I have to wonder if this snip above is indicative of all your other posts on this issue.Please stop implying that Nick's objections and arguments are on account of some "debt to Grover" because I might start to think this is your modus operandi, to take one statement out of context (which you just did) and attempt to make it appear nefarious. It isn't. No one is in a position to defend Grover, except Grover. You may not like that Nick is questioning this issue, but don't make this into some obligation to defend Grover. I can bet you that Grover Norquist doesn't know who "Nick Danger" is.
|
I offered: Nick Danger: Be careful here. I am not "defending Norquist" from things he actually did, if in fact they were wrong. I am not on some mission here to claim that he is pure in all of this. I don't claim to know. What I do know is that this document which has been presented to us as containing "documented facts" contains a whole bunch of documented facts that don't tell us anything, but are being presented as if they are some sort of damning indictment. HERE
When Gaffney wants to come out and write this piece, questions will be asked about his motives, his evidence and his facts. On the other hand, you are are trying to create suspicion about Nick's objections (when none exists and the extent of any FRN "relationship" with Norquist has been fully stated and demonstrated to be casual and innocuous at best) and insinuate that his questions and his argument is motivated by some allegiance that doesn't exist.
So while there are no nefarious motives to Nick's objections, there are questions surrounding Gaffney's focus on Grover rather then say...the WH. If there is such a security issue here, I'd think the people to talk to and persuade would be the WH. It would be rather simple to just have Grover's access cut off, if the WH thought there was some kind of threat.
If you ask me, the fact that there seems to be some horrible intelligence breakdown at the highest levels of government is the REAL BIG DEAL HERE.
And don't even try and ascribe my questions above to being a "defense of Grover." They aren't, I have no idea what Grover's defense or response is. I'm not here to defend his choice to associate with purported terrorists. But I am here to question why the WH lets this go on. Any influence he has is because the WH grants it to him. Grover could be marginalized in a New York minute. That isn't happening and I have to ask why.