So the other night as I was watching CNN I had a revelation. CNN? My excuse was that I was at the gym, working off a cross-country plane flight, and CNN is right next to the NFL Network on the row of TVs.
Not many people watch CNN anymore. However, for those who are the “right” (or I should say “Left”) people, CNN and other media outlets serve as the rear guard protecting the retreating rout of the broken post-election leftist army. As such they are worth watching, though perhaps not as much as the replay of last year’s 49ers-Packers game on the TV next to it.
I have to admit I stopped watching the game, started focusing on CNN, and then ended up applauding a master stroke of intrigue that would have rivaled that of the royal courts of old.
So keep in mind that the rule of thumb for the human mind to remember something is to develop it within a pattern, usually of “3”; after all, it was Goldfinger who said: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” In politics as in business, if you show something is happening in sets of three, people start to draw inferences.
The only tactic the Left has left at the moment is to attack Trump’s nominees, and the basic technique is clear: go after them as inexperienced outsiders (rather than seasoned swamp creatures) who have some major ethical problems. The Left got the Republican squishes in the Senate to deep-six Matt Gaetz for (sketchy) allegations that he was using recess appointments as dating opportunities.
The next one up? Pete Hegseth, who is being given the Kavanaugh treatment with allegations of sexual assault dug up from a distant past — allegations that were investigated and dismissed by law enforcement. The next hit on Hegseth was from years ago during his time in the service when someone alleged that his Jerusalem Cross tattoo was a white supremacist symbol. Of course the tattoo still exists, and ontologically speaking you don’t need to have some strange past allegation to determine whether a tattoo is white supremacist in nature or not (hint, it is not) as opposed to simply looking at it.
I should add that it is nice of the media to do more investigating into Hegseth’s past during the past two weeks than they did of Biden over the past five years.
Note to CNN and the New York Times: Hegseth has a strange tattoo on his right arm that strikes me as insurrectionist. It says “We the People.”
Number three? I was thinking it would be RFK, Jr. but now I’m thinking it’s Tulsi Gabbard.
This past August several Homeland Security whistleblowers revealed that Gabbard had been placed on a security watchlist (Quiet Skies).
A few things to note here. First, she was apparently put on the list because her past travel had tripped parts of an algorithm.
However, in this case not only was she was placed on the list (though still allowed to board planes), she was followed on each flight by at least five DHS personnel. This wasn’t just some algorithmic glitch: DHS was throwing a lot of resources over an extended period of time to surveil somebody. To put it another way: DHS was putting in a lot more effort to surveil somebody who they knew was not only an officer in the US military, but also a former Congresswoman and presidential candidate, than they did somebody who was part of a notorious Venezuelan gang and who DHS was flying for free to Georgia on his way to murdering Laken Riley.
This was no accident. Gabbard thought it was done to intimidate her after she criticized Kamala Harris, but I think it was more than that.
Getting put on a watchlist is just like any other serious allegation — it stays on your “record,” waiting like a bureaucratic Kraken to rise from the sea into the public eye when the right time comes. It doesn’t matter whether the allegation has any validity, its mere existence is enough to cast doubt on an individual.
While Gabbard didn’t formally join the Republican Party until last month, it was obvious for months that she was going to play a role in a future Trump administration. Having someone in Trump’s entourage on a security watchlist, no matter how bogus, is worth some political coin.
So, on CNN that night they spent an entire segment discussing Gabbard, the ”Quiet Skies” watchlist, and her subsequent fitness to be the Director of National Intelligence. The guests? Everyone’s favorite Never Trumper, a man of complete objectivity, John Bolton. He was followed by John Pistole, former deputy director of the FBI and head of TSA. I guess putting on Andrew McCabe, another CNN talking head, would have given the game away.
Both Bolton and Pistole separately expressed concern over Gabbard’s fitness to be DNI because, after all, if she was on a watchlist then by definition she had to have done something suspicious.
Not only this but the Left and their media auxiliaries have been driving home a narrative that according to “national security officials” Gabbard is a security risk due to her links to Russia.
If you are keeping count, we are now up to #2 on Gabbard, As far as #3? The pattern setter? They’ll point to her “lack of experience in the intelligence field” as the clincher, proving that she’s unqualified. It’s coming.
Who’s the target of this operation? Not Trump, he knows how the game is played. More than likely it’s going to be the squishy part of the GOP Senate caucus. Hinderaker at Power Line cited this quote regarding incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune:
“John Thune is not Mitch McConnell. I think what was interesting about our candidate forum the Monday night before the vote is it was pretty much repudiation of Mitch McConnell’s one man dictatorship,” the senator revealed. “It truly was. I mean, there was not much of a difference in terms of how Cornyn, Thune, or Rick Scott spoke, in terms of how they wanted to be a leader,” he said, describing all three of them as “far more collaborative, engaging the conference in developing a strategy…
There was a lot to dislike about McConnell, but the one thing he did was keep the caucus together on several big issues such as the Supreme Court and the Democrats’ 2021 reconciliation bill. Senate caucuses are an entropic lot — it’s not the House, and McConnell got his over the years to hold tight through some (though not all) tough battles.
Then there is Thune and the upcoming “collaborative” development of strategy? Oh, boy.
They’re going to go after Gabbard, fueled by lies and smears, and they are going to try and get some GOP senators to break.
Anyone here believe that her placement on a Quiet Skies list was on the level?
They’re going to go after Gabbard, fueled by lies and smears, and they are going to try and get some GOP senators to break.
Bingo.
That strategy would be sad and pathetic except for the ugly fact that it may well succeed.
No wait- it’s still sad and pathetic, just like the GOP establishment.
It’s pitiful to watch these GOP senators- I’m specifically thinking of James Lankford- go on CNN and pretend that these baseless accusations are actual serious charges, as if Bill Clinton never met Juanita Broderick and told her to put ice on her bruises, or Tara Reade hadn’t been forced to flee to Russia. This isn’t 1950 and the standards have changed, courtesy of the endless depravity from the left. The electorate has noticed. If not, Donald Trump wouldn’t have been elected president the first time, let alone been re-elected. Twice.
So, on CNN that night they spent an entire segment discussing Gabbard, the ”Quiet Skies” watchlist, and her subsequent fitness to be the Director of National Intelligence. The guests? Everyone’s favorite Never Trumper, a man of complete objectivity, John Bolton.
Was Liz Cheney unavailable? And when did John Bolton become someone the 50,000 or so primetime CNN viewers would take seriously?
Never mind, I don’t care. If the democrat party had anything better to offer the public than endless lies and clever gotchas they wouldn’t have been reduced to this. FDR founded this political dynasty promising a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage. The public was quite enthusiastic. The cabal who chose Kamala Harris watched her promise sex changes for illegal immigrants- and still picked her as their candidate. The public chose the convicted felon.
Senators- including James Lankford- should notice that and ponder which way the wind is blowing.
For this to be plausible the D’s would have had to know that they were going to lose, and lose badly. This is not a strategy where the resources are worth the outcome if you think you will hold either the power of nomination or the power of confirmation. One wonders…..how bad were the internal polls for each side and how early did they become stunning? I suspect that once Trump rose up from the stage after being shot, that it was all over. Doubt it? Go back over the last month of the campaign and see how light hearted and optimistic Trump and Vance were. They were having fun. Harris and her minions? Oh my, not nearly so much despite the attempt to manufacture Joy out ex nihilo. I can see why HarrisCo does not want to leak any numbers, as they are still groveling before their Donor Class. But hopefully we’ll get numbers from an “unnamed source” in the Trump campaign. And they will be astonishing….
Xennady – Yes I’m thinking specifically of Lankford
Tacitus – Far-fetched? Let’s walk it through from the other side.
First, this wasn’t like “Do No Fly” where simply a list is generated, it is as we both agree a considerable use of resources taken for active measures.. Numerous people are assigned over a period of weeks with all the paperwork and money (think travel vouchers) , reports are filed, decisions made on how to proceed, How many people at DHS realized that they were following Tulsi Gabbard? Simply office politics would dictate that someone would pass the buck upstairs to protect their jobs, demanding that they be authorized to continue, given the risk involved maybe to the upper reaches of DHS.
Let’s put it another way, if you and I were air marshals in a Trump DHS and we were suddenly following Adam Kinzinger we would be looking for political top cover.
So there is the alternative explanation that Gabbard proposes, that yes this was a dirty trick but only because she had criticized Kamala. That seems a little much though if you believe someone had reached the end of their political career, the world is full of ex-congressional critters; possible perhaps, because after all it’s not like it was the DHS officials themselves using their own money to send the air marshals and my guess is that their protestations to contrary oversight is probably a but light.
Also Gabbard never knew she was followed over that period of time until those DHS whistleblowers spilled the beans. I should also add that it’s not clear why she was put in the Quiet Skies then, the scuttlebutt was over a flight to Syria but that happened more than 7 years ago.
No I keep coming back to this was a political dirty trick and even given the slight risk that it would be exposed, If it wasn’t to knee cap her a future nominees then it was to degrade her effectiveness as a dissident, most likely in service of Trump whether a nominee or not. There was a slight risk for DHS/TSA in pursuing this because she is a name and so there would have to be a pay-off; note she was never notified of being on the list (no one is) and names drop off over a period of weeks after being investigated but your permanent mark is forever
They didn’t have to know she was going to be a nominee, being a dissident was enough.
There is a saying that politics is Hollywood for ugly people, well it is in the sense that DC works a lot like TMZ or just plain court politics, An accusation, not matter whether what the source or its credibility, is shorn from those roots and floats like a free radical. Once accused it always attached to your name and if it is to the benefit of a dominant faction it will be used to attack to you; as long as it is expedient to do so; Kavanuagh was once accused of r*pe, Trump convicted of felonies, Hesgeth of being a white supremacist, and now Gabbard on Quiet Skies.
Open question, if Gabbard wasn’t a presidential appointee could she still get a security clearance?
She’s got it on her permanent record and it provides the “hook” for all the public speculation that follows. In fact I would like to know who those DHS whitsleblowers were who inserted that information into the public domain.
Bolton is a weasel, but he has the past appointments that lends his utterances authority. His comments and those of Pistole though provide the cover, the hook for the press to go wild and out “compromised” and “controversial” next to her name. As such Trump is going to have spend some political capital to fight for her, I expect he will.
The hint of cracks have developed in the Senate with Senate Republicans promising to ask her alot of questions
To the original decision to put her on “Open Skies”? It could have been just a warning to others, people think twice about assuming that type of political liability being attached to their name
However this is how dirty tricks work. You see it with Hesgeth as well, past accusations create an opening for larger doubts to open and all of the sudden those weak-knees Senate Republicans need to make a decision whether they want to support “controversial” nominees.
So to switch gears, it is now up to Thune to hold the line against these smear campaigns. Collaborative strategic leadership isn’t going to get it done
Mike
If you accept the premise that, to these people, money is no object and any risks are minimal ’cause “D”, then sure. They can expend resources and what remains of their dwindling credibility to harass down to Republicans at the level of school boards. Hmmmmm. That premise does seem to hold up fairly well.
Well Hillary accused Tulsi of being a Russian agent and John Brennan said “people are innocent until alleged to be involved in some type of criminal activity.” What more do you need? She must be guilty of something!
Lankford was a fool in the russia scam and has not learned anything in the intervening 7 years
Mullins who covered up michael byrds shooting of ashley babbitt who out right lied about gaetz isnt much better
Its the same dynamic cummings faced against the anti brexit tories
What they are really against is Trump’s desire to stop the endless wars (and endless contracts). Gabbard is a Trump asset in this effort, hence she is a target. This is an appointment, more than any other, that needs to be a line in the sand for Trump.
Matt Taibbi and Walter Kirn took up the Tulsi Gabbard story this past Monday (note after I had already posted), from 39:30 to 1:00:00
Richard…”What they are really against is Trump’s desire to stop the endless wars (and endless contracts)”
I think there will be at least as much military spending in a Trump administration as there would have been in a Harris administration, and that’s true even if there are no major conflicts requiring US participation. There is plenty of ship construction, replenishment of munitions stockpiles, development of new counter-drone and counter-hypersonic systems to be done. If I’m running Raytheon (now ridiculously named RTX), I don’t need to encourage wars as a business development effort.
Seems kind of ironic that a former candidate for POTUS, in the D party, can now be attacked as too ‘inexperienced’ for the position as head of the DNI. Can be “Commander in Chief” of ALL Armed Forces, but incapable of the DNI post.
Logic. Ummh. No.
meanwhille in the real world, al queda, well they call themselves the Army of Conquest, is seizing sizable section of Syria, with Aleppo in the West, and Hamas in the center, Damascus under threat toward the South, a reclaiming of the Ummayad glory of sorts, partially it’s one of the dominos of the fall of Hezbollah, as regional enforcer, but largely the pincer movement of Turkey serving as proxy for Qatar