The optics of this is corrupt

FBI agents who raided Trump were under investigation by Durham: "should have recused"

Comment upon link

At the very, very least, these agents ( and officials) should have recused themselves from this raid.

There is more about the raid from TechnoFog substack. But no link available. Also Mark Levin comments. In my opinion, the entire GOP caucus should rise up in unison in protest of this. It would be telling for those who do not.

BTW, the title of this post is the understatement of the year...

A new low has been established, I'd say. Another understatement.

Dan Bongino Show number 1828

comment: Plenty more about the raid.





More commentary on the Bongino Show 8-11-22

As of this writing, I've seen about 75% of the show for today. Didn't see all of it.

The thing that caught my eye was that bit about these "confidential human sources" that the FBI is said to have used as a basis for this raid. Bongino called it a "spy". Language is important. I think some people will see that word, and pass over it thinking that it is just partisan sniping.

But there's no doubt that this is the same pattern as before. A confidential human source in Trump's household? Really? Who is it? The cleaning lady? Why would the cleaning lady know anything? It is quite relevant as to who this is. How do we know that it is actually a legitimate source?

Recently there was a kerfuffle in the J6th committee regarding something that Trump was alleged to have done. It turns out that this was hearsay. She didn't have first hand information of any kind. She wasn't even there. Yet the committee treating it so, so seriously. You know what? This is just speculation here, but I have a suspicion that the whole thing is made-up bravo-sierra. There isn't a "confidential human source". A confidential human source has to be someone who is in the position to know. Doubtful it could be someone in the household. Very doubtful.

The warrant is sealed, and it has been alleged that the lawyers weren't allowed a copy, and Trump may or may not have received it. That has been denied, in fact, by Trump's son Eric.

Finally, for this comment, Bongino mentions that the SECRET SERVICE secured the locker. Are they somehow accusing the SECRET SERVICE too? The fact that they looked all over the place for something must mean that they really didn't know where it was. Or whatever it was that they were looking for. Bongino notes that they have to swear an oath that a crime was committed in order to obtain a warrant. The group doing the raid seem to be obfuscating a few things for this to be considered on the up and up. If it is on the up and up, why shut down the security cameras? Why refuse to give a copy of the warrant, which is required? Why kick Trump's lawyers out?

Bongino cites the law that the liberals are salivating over. They have to show "willful" behavior. It would be hard to prove that in any court of law, which follows any reasonable basis for proof of facts. Perhaps they are counting on a biased jury to convict Trump of whatever they want to believe that he is accused of doing? I wouldn't trust these people further than I can throw Mount Everest. The voters in DC go 90 percent in favor of Democrats. You don't get these kind of numbers in anything but totalitarian states. Trump would NOT get a fair trial, nor any other Republican. You cannot convict anyone in that jurisdiction, if it is a Democrat, but you can convict anybody you want of anything you claim because there isn't any fair expectation of justice there in DC--especially political adversaries.

Just the News' reports on Trump raid

John Solomon:Questions grow about Trump raid

Key points:

1) GSA sent boxes of documents that may have had classified docs. Federal agents have already gone through Trump's stuff once before with respect to Grand Jury subpoena. Did the Judge know about this history?

2) Judge recused himself in Trump lawsuit against Hillary. Is it an admission of partiality against Trump? Questions.

3) Trump wasn't disputing or opposing the demands. He was cooperating. He was asked to secure a locker with a lock, and he complied with that request. Why the need for 40 agents in a raid?

4) There are other oddities in the timetable, tha article says.

5) A vague reference about somebody accessing it in 2022 ( when?, the Feds were there in June). Also, that there may be more documents, according to some unidentified source.

Comment:

The article ends abruptly with the question "have you no decency?" This question was from the McCarthy era, and it relates to some questionable conduct which got McCarthy censured. Who is Solomon referring to?

So, the GSA "mistakenly" sends classified docs along with Trump's personal belongings when Trump left the White House. A Grand Jury subpoenas Trump for the docs, and Trump complies. Next we hear about a confidential human source who claims that there are still docs there, and ??? The affadavit is sealed. Eric Trump says they don't have the warrant, and the lawyers were told to leave. It's being reported that Trump HAS the warrant. Does he or doesn't he have the warrant, and why is it sealed?

It appears to be reported that Biden and Merrick Garland are claiming not to have known about the raid. The Press Secretary was asked, and refused to comment. Why wouldn't they know? Who's minding the store?

Laws of Stupidity and the fate of nations

With respect to the recent post on the Laws of Stupidity, what use could be made of them? If you were to divide it into two classes, micro and macro, it might be possible to discuss it in public forums. For who would want to bare all their dirty laundry?

So it is with macro applications of these. In particular, it seems that in politics these days, there are good examples of stupidity that can be cited. The most recent ones are those amongst the GOP who support the Democrats in the efforts to turn this into a one party dictatorship. In particular, the infamous J6 committee. It is likely to cost Liz Cheney of her job. It has definitely caused her loss of position within the GOP leadership. She was the third ranking member of the Party in the House.

This allows a segue into the discussion of what is harmful, and thus stupid. It is the harm that is caused to others, and to oneself that makes this definition of stupid in this context. Cheney harmed herself. She will not be compensated for her loss. Clearly, she has stirred up extraordinary amounts of resentment amongst the GOP rank and file. This cannot help her politically. It is foolish of her to expect to be compensated by the Democrats. The Democrats would prefer one of their own. They will only tolerate her as long as she is useful to them. Her behavior fits what the communists used to say of people who were useful to them, only to be jettisoned later. To them, those kind of people were "useful idiots".

Cheney and Kinzinger certainly fill that bill. What can compensate them for this loss of position? It isn't going to be replaced by the Democrats, unless they become full-fledged left wingers. If they become that, then they'll just be one of many. Cheney was near the top. There's nothing that can compensate for that. Truly her move was really DUMB.

Cheney could trot out "patriotism", but this is doubtful. She is casting her lot with people who are antagonistic to the word. The left's idea of patriotism is to worship them and them alone. This explains their hysterical reaction to any kind of opposition at all. "Thou shalt not disobey the Party's latest line" might as well be on the list of commandments. In a full-fledged totalitarian state, wrong-speak can get you imprisioned or executed. There is no guarantee that this still could happen to these useful idiot types. Cooperation with these ruthless types might well get you swallowed up by the tiger.

Stupidity can indeed be dangerous. The fate of nations can be affected by the stupidity of its leaders. Cheney was one of those. Fortunately for the GOP, they caught their error in time. But she could still be re-elected. In order to accomplish that, she will need Democrat votes. Not many in the GOP can stomach her any further. Democrats can stomach her in a race in which they have no hope of winning anyway.

Events are moving in the direction of a one-party dictatorship. The Bill of Rights is being shredded in the mad pursuit of absolute power. There is no telling what may be the end result of J6th. Democracies and Republics have been brought down only to be replaced by dictatorships and war. Could that be happening to the USA? What then would be on the tombstone? Died by stupidity? Could be.

Revisit Laws of Stupidity

 

Revisit Laws of Stupidity

This post may be quite brief, as I am breaking in a new computer. It is proving to be less than a seamless transition.

The Laws of Stupidity set forth in the video at the link above, is a sociological and analytical "tool", so to speak. Revisiting it because it may be useful in some way. According to the video, stupidity cannot be helped, so maybe ignorance can. If you know where somebody may be coming from, in terms of this theory, it may help in understanding that person.

Stupidity defined is the effect one's actions have on oneself and others. The effect can be beneficial or harmful. Thus, stupid acts don't benefit anybody; neither the person doing it, nor those affected by the acts. Stupid actions are said to be dangerous because they are unpredictable. Actions of intelligent people tend to follow incentives. Stupid people don't seem to act that way. Their acts are harmful to themselves and others. No doubt that it can at least seem dangerous that a person cannot be influenced by incentives, and their actions can be harmful.

You can guard against the bad effects of "bad" people who do harmful things provided that their acts are following some sort of incentive.

The bad person can be deterred, but the stupid person cannot. There are two other types of people. There are "helpless" people who get harmed, but don't harm others. Perhaps they could be helped with education. The fate of nations may be determined by how many of those who engage in win-win actions. These are the people who engage in actions that not only help themselves, but help others. This is the ideal. If a society doesn't deter bad actors, and doesn't produce enough "win-win" intelligent types; and at the same time do nothing about the stupid ones, that society is in trouble.

Since "win-win" is the ideal sort of behavior, perhaps one could aspire to it. Even if you fail, you won't be stupid, or evil. At worst, you may be one of the "helpless" types.