Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: "Fourth Branch of Government" part two 21
The point of today's post is to speculate that the SSCI is staffed by Senators upon whom there is some amount of kompromat.
Every member of the [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI)] is compromised in some controlling manner. Those Senators who disliked the control over them; specifically disliked because the risk of sunlight was tenuous and, well, possible; have either left completely or stepped down from the committee. None of the SSCI members past or present would ever contemplate saying openly what their tenure involved.
[Note: You might remember when Vice-chairman Mark Warnerâ(TM)s text messages surfaced there was a controlled Republican SSCI member who came to his defense in February of 2018. It was not accidental that exact senator later became the chair of the SSCI himself. That republican senator is Marco Rubio, now vice-chair since the Senate re-flipped back to the optics of Democrat control in 2021.]
The evidence offered is purely circumstantial. It should be noted that the author, Sundance, especially hates Mitch McConnell.
But the point, and I think it's cogent, is that were one to have leverage on a bipartisan group of Senators (a possibility) that are on the SSCI, that would be a powerful lever indeed.
What is it he wants them to talk about? (Score:2)
Those Senators who disliked the control over them; specifically disliked because the risk of sunlight was tenuous and, well, possible; have either left completely or stepped down from the committee. None of the SSCI members past or present would ever contemplate saying openly what their tenure involved.
I'm not an expert on Senatorial matters. I took a quick look at the wikipedia entry on the SSCI [wikipedia.org] to get an idea what this committee is about. Is your friend alleging that there is more on the todo list of the SSCI than setting intelligence budgets and issuing occasional reports? The only chair I can find who was kicked out was Richard Burr, who was thrown out for insider trading (which most people I know would like to see treated equally as much as a crime for the powerful as for the proletariat).
This
Re: (Score:1)
He's on "Q", and you're on "Russia! Russia! Russia!"
"False equivalency"? Not at all. Same group of people are doing both, and antifa/BLM/proud boys/patriot front, one big happy family to keep that 98% reelection rate going.
These distractions have turned out to be very effective. The propaganda machine is working perfectly.
To tell the truth, I don't know what he's complaining about this time, getting a bit cryptic. But if it's about lack of oversight, well that is a big problem, we should demand much more, b
Re: (Score:2)
He's on "Q", and you're on "Russia! Russia! Russia!"
I think you're placing more emphasis on Russia than I had intended. I mentioned it only because it was in the wikipedia entry. Had I read a different source on the Senate committee I might not have seen that and I wouldn't have mentioned it. We accepted years ago that Trump was a blithering idiot and that he only won the presidency because of the combination of fortunate bounces for himself; damned near any other democrat would have won easily. The Russian assistance is not of any great concern now tha
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not convinced by your argument for a collaboration there.
Ok, complicity... Sorry you feel that way, but DNC/GOP is a single party that in the last election won 98.3%. The 98% reelection rate in congress has been going on for decades. Public tribalism is carefully cultivated. There are no "crossed lines", there is only power sharing. If there were opposition, the filibuster would be dead and bills would become law. The same blame game played twelve years ago is being played today. And it just fuels the "Q" bonfire
Re: (Score:2)
there is only power sharing
If there was explicit power sharing then why hasn't anything substantial been accomplished in years? If they were of one mind as you suggest, then it should be really easy for them to accomplish whatever they want. Instead they bicker and get nowhere.
Certainly it is accepted that one thing powerful people want more than anything is to keep their power. However beyond that your conspiracies are hardly more sensible than the ones smitty has been sharing lately.
Re: (Score:1)
If there was explicit power sharing then why hasn't anything substantial been accomplished in years?
What are you talking about? 98% reelection rates, and for 40 years or more are big accomplishments. That is their goal, not all that silly stuff you read in the papers.
Certainly it is accepted that one thing powerful people want more than anything is to keep their power.
Yes, once again, reelection, as rubber stamps for the financial industry, is the goal. There is nothing else to read into it. No great conspiracies, just shared mutual interests, a symbiotic process. Get your head out of the tabloids.
Re: (Score:1)
The Russian assistance is not of any great concern now that he's out of office.
It was a distraction since the very beginning. That is its entire intent. (Trump was already blaming them for "fixing" it for Clinton before the election) Trump won for the corrupt machine politics of the "opposition" that not a single democrat will acknowledge, nothing to do with "Russia", or anything else. This is their fantasy to divert attention
And present day "compromise" by the dems could very well hand it all back to him. They are repeating all the same "mistakes", including this damn "Russia" shtick
Re: (Score:2)
If you say so.
I'm unsure that anyone in Soviet Russia felt their shtick was true, either, and one day it quit working.
Re: (Score:1)
If you say so.
98.3% went to the DNC/GOP. Those numbers will repeat for the foreseeable future. The Russians are still in the headlines over our domestic issues. The propaganda machine is flawless.
I'm unsure that anyone in Soviet Russia felt their shtick was true, either, and one day it quit working.
What does that have to do with the price of rice?
Re: (Score:2)
"If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Um, yeah, nothing goes forever.. and? Usually, it is replaced by something else. The beat goes on... forever?
Re: (Score:2)
And I think the heart of that machine is where Sundance is headed.
Re: (Score:1)
Wall Street? I doubt it. He's following the theatrics, not the money.
Re: (Score:2)
Your arguments seem as greased eels on meth.
Re: (Score:1)
Money and theatrics are tools. You still have yet to show a single instance of separation between wealth/power (spelling and pronunciation don't count), but don't give up the effort. Someday you will learn there is only one way out of the monkey trap
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the blatantly obvious dictionary definitions characterizing the overlapping but disjoint nature of the terms, riddle me this: Her Majesty had vast amounts of both money and power in 2016, and yet couldn't drag her carcass across the finish line ahead of the Citrus Caesar?
Can you be more ambiguous?
Re: (Score:1)
What makes you think she is in opposition? She's our next Henry Kissinger, with more power than six presidents in a row. She thanks you all for your support.
Can you be more ambiguous?
Gee! Can I be any more obvious? Let go of the nut (your silly ideas), and you'll be free
Re: (Score:2)
But I have met more than one person who claimed to have worked in/around the WH during the 90s who didn't seem onboard with your point and vehemently opposed the lady.
Re: (Score:1)
What makes you think I don't oppose her? I wouldn't vote for her any more than I would for Trump. They are two matched bookends on an empty bookshelf. Theirs is probably the most symbiotic relationship in modern politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)