Posted on 06/17/2018 5:38:33 PM PDT by rlmorel
including tickets to sporting events,
golfing outings,
drinks and meals,
and admittance to nonpublic social events...” The root of a lot of the problems are leaks to the media. There were a lot of people at the FBI accepting gifts. It goes without saying what effect that most likely DID have with leaked information. Like a pedophile grooming a target, the Media was laying its groundwork with bribes.
Excellent rlmorel
bravo and thank you
“I simply cannot bring myself to believe that our Republic is over yet. I can’t. But if I accept your outlook...than I have to admit that to myself. I just can’t do it yet.”
That’s not what I am saying. I don’t think the USA is over by a long shot.
My point is that a Swamp cleanup is not going to come from the legal process, or from a post-Watergate reform like Inspector Generals.
It has to come from elected politicians defunding, breaking up and abolishing institutions.
The Swamp is bureaucracy. Kill their institutions and they are nothing.
In his second term, Andrew Jackson abolished the central bank of the United States. That’s the scale of change that no Swamp can sabotage.
I watched Bongino’s video - thanks for summarizing the key points!
WHO is the “WE” that Strozk is talking about?? “WE” means a CONSPIRACY!
BINGO!! WHAT is in Weiner’s “LIFE INSURANCE” File??? THAT seems to be the KEY that NO ONE wants to discuss or open! WHY NOT?
Also, it’s a way of SELLING STATE SECRETS without getting her hands dirty. WHY did all that money flow into the Clinton Crime Family Slush Fund?? So many countries paid MILLIONS....WHY the HELL didn’t they do it themselves??
Good job - too many are still confused and thinking it was a nothing burger....
Thank you for taking the time to put together this helpful summary. I was so discouraged the other day after hearing from the likes of the smug Chuck Schumer (If I could have slapped his face off I would have); your post was a relief to read.
One of my main takeaways from Dan Bongino’s and your summary was a reminder of how loathsome is the media. Ugh.
Thanks again!
Thank you, almost as soon as I posted it, I thought “That isn’t it!”
"...This OIG result proves that the Swamp cannot reform itself, and only wholesale firings and institution abolition/restructuring will do it..."
But perhaps Trump, with his Bully Pulpit and the aid of some steadfast Patriots, can...:)
I love Bongino’s show. It’s high intensity, but you can learn more in that one hour than you will ever get from 3 hours of Limbaugh.
I did not remember her, and had to look her up.
While I don’t have as much of a problem with her declassifying information about tests on American citizens and the reduction in size of the DOE, I do take issue with her “re-purposing” it for renewable energy.
I did not factor in the Chinese spy in that.
Another Democrat-another case of a Clinton-styled grifter using her position to live a lifestyle of the rich and famous on the taxpayer dime.
How I detest those people.
I view Limbaugh and Bongino as being two contributors to a valuable whole. Rush delivers as you say, a far more sedate and somewhat predictable commentary on leftism, conservatism, how they relate, and their impact on society.
Bongino brings a quite different package of information to the table. He only has an hour, and he is about 75% focused on the spying scandal and the other 25% on economics and the fights conservatives must engage in with the left, which is perfect for me.
I look forward to his podcast every day. I enjoy the “high intensity” he delivers it in, and the humor in which it is often done...”Joey Bag o’ Donuts” indeed!
I don't really see it that way, except for one thing: The 'old' media often presents important and useful information inadvertently...and people like those I mentioned are able to tease it out and present it, I am sure, to the anger and consternation of the 'old' media who were unaware they were giving out information that contradicts their viewpoints. It has the brilliant side effect of buttressing OUR point of view, when it is THEM providing the information. Sometimes they provide that information unknowingly, and sometimes they try to present it in such a way that they hope nobody picks up on it. But when Dan Bongino can support a conservative point of view with information gleaned from information released by The Washington Post or the NYT, it not only makes his point even stronger (Leftists can't just say "You got that from a right wing source!") but it also pokes their eye with their own finger and makes them angry...all good things for us.
You look at the 'new' media in people like Bongino, Ross, and Carlson (just to name three examples I used) it is true you can take them and plug them into roles played in traditional networks but that is as far as it goes, because they all act as interchangeable, nearly disconnected pieces, except for the fact that they are plumbing the depths of information and context of the same issue in somewhat the same time frame, and using each other's work to weave a larger narrative. People like Bongino, Rush, and Levin may provide the opinion part that the larger public can understand, but that is important, because information in a vacuum is completely worthless.
And that larger narrative is often far more valuable than anything those three people could put together independently. And those three people are not always the same like they would be at ABC or the NYT. Sometimes it is Dan Bongino and Jeff Carlson. Sometimes it is Rush Limbaugh and Chuck Ross. Sometimes it is Heather MacDonald and Mark Levin. And so on.
I view it as much the same dynamic that I see and appreciate here on FR, when a subject comes up, it is exposed to a lot of different people with different perspectives and different areas of expertise (or no area of expertise at all!) put their heads together and discuss issues.
If it is a military issue, you are sure to get people who have a better understanding of various aspects than the general public, and may actually have real experience.
Same with everything from financial to archaeology. Granted, there is a lot of blather mixed in, but that is the price to be paid for large scale un-disciplined approach to analyzing issues, but...the truth will generally out, or something closer to the real truth than anything we will get from that small group of "analysts" at CNN or NBC who have a specific agenda and viewpoint they wish to present to passive viewers.
You are most welcome...I felt exactly the same way.
The media wants this IG report to be nothing, because they are complicit. Same with the Dems, for obvious reasons.
I wonder...has Schumer been out front downplaying the report because...there are things on the Anthony Weiner laptop that relate to him?
I think people are catching on. Gee, has Trump already tweeted about the FBI accepting bribes from the media?
If Trump DID tweet something like that, it would show them in an undeniably undesirable light...and people would get it INSTANTLY!
Glad you found it useful, bitt!
You are most welcome. I have so many Freepers who provide this kind of context and reference point for me, that I feel my contributions are all largely one-sided. If I can give someone else what I get from FR, that is gratifying to me.
I know. I look at this and try to keep in mind it in context and keep my expectations realistic. I am optimistic by nature, and often subject to ‘unrealistic’ expectations.
I had listened to that with some interest...I do think it is an avenue.
And we know President Trump listens to Dan Bongino, since he quoted him directly in his Tweets! Why not Levin?
I have always suspected that Trump reads FR too, or at least some people close to him do...:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.