. But he didn’t mention it, for whatever reason, and they weren’t, when Sessions had an obligation to tell the whole truth.
Sounds like sour grapes fermented the vino.
There appears to be a coup in progress by the deep state. The deep state has master manipulators on board. I will mention one striking example. Less than two months ago Democrats as a whole still hated George Bush. Now he is loved by them. That’s very little time to completely turn a group of people’s opinion 180 degrees on a very important subject. If you still don’t think propaganda works I’d ask people to consider how quickly Bush has been rehabbed!
The favoribility rating towards the CIA has increased among Democrats. Democrats are openly calling for the military/IC to remove Trump from office. It is this atmosphere in which such people find credence. As the MSM is in agreement with Democrats that Trump must go, we have to train ourselves to think things through.
The most important question is what type of govt. would an open military/IC govt. really bring about? Will it bring progressive utopia? Why would that happen? Have they shown themselves to uphold progressive, democratic values in the past or present?
Next of course it examining Trump. While it is true that he isn’t upholding progressive, democratic values there is a real difference between him and a military/IC hunta–that is something Glenn Greenwald has spoken about. There are still legal processes to take on Trump’s actions if one does not like them. In a military/IC dictatorship, those processes are completely eliminated.
I don’t think Democrats and mainstream Republicans are thinking through the implications of turning our govt. into an open military/IC dictatorship. This work needs to be done by citizens. Therefore, if presented by rehabbed speakers such as above, it behooves everyone to look carefully at what is being said. We need to ask questions. It is always possible that a known liar can tell the truth. But in these two cases, both men are making claims which they do not provide evidence for. There is also counter evidence available which contradicts their statements.
Citizens must be ethical, awake, and stop being partisans if this interferes with our ability to think. We are going to have to been very careful in examining the many propagandists put before us. They know quite well how to lie, telling us what we want to hear, not what is actually happening. A lot is a stake in our nation and citizens need to step forward with a clear mind and a desire for the common good.
I suspect Trump is going to be caught red handed in this one (wire tapping). I could be wrong. That’s why the circus aspect, or soap opera aspect as professor Turley put it, rings so true. Everyone wants to get in on the act. Trump has the means available to substantiate his claim in an instant if he wants. And that is exactly what Trump has been taunting the Democrats with: their ability to substantiate their claims about Russian hacking but their total unwillingness to do so for an equally lame excuse (proof could be established – if it existed – without serious compromise to our intelligence agencies).
If one had to get out a yard stick, I would offer that Trump’s claim of wire tapping, assuming it’s a whopper, is less egregious than The Russians Are Coming, since it doesn’t attempt to lock anyone into a slippery military slope with the second largest nuclear power in the world. But Trump is catching up in other ways (boots on the ground in Syria, policy toward Iran), so… The soap opera goes on, and becomes a little more lethal every day. Where Trump is going to hurt himself in this particular soap operatic exchange is simply the lameness of his claim and the unconsidered way he threw it out. Democrats will justifiably paint this as highly irresponsible.
I think you are correct about the deep state and it’s current inclination toward the Democrat face of the oligarchy, but I don’t think President Trump is wasting any time doing what he can to get on their good side or, if Paul Jay is correct, in currying favor with the alternate more extreme right wing oligarchy of his own.
We initially had a choice between anthropogenic extinction with Trump or nuclear holocaust with Hillary. Now I think the Democrats, at the bidding of the deep state, have successfully forced a too willing Trump to cover both bases (perhaps in case one of them doesn’t work).
BB,
I will flat out say I find all of this completely dangerous and horrific.
I think it is very likely that Trump Towers was bugged with the knowledge of Obama. Obama explicitly agreed that everyone is open to surveillance. He gave the CIA money for their special mass surveillance project. Now we are all surveilled by the decree of Trump who has blessed the police state for everyone but himself. He may not be able to provide direct evidence that Obama knew. Indirectly, wikileaks and Snowden show us this was more than probable. Yes, he should put up or shut up.
As to the further right deep state. I don’t agree with that. Clinton and her peeps are just as far right as Trump. Both Clinton and Trump are war criminals, both pro-mass surveillance, willing to let the bankers bring down the economy (even further), let corporations ruin the environment and deny people the right to single payer universal health care. That is why I keep thinking that we are seeing one deep state with two different names. The deep state has a “win” with either of these people and the peeps who surround them. I have a bad feeling this is the real “show” we are seeing. That’s why I think the only hope we have is for citizens to stop being the peeps of either person. They already have peeps in the oligarchy, they don’t need our help.
A small point, but possibly an important one. The deep state is complex. It is largely made up of the MIC and the intelligence agencies, but obviously also has tentacles buried deep into the global financial community of elites. There is no reason that two oligarchies can not exist within that paradigm.
Note that I didn’t say an alternate deep state, I said an alternate oligarchy. Also, it really doesn’t matter. It’s more a point of interest.
As to Clinton, and again splitting hairs, I don’t think she is as far right as the people Trump has surrounded himself with except possibly in her militaristic inclinations. Degree of “right-ness” is not a good measure of toxicity; both Trump and Hillary are more than toxic enough with out such a measure, it has more to do with POV on specific issues. I am not a lessor of two evils proponent. I still think Trump was a “not Hillary” choice and as such, the right one since the Democrat party must be replaced and there is no way it will not be painful.
You are probably right that Trump was monitored. Greenwald’s article -as usual- is spot on, but that does not prevent President Trump from pointing this out and promising he will do everything in his power to protect American’s Constitutional right to privacy in the future. He could shame the Democrats (and Republicans) in a second into repealing all the abuses of the Obama administration regarding spying on Americans. If he doesn’t, it means he is complicit. He wants the same powers for himself.
We’ll see, but it remains that Trump could establish the wire tap (or monitoring) instantly if he wanted. It’s not helping him not to and impulsive Tweets by the President can have life and death consequences..
Spot on, btw in spite of my nit picking. Yes, I think the dems and repubs are simply two faces to the same deep state.
BB,
Today, Assange wrote that Clinton is pushing for ousting Trump and getting in Pence. Assange also said that IC officials want a Pence take over. They did not say if Pence agreed to it. As Pence, along with Clinton, is a “The Family” member, I wouldn’t be surprised if he said yes.
The article is at Zero Hedge. The tweets are at Assange’s Twitter Account.
P.S. At least they plan on using impeachment, not the military. (According to Assange.) Pence finds this speculation insulting!
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-09/trump-s-run-of-dumb-luck
What an excellent article! This captures the nub of the farce going on in our political elite. Pure theater and it also raises the issue of our pathologically gullible tribal acceptance of these soap opera like apparitions. Both sides, btw, for anyone getting out their “they are the haters” guns.
It is particularly noteworthy that both sides of the duopoly are doing their damndest to loose serious credibility. On health care, the ACA was an unmitigated disaster. Republicans, however, refuse to be outdone and are coming up with something considerably worse, preserving the most odious aspect; the mandate to buy insurance from private enterprise so greedy and so corrupt that they would literally go bankrupt without the intervention of the government who has simply shifted it so that you pay the penalty directly to the insurance companies rather than to Uncle Sam and you shuffle the word “mandate” under the rug. And instead of Obamabots, it will be Trumpbots getting out in front of this disaster and pretending it’s a parade.
In equally ludicrous yet insidious fiasco of Intelligence gathering, the Democrats were unleashing -upon themselves- at least a generation of shame, if not literally the final straw in their demise as a party, in the form of unsubstantiated claims (to this day boiling down to nothing but allegations) that Russians hacked Clinton email accounts – and, GASP, exposed the TRUTH, which benefited Trump. We can’t have the truth helping Trump now can we!
But wait, wait, Trump WILL NOT BE OUTDONE! He goes and tweets that Obama put the wire on him during the campaign with no more substantiation for his claim than the Democrats had for theirs. As the Intercept keeps insisting, Trump has the authority to declassify immediately any intelligence operation – such as a wire tap – that occurred in the previous or any administration. So where’s the beef??? If he was wire tapped, prove it! The Intercept (and others) also point out that “separation of powers” is pure hog wash as an excuse for not substantiating the tweeted claim – thought pathetically, it will be more than good enough for the credulous base. Meanwhile, those who are out dancing and prancing in front of Trump’s impetuous tweets continue to maintain this is all million dimensional chess, and to make the circus complete, all the professional liars that the media puts in front of its cameras as American Truth Tellers are getting their years salary in one lump gig, pointing their crooked fingers in virtually every possible direction.
Of course one or both sides can still substantiate their claims, until that falls through, but I’m not holding my breath. It’s all soap all the time.
Oh we Я(s) the drunken sailors that reel from side to side,
And we gets our grog from the dumb ass slobs
that screws us by our pride…
Motormouth.
Oh poor little dear! 🙂
If you ask mommy nicely, she will show you where the scroll bar is and what it does! And back to the parade for you. 🙂
Kellyanne Conway: “There was an article that week that talked about how you can surveil people through their phones, through their — certainly through their television sets, any number of different ways. And microwaves that turn into cameras, et cetera. We know that is just a fact of modern life.”
She and Debbie Wasserman Schultz are a couple of bookends. Trump is in good hands. Be afraid, be very afraid, of your microwave.
Smart dental fillings!
Also, I’m not kidding.
I like the bookend metaphor.
I have been very critical of manufacturers, media providers, and retailers pushing the idea of the internet connected home appliances since their inception. Not from a technology purpose–though questionably a true need for the device to operate–but due to privacy concerns and the use of data against the user.
In the initial stages of the “home automation” technology as it was then referred in the 1990s, it was truly benign. Microsoft was researching this and one system involved using the AC power system of the house for the network. Essentially the protocol between the devices was that a packet containing data could be broadcast during when the sinusoidal wave of the current at zero, or twice at 60 Hz. Due to the low frequency some data could be transmitted by not much.
Because of the low bandwidth, nothing much could be done other than essentially telemetry or controlling devices, such as HVAC, lights switches, etc. The data was not able to transmit outside of the house. It might have been due to transmission line phase or voltage stepping but I don’t remember. The point is that due to limited bandwidth, there really wasn’t much information that could be used against the homeowner even if the intent was there. There was work on securing the system but the hit to transmission rate in this low bandwidth made this difficult to use. An advantage to the system was that ordinary house electrical service was easy to use since a person only needed to plug a device into the wall socket to use the features.
Later, when wireless networking devices became cheap and useful the bandwidth issue was resolved. But the concept of the home automation shortly ran into resistance because it was realized that most consumers at the time were not interested in any automation than already existed in a house. So it was shelved for several years due to lack of purpose or need.
When the tech to hook these home appliances and devices allowed internet access to each, industry saw a potential for growth through convenience and safety wants of the public, not only in the devices themselves but the data to be collected and sold. That is when the scary began.
Somehow people were convinced they needed a refrigerator that took video of the food inside was something to have. Because, apparently it was too old school to write a shopping list on a piece of paper and take it to the box store megamart. Now, drive there and be an automaton to feed the fridge. But, of course someone else now knows what you stock your refrigerator with and what grocer you choose due to the geo-location data sent from the smartphone when the refrigerator is queried by the user. And if someone rings your doorbell when you are away, you can see who is there. Again this might be useful, but give up your privacy and I’m not even going to get started with the ultimate spyware of all, microphones listing 24/7 as in the case of SIRI. It seems typing on a keyboard to get information is too much to ask these days.
Agree entirely. I’m frankly quite amazed that anyone at all would get any of this stuff.
DWS has a crack IT team working for her.
It’s all about perpetuating an agenda of one. Each government employee feels the need for smaller government is the solution but not at the expense of their contribution to it. There is no other guaranteed retirement and employment scheme that allows people to prostitute their ideals in the name of financial security. After living 45 miles from the biggest teat in the world I can say without doubt the military/ national security complex perpetuates this suckling more than any one government entity .
with righteousness all based on secrecy that the participants can’t share or as to expose the ruse they contribute to at taxpayer expense.
Looks like we need a bigger bear.
They are all still puppets. Sickly, sadly puppets and BO is still puppet master of these empty headed souls parading as people.
You sound like a puppet of Steve Bannon.
I see Mr. Bannon has replaced Karl Rove as the evil genius in the imagination of partisan Democrats. The secular decay in the intramural culture of the Democratic Party continues on unceasing.
He’s the new Emmanuel Goldstein according to the party.
Rove did not engage in domestic violence.
You sound like the scarecrow, we’re even.🤡
He was never the puppet master. His staff sent him memos with canned options at the end. He selects one and writes some inane marginalia on it. His staff also select his cabinet secretaries (who hardly ever see him ever after); his role is limited to a pro-forma interview with them before the appointment is announced.
The signature of the administration was that it was the resultant of the various and sundry vectors at work in the Democratic Party. BO himself added little other than placing himself in proximity to miscellaneous celebrities, a hypertrophied tendency to spend time at fundraisers, and some riffs of the sort you might expect of someone who would think The Nation was a serious publication (which people in Wm. Ayers circle of friends certainly do).
Exactly. “He was never the puppet master”.
Former Governor Jesse Ventura let the cat out of the bag after his 4 year term was up, and he declined re-election.
It wasn’t till years later when he said, he was shocked to realize the CIA (deep state) was imbedded with STATE governments. Let that sink for awhile.
That’s why they don’t want a rouge, independent, self-starter, President.
rogue.
It wasn’t till years later when he said, he was shocked to realize the CIA (deep state) was imbedded with STATE governments. Let that sink for awhile.
The CIA has about 20,000 employees. The organization is so cracker-jack that it hired the likes of Aldrich Ames and Michael Scheuer (and promoted Ames several times). I’d suggest you read Morton Kondracke’s account of the CIA employees he met in Honduras during the Contra War. Kondracke’s comment, “Well, Wm J. Casey tried to re-hire clandestine services employees fired by his predecessor. The best had other things to do with their life, so he got the worst….”. Or read work by Philip Giraldi if you want to see the quality of mind of someone they hired (presuming Giraldi isn’t faking his resume). Or read the commentary of Reuel Marc Gerecht on the agency’s systemic problem (in Gerecht’s experience, promotions were determined on the basis of quanta of recruitment, without regard to whether the recruit ever gave you useful information).
If Ventura actually did say that, it’s an indicator that head injuries in the ring have pretty much ruined him.
The MSM can never reach too low to get people to interview. I was amazed they picked these two, but then it fits a pattern.
All my ex’s live in Texas.
An article regarding GOP intelligence:
POLITICS 03/13/2017 02:29 am ET
Texas Rep. Jessica Farrar Trolls GOP By Proposing $100 Fine For Men Who Masturbate
Proposal aims to show some of the restrictions women face in getting reproductive health care.
By Ed Mazza
A Democratic lawmaker in Texas has proposed legislation that would fine men $100 for masturbating and require rectal exams before they get a vasectomy, a colonoscopy or a Viagra prescription.
State Rep. Jessica Farrar, of Houston, called her bill “satirical,” but said it was meant to highlight the struggles women faced while accessing health care under the restrictive reproductive laws pushed by the state’s GOP-led legislature.
Her bill promotes similarly invasive restrictions on men, including the fine for “emissions outside a woman’s vagina” which “will be considered an act against an unborn child, and failing to preserve the sanctity of life.” The bill, filed Friday, also requires storage of the “emissions” for future conception.
In addition, HB 4260 imposes a 24-hour waiting period on vasectomies, colonoscopies and Viagra prescriptions along with the “medically unnecessary” rectal exams.
Farrar said on Facebook that while some might find her proposal funny, “women are not laughing at state-imposed regulations and obstacles that interfere with their ability to legally access safe health care, and subject them to fake science and medically unnecessary procedures.”
Even the title of her proposal, “A Man’s Right To Know,” was a play on a contentious state-mandated booklet, “A Woman’s Right to Know,” which was part of a required process for women seeking abortions in Texas.
Farrar told the Texas Tribune:
“What I would like to see is this make people stop and think. Maybe my colleagues aren’t capable of that, but the people who voted for them, or the people that didn’t vote at all, I hope that it changes their mind and helps them to decide what the priorities are.”
Republicans are not amused.
“I’m embarrassed for Representative Farrar,” Rep. Tony Tinderholt, from Arlington, told the Tribune. “Her attempt to compare [HB 4260] to the abortion issue shows a lack of a basic understanding of human biology. I would recommend that she consider taking a high school biology class from a local public or charter school before filing another bill on the matter.”
But Farrar said her bill is based on exactly what the GOP has offered.
”Texans deserve to be treated with the same amount of respect when making healthcare decisions, regardless of their gender,” she wrote on Facebook.
Great Column Professor Turley….
It shows us that all the countries,
Including the USA, could have their own series on Comedy Central.
We could start off with former President Bush appearing on the Ellen Show last week.
That’s when I knew Hell had frozen over.
I am in the main stream. The main stream of the Mississippi, headed south and my raft just went by the Ohio River and Cairo, Illinois. I was wanting to make a turn and go up the Ohio but Jim said to just keep on going. No freedom for Jim and no gambling or good looking women in Cairo for me. I am now truly in Red State America and will just keep on going until we hit New Orleans.
Then it is a plane ticket to Cuba where I can get some decent medical care. No, not Gitmo. Havana. I need some doctor care and my pills cost fifty cents there and not five hundred dollars each. But I have some pills and am gonna just keep on rafting down the Mississippi. I have a Smartphone and that is how I read this blog and give my input. Jim suggests that I throw it in the river cause I am in need of a Dumbphone.
Some go through as rough spot such as completely screwing up an election campaign and manage to return to reality with a grasp on what NOT to do tnext time.
Then there are the left socialist democrats who have made deniability an art form of status quo ism. They not only never take responsibility they are convince the entire affair was done by their astute management in the face of ‘inside their own party’ mis management of their sage advice and wisdom.
Carville proves this work and each election season gets millions of dollars for pedaling the same bushwah while Yoda Lykoiff writeds Version III or IV and makes another million or so dollars for changing a few adjectives and nouns here and there.
How is this possible? They can’t admit to themselves when thy have considtently denied their own existence .
As a subject it’s a non starter kinda like no news and fake news ….and of little importance. i’d rather focus on is the replacement of ACA even necessary for the main stream and let the left stream agonize in their own guilt.
Information avoidance; selecting your own reality:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170310121732.htm
All too many on this blog so disengage.
Not specific to this thread, just a handy place to leave this dropping.
Your sense that you’re perspicacious is an illusion.
These two men lack credibility.
Anyone taking Clapper’s word for anything needs their head examined. This article demonstrates our Professorial “draft horse” pulling much more than his fair share of the work load. Well done, Mr. Turley.
I wonder what your thoughts are on Oliver North and Mark Fuhrman providing expert commentary?
Good question!
It’s so interesting that the first two comments attempt to mislead about the ideas presented in the column. in fact, it’s perfectly clear from the column that both people could speak and the same idea JT has laid out would apply.
The press choosing experts who have not shown integrity. Is it impossible for the press to find people of integrity to speak on these issues? No, it is not. The fact that the press deliberately chooses people without integrity as their spokespeople of choice tells us they are not trying to present analysis, they are presenting propaganda. This can happen on lefty sites. It can happen on righty sides. It is up to citizens to think more deeply, care more, investigate more. We can demand a press which shows integrity, not a press which propagandizes us on behalf of their chosen oligarch.
I would not presume to answer for Professor Turley, but I think this would be a logical response.
I believe he would take the same position and say that those you listed fall into a similar category. However, since the topics where those two are related, while definitely controversial and worth scrutiny, are not recent nor directly related to the modern subjects in the article. I’m not as versed on the Fuhrman topic as I am the other. But your focus on North leads me to believe you are making the comparison based solely on politics to delegitimize the serious points of the article.
I feel Professor Turley was simply pointing out the facts of the situation in both cases. Doing it in a way that anyone (regardless of politics) could understand and discern how Clapper and Gruber lack credibility. You don’t have to have a political bent and/or ideology to see both are poor sources for any news story. Not saying they don’t have something to add to the conversation, but neither should be used as a reason to conclude the truth has been identified and no further debate or investigation need continue.
I would say the same in issues where Fuhrman and North are utilized as news sources.
RFB
I did select North and Fuhrman as I do wonder if he’s ever spoken up about those “gentleman” who are regular contributors on Fox News and routinely asked to provide credibility for news stories quite regularly.
I rather dislike the current trend where any news can be ignored if one can marginalize the source. As none of us are perfect, there is therefore no news which can be considered.
I rather thought the length at which Turley discredited them, Gruber in particular who isn’t accused of lying but of others diminishing his role. Gives permission to ignore their comments and thus prop up the conspiracy. I find Professor Turley’s politics seem more and more to influence his writing and opinions as opposed to the law.
I do wonder if Turley has ever spoken up about Fuhrman or North as they have been giving “expert” status for years.
Unfortunately the Dems/lliberal brought us the Alinskyite method of marginalizing the source (though they don’t actually use political reasoning just attempts to see what the person did in MS and HS 40 years ago or as in Gerald Ford’s case, if they tripped while walking.) As for Gruber, he clearly and recently, made his statements on his belief that the Democrat electorate was too dumb (of course forgetting that the Republican electorate was not so dumb to beleive him/Obama and didn’t vote for it) .
What Clapper and Gruber did is still problematic and impacts every American today. Both think we are easily manipulated, call us stupid and then proceed to pick pocket our data and income. By using them as expects today the media proves it has the same contempt.
I don’t mean to speak to for Professor Turley, but this is about current events. I don’t like to admit that the 80s is history, but it is.
Maybe the lesson we should learn that this isn’t a partisan issue and that the government goes rouge against it’s people. The media is all too willing to forget so they can elevate their own narrative. The media is nothing more than propaganda for whatever agenda suits them at the time. I only pray that war doesn’t suit them.
What is wrong with Mark Furman??? He was a heck of a good detective. Oliver North, OTOH, told some whoppers in defense of higher-ups, so I agree that he is no different than say an Eric Holder, Donna Brazile, or Cheryl Mills when it comes to credibility.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
He did not commit perjury nor did he plant evidence (outside the imagination of the witless jury). He’s a police officer. If he doesn’t have occasion to mix it up with someone now and again, he’s likely spending too much time at the doughnut shop.
You may well believe he didn’t plant evidence. I believe he did and there is a basis for that. As far as perjury, the case for that is perfectly clear. He pled no contest to a felony charge of perjury, was placed on 4-years probation and paid a fine. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-10-03/news/9610030184_1_detective-mark-fuhrman-mr-fuhrman-simpson-civil-trial How is it that this is no longer true?
You may well believe he didn’t plant evidence. I believe he did and there is a basis for that.
Are you accusing his partner as well?
I don’t recall the specifics of the case well enough to accuse anyone else. By the way are you now agreeing that he committed perjury? That’s not an opinion it’s a fact.
dds – someone planted the blood evidence on the socks in the bedroom at Rockingham. The blood was mixed with a preservative used by the LAPD to preserve blood samples. If you remember, van Atter came back to the house with two vial of Simpson’s blood. It should have gone to the lab, not the house.
I repeat, what is wrong with Mark Fuhrman??? He hasn’t done anything every black rapper has, and most other blacks, to boot.
My goodness, are you anti-John Ridley, too???
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a162/esq1206blackessay-108/
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I don’t think I need to go any further than the Perjury you deny he committed although it made him a felon and unable to serve as a police officer. That’s why he has no credibility. He was literally convicted for lying which id directly to the point. As to what “most other blacks” do, I can’t wait to read your link to discover how you’ve classified us.
I confess that you’ve lost me with your train of thought. I was on the topic as to the credibility of Mark Fuhrman and Oliver North. You’re obviously gone some other place without leaving a trail of crumbs.
OK, if you don’t think Fuhrman is credible because he used the “N” word, do you hold a consistent opinion of everybody who uses the “N” word, including John Ridley, who directed 12 Years A Slave (IIRC), who wrote the piece at the link? That is a simple question. Yes, or no. Do you hold black people to the same standard as you hold white people?
FWIW, considering all the hysterical hoopla that occurs when white people say the :”N” word, conflating that act with being a prison guard at Auschwitz or a Sekrit KKK’er or as automatic prima facie evidence of being a racist or something, I don’t blame the guy for lying about it, if that is indeed what he did.
Personally,while I think the “N” word is both rude and impolite, I am unable to think of a better term to describe about 25% or so of the black folks in the country. Thankfully, Taleeb Starkes and John Ridley and others agree with me so I can refute charges of racism. FWIW, I also disdain the use of the “C” word, but can not think of a better term to describe many women in the news.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Thank you for the clarification. I could have gone into further detail as to why I consider Fuhrman racist but I’m sure I’ll never prove to you that he or anyone else meets your definition. As we’re talking about credibility it goes to the belief of the individual as to whether or not that person is credible. Among the secondary reasons is my belief that he’s a racist.
The first and main thing I mentioned was perjury. You’ve now conceded he lied, under oath, on the stand. That you don’t blame him for not doing so does not keep it from being perjury. He’s not credible.
That you cannot think of another way to describe “25% or so of the black folks in the country” as the “N” word somehow is not surprising. Please go on refuting charges of racism, the message you think you’re sending may not be the one being received.
I am certain that my message is not being received by many people. It is much easier to blame those pesky White Folks for all the problems facing certain segments of the black population. After all, as Tommy Sotomayor puts it, blacks are the “retarded children” of the American population, and we can’t blame them for anything they do.
I am sure I instigated several illegitimate black births nine months hence, simply by going to Kroger and buying boxes of teas (hot), and Topo Chico mineral water. I saw several ghettopotamuses and they evil-ly eyed my purchases while they were busy loading up on their generic orange soft drinks, and grape soft drinks, and other 24 can boxes of sugar water in the same aisle as the water. No doubt stung by my “white privilege”, they will return home and seek out new baby daddies for supplemental offspring just to wipe the insult from their minds.
As far as the use of the “N” word, I suggest that you begin using in small doses, perhaps in your bathroom when no one is around. Try this phrase, “The hell with them “N”‘s! I am sick of them and their stupid excuses! Screw ’em!” Try this about 3 or 4 times once a day, and then after about a week or ten days, work yourself up to twice a day. After a week or so of that, go out and buy Taleeb Starkes’ book, “The Uncivil Wars” and start working your way through it. You will find it liberating once you get rid of the “N” Boat Anchor around your neck. All your sociological theories will then start to make sense, and you will start living in the real world. I predict your various racial anxieties will begin to fade. It’s really fun not being “co-dependent”!
Just because it is rude to use the “N” word, that does not mean that there aren’t people to whom it applies.Plus, I notice that you did not bother to give me a better term to describe them.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
To paraphrase the late football coach Denny Green. “You are who i thought you were.” The truly liberating thing I can do is not waste any more of my time conversing with you.
To the rest of you who stand by, watch and say nothing. Consider how the world might be different if you confronted and eradicated racism when you see it? Instead of providing a comfortable home. Take care all!
Squeeky – I
Squeeky – my problem with Fuhrman is that he said under oath that he NEVER said the n word. When it appeared that he casually used it in conversation some 20 times on tape, it was all over for Det. Fuhrman. He has no credibility
@PaulCS
I can’t blame you for feeling the way you do, but I don’t blame Fuhrman for fibbing about it. If somebody asked me if I ever told the joke about what is black and brown and looks good on a Negro, I would deny it too. That would be my story, and I would stick to it.
🙂
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky – Fuhrman was asked several times and even asked “Marine to Marine” and he still denied it. He was dead meat and everything he touched was trash.
@PaulCS
True. But I opt for the Bill Clinton Defense here. Everybody lies about using the “N” word. This is a good video, and even liberals use it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLrTwJekzms
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
enigmainblackcom – I agree with on both North and Fuhrman giving expert testimony.
Why do you object to hearing from either? (Both men were professionals. Fuhrman never held any discretionary appointment or policy-making position. North was seconded to the National Security Council staff for five years, but remained active duty military the whole time).
The issue was credibility. North lost his during Iran-Contra. Furman during the Simpson trial and throughout his career.
‘Credibility’ in what setting?
Lawrence Walsh put a great deal of effort to win a conviction of Col. North. His minions got a jury to consent to three counts of a 23 count indictment, which counts were then vacated by an appellate court. North did tell cock-and-bull stories (most notably about buying a vehicle with saved pocket change) and (it’s a reasonable wager) did violate the law contra accepting unlawful gratuities, and contra maneuvering to frustrate the express intentions of Congress re appropriations, and contra destroying evidence. Was Lawrence Walsh’s ‘credibility’ tarnished by all the grandstanding manifest in securing a set of indictments which were largely unsustainable?
Fuhrman’s problem is that he’s an unpleasant human being (3 divorces, no children) and has an attitude about blacks. If you’re not asking him questions about blacks (or for advice on domestic life), exactly what is his ‘credibility’ problem?