Devin Nunes, Truthteller
Devin Nunes spent a remarkable four and a half minutes speaking with Maria Bartiromo yesterday morning. What was remarkable was that he spoke directly and in simple language and spoke the truth. A lot of Americans are worked up—and rightly so—about the FBI and the CIA and their roles in the Russia Hoax and the last two elections. Devin Nunes gets the big picture right (and, as we’ll see, so does K. T. McFarland).
Thanks for reading Meaning In History! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
According to Nunes the Durham report marks the “total collapse” of America’s justice system. He explicitly rejects the view that “Oh, this is the FBI and the Intelligence agencies. No, no, no!” There are a number of things implicit in Nunes’ rejection.
First, it’s doubtful to me that the CIA could have carried out the Russia Hoax on its own. They needed the FBI with its vast domestic security and counterintelligence authorities—on steroids since Dubya’s “Patriot” Act—to carry this through.
Second, FBI participation was also not enough. The FBI is zero without the Justice Department. The FBI cannot run full investigations of political figures without the say-so of DoJ. The FBI certainly cannot obtain FISA orders without the active participation of DoJ. How did the FBI get so politicized? By being placed under the thumb of DoJ. The FBI is run by the liberal and politically partisan legal establishment that controls the legal profession—the professional organizations and prestige law schools, the judiciary—and feeds into DoJ. Who can name the last FBI Director who wasn’t a former prosecutor or judge? For the last two decades top positions at the FBI have been heavily filled by lawyers parachuted in from DoJ, who can control everything that happens at the FBI. People who think that if we just abolish the FBI everything will be fine are just kidding themselves. Here’s something you can take to the bank—professional investigators, as a class, are not politically partisan in the way or to the degree that people who have come of age in the legal profession are. Abolish the FBI and keep DoJ? You’re gonna end up with the same results.
But Nunes goes even further by explicitly calling out the judiciary. C’mon, man! Who thinks the FISC judges who handled the Russia Hoax FISA applications that the FBI/DoJ submitted didn’t understand the enormity of what was going on? Please. And we thought John Roberts exercised some sort of supervision over the FISC? Moreover, we’ve seen the continued complicity of the courts since 2016. Remember how Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and others were totally jerked around by establishment judges? And Nunes also cites the Mar-a-Lago raid with its totally ridiculous “search warrant”. I would also add the despicable treatment of the J6 defendants. Nunes says, people from around the world are asking him: What the hell is going on in America?
What it comes down to, really, is culture. Anyone who thinks it’s time to get past the culture war and move on to inflation or some other nonsense is totally deluded. The problems of America largely derive from a cultural split and the liberal stronghold that makes the most difference is the legal profession. The legal profession—yes, I’m generalizing—is on a jihad to fundamentally transform America. I think a lawyer said that, but someone will correct me if I’m wrong. The legal profession runs the courts and largely runs legislatures at all levels.
Listen to Nunes witness:
Now, some will say that the MSM’s role has also been huge—which is again a culture war thing. But who thinks that the legal profession isn’t, ultimately, in control there, too? America is run by law—our famous ‘rule of law’ that we pride ourselves on—but the law is run by lawyers. But, hey, if you want to get a glimpse at the cultural divide in America that pits the legal establishment-run ruling establishment, the MSM is a good place to go. Here are Glenn Greenwald’s tweets summarizing the findings of a Harvard-Harris poll—the tweets are extracted from this article: Poll Shows How Radically Different Americans' Opinions Are From Liberal Corporate Media Narratives.
A newly released Harris-Harvard poll conclusively demonstrates how radically out of touch is liberal corporate media with the views of Americans.
It's not just that corporate media rejects Americans' views. They don't permit those views to be heard.
Americans also believe that the materials on the Hunter Biden laptop are real, and are not and never were "Russian disinformation."
So again, Americans view the claim that the US corporate media and CIA spread for weeks before the 2020 election - to help Biden win - as a fraud.
*Large majorities* of Americans say they are not surprised to learn the FBI abused it power in the 2016 Trum/Russia probe to help Biden.
*Large majorities* also say they are deeply worried about the US Security State's manipulation of US politics, and sweeping reform is needed.
The 3 political figures who are viewed most favorably by Americans are Elon Musk, Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis (Berne is next).
Musk has by far the highest favorability gap (+14). AOC's is -13, Mitch McConnell -24.
Tim Scott and Vivek are +7.
What's so striking here isn't that the corporate media relentlessly advocates views and ideologies that majorities of Americans - often large majorities - reject.
It's that the views held by majorities are all but banned on NBC, CNN, NYT and WPost. Thus, this is not a mystery:
Again. What we see here is a culture war of the ruling class against the subject class. The lawyers tell the establishment—and especially the MSM—what they can get away with and how to do it in a legally protected way. The judges go along. If you think abolishing the FBI will solve that problem you really need to rethink some of your presuppositions about America.
More about how the culture war affects us all through the legal profession. Who thinks that most SCOTUS justices don’t give a hoot about what the rest of the profession thinks of them? Maybe a few don’t care. But how about this? Who thinks that SCOTUS justices decide cases without regard to what their wives will think? Well! I’d be willing to bet that Gorsuch and Roberts were influenced in their utterly ideological Trans decision by their wives desire to be accepted by other liberal women. Now Gorsuch has the nerve to call out Roberts for caving to the Covid Regime. Yeah I liked what he said, but it would have come better from someone else:
[T]he history of this case illustrates the disruption we have experienced over the last three years in how our laws are made and our freedoms observed.
Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes.
They shuttered businesses and schools public and private. They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on. They threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions too.
They surveilled church parking lots, recorded license plates, and issued notices warning that attendance at even outdoor services satisfying all state social-distancing and hygiene requirements could amount to criminal conduct. They divided cities and neighborhoods into color-coded zones, forced individuals to fight for their freedoms in court on emergency timetables, and then changed their color-coded schemes when defeat in court seemed imminent.
Federal executive officials entered the act too. Not just with emergency immigration decrees. They deployed a public-health agency to regulate landlord-tenant relations nationwide.They used a workplace-safety agency to issue a vaccination mandate for most working Americans.
They threatened to fire noncompliant employees, and warned that service members who refused to vaccinate might face dishonorable discharge and confinement. Along the way, it seems federal officials may have pressured social-media companies to suppress information about pandemic policies with which they disagreed.
But here’s the clincher—the role of the legal profession in the person of judges:
While executive officials issued new emergency decrees at a furious pace, state legislatures and Congress—the bodies normally responsible for adopting our laws—too often fell silent. Courts bound to protect our liberties addressed a few—but hardly all—of the intrusions upon them. In some cases, like this one, courts even allowed themselves to be used to perpetuate emergency public-health decrees for collateral purposes, itself a form of emergency-lawmaking-by-litigation.
At the very least, one can hope that the Judiciary will not soon again allow itself to be part of the problem by permitting litigants to manipulate our docket to perpetuate a decree designed for one emergency to address another. Make no mistake—decisive executive action is sometimes necessary and appropriate. But if emergency decrees promise to solve some problems, they threaten to generate others. And rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.
One can hope that the Judiciary will stop oppressing the subject class in accordance with the dominant legal class’ liberal predilectins, but one would be a fool to hold one’s breath anticipating that event.
OK, I mentioned K. T. McFarland above (with a h/t to Thomas Lifson). The gets it right by including DoJ:
K. T. McFarland, a former Deputy National Security Advisor, says the FBI, Justice Department, and CIA will rig the 2024 U.S. presidential election, following their success in rigging 2016 and 2020, because they won't allow any candidate to win that would hold them accountable:
"We now have black-and-white evidence that the FBI interfered in the 2016 election. When they failed to elect Hillary Clinton, they set out to destroy the Trump administration.
Go back to 2020. This time, the CIA got involved in the election with those 51 former intel agents who said the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.
So they've gotten away with it for two elections. They will surely try and get away with it in 2024, right? Because there are no consequences... There is now hard evidence that there was election interference by the U.S. intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice.
Those individuals must be terrified that a Republican president comes in with a Republican Attorney General, investigates them, and charges them with all of the crimes they have committed over the last eight years. Take it to the bank. They will absolutely interfere in 2024...
These people are selling us out. Not only to foreign leaders, but they are interfering in our elections. They are tearing up the Constitution... This is just a gut punch to the American people."
Well, I’m not sure “those individuals” are actually terrified of even a new Trump administration and a Republican AG—remember Trump and Bluto Barr? Barr’s fingerprints are all over so much of what McFarland mentions. “Those individuals” all have friends in high places. It’s a club, and the subject class ain’t in it. The club has its rules, and penalties for breaking those rules. Jiggering elections, however, doesn’t break the rules. Hey—it’s a domestic version of the Rules-Based Order!
Where McFarland gets it wrong, however, is in thinking that the jiggering will occur again as part of covering up past misdeeds. It’s really about preserving the ruling class agenda, which is in foreign policy the Neocon agenda. Mitch McConnell has openly stated that Ukraine is America’s top priority. How many GOPers are willing to publicly disagree? How many in the military and intel cabals would disagree? What would Bluto say?