Thanks for the laughs!
Glad I didn’t skip over the intro and hear about all the fantastically talented people who contributed to its wondrousness. /s
1 Like
Remember Judge John Sirica who took on the task of bringing down Nixon in 1974 and prevailed? He was appointed by DDE.
3 Likes
Establishing shot: somewhere in the Arctic, a 1950s-style radio interception station.
Interior, close view: the camera tracks downward over a government-issue paper calendar “From Your Friends In Security”, one month reminding people to lock their safes, next month to not talk to the neighbors, etc. (None of the advice is particularly relevant if you’re stuck in an Arctic radio hut.) The calendar is marked January 20th, 2021.
Shot of two nerdy radio operators.
“Hey chief, it’s after 12pm in DC. Can we add him to the target list now?”
“Sure, if you’ve got your FISA ducks in a row….”
“I’ve got a plan for that.”
The chief sighs. She didn’t sign up for this.
3 Likes
I’d buy that DVD if the pacing was good
2 Likes
In order to access a particular piece of classified information, you must be cleared to see information of that class, and you must have a need to know.
In the case of particularly sensitive information, there may be additional restrictions for clearance beyond just holding confidential/secret/top secret clearances.
1 Like
This explains many of Barr’s decisions.
1 Like
Just raised a degenerate son and covered up for said degenerate son that rapes underage girls on Epstein’s island.
Yep. That’s the beauty of hourly billing, John! I just wish there were someone I could bill it to!
On stale titles
Personally, I think the American vogue for use of government-assigned titles for people who no longer hold the position is gross. That title is stale. There’s only one President; the rest are former Presidents. David Petraeus is not a general, though sadly he once was. Former DDIA Mike Flynn needs to be kept away from defense intelligence.
The MAGA crowd prefers to call him “General Flynn” and you can sorta see the problems from that.
- It treats high-ranking public service as a recognition of personal superiority, rather than a position we entrust to an individual for a limited time.
- It’s authoritarian. We are reminded that “these people are our betters” when stale titles are used.
- This benefits conservatives, as retired military voices trend conservative/authoritarian; they are over-weighted in our national conversations.
- It over-weights the past and its winners. We should generally respect somebody appointed as an ambassador in the 1990s, but the attitudes and positions that got her there may not be popular, appropriate, or useful now.
“General Flynn” gives reverence to winners from the political past, even if the voters have since rejected the positions that got them there.
On breaking Trump
TFG is taking advantage of the “keep your expired title” convention. He and his partisans are allowed to call him “President Trump,” which serves as a dog whistle: normal people hear it like “President Ford”, MAGA hears it as “the actual President, Trump.” It can act like a motte-and-bailey defense: when called on it, lower-level functionaries can say “oh I just meant it like President Ford.”
An awful lot of bullshit MAGA legal theories depend on Trump still being President now (religious sects might say he is just “occulted” during this period). These fringe beliefs can have consequences. MAGA appears to be considering outright voter fraud, and maybe that makes a little sense if you think it’s on behalf of the person who truly and secretly is the President.
I would love to see TFG, under oath, answer the question, “do you believe you are still the President?” Either way he answers it is a disaster.
If he says “no” and does the smirking walkback the next day (“of course I am”) he’s in potential perjury trouble, and the press will have a field day, running around to aides asking “he said no, he said yes, tell us what he really thinks.”
Personally, I think if he is asked “are you the President?” that he should plead the Fifth.
3 Likes
I posted this to another discussion board, an NSA operative responded that they definitely don’t so I’m convinced… 
3 Likes
Ouch! 
1 Like
Yah, because the US system, with Electoral Colleges and the Head of State being combined with the Head of Government, and individual states being allowed to gerrymander the hell out of things, and, etecetcetc is demonstrably so much better…
Every system needs checks and balances, ours are currently a bit out of calibration, but others do seem to be working better (speaking as a Yank now in Quebec setting up in Canada that is in full Provincial election swing). I do have hope that Americans will realize that things are broken and work to fix them, but for the moment I currently have more faith in the system that gave us Betty Windsor than the one that gave us TFG…
Better than hereditary monarchy? Fuck yes.
Let’s have this discussion after we see how the whole TFG thing turns out. I’m prepared to say that the US system worked, once I have evidence that it has done so…
That’s some real bullshit false equivalency there. You’re aware that the U.K. harbors all kinds of supervillain criminals, right? And are you also aware that democratic institutions are superior to hereditary monarchies? No?
I mean, one of their heads of state was buddies with Hitler. At least we made our fascist head of state fuck off to Florida after four years. Theirs had to sulk off to the Caribbean voluntarily because he preferred to get his dick wet with a two-time divorcee.
Personally, I think the American vogue for use of government-assigned titles for people who no longer hold the position is gross.
Amen! I love the expired/stale titles terminology. And yes it’s gross. And confusing like when “Ambassador Bolton” was in the thick of the scheme to oust the actual ambassador to Ukraine
4 Likes
That latter part gets ignored way too often. And “need to know” does not mean want to know, or pruriently interested in, or wanting to feel important by knowing. As soon as the clocked ticked to 20 January 2021 12:00:00.000 EST, Trump DID NOT HAVE A NEED TO KNOW.
3 Likes
Are you sure you’re not putting too much weight on the “hereditary monarchy” thing? The U.K. is a democracy, and there’s plenty of corruption (and nazis) to go around on both sides of the pond.
You’re right that the monarchy is hereditary, and that the members of the royal family benefit from privileges that have no basis in a democracy. But they have little or no effect on governance.
In reality, the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. – hereditary monarchies all – are run by democratic institutions that are different from ours – being Westminster parliamentary type – but no less democratic than ours.[1]
(Just to be clear, I am hopeful that the monarchy will pass away in this generation or the next. I don’t care for it. But I don’t think it changes the democratic nature of these countries.)
[1] Ok, Australia is a little bit different, but close enough and no less democratic.
1 Like
Entirely sure. Hereditary monarch is very bad regardless of who sits the throne or whether they have any practical power.
Imagine a United States President being required to go meet with George Washington’s patrilineal descendent every week or so.
The Sex Pistols were right. It should not be controversial.
Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that the hereditary monarchy in the U.K. made it less of a democratic country. I got that impression when you said:
And are you also aware that democratic institutions are superior to hereditary monarchies?
Since you didn’t respond to anything I said about how the U.K., Canada, etc. really are democratic countries (which was pretty much the entirety of my post), I take it we agree on that.
As for the rest, I agree the monarchy is pointless and archaic. And I don’t understand the emotional attraction it has for the Brits, etc. (That’s why I said I hope it passes away soon.)
1 Like