Patel and Dershowitz Discuss DOJ Election Interference and FISA-702 Weaponization
Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz and former Department of Defense Chief of Staff Kash Patel discuss President Donald Trump’s criminal case, the J6 targeting and the use of FISA-702 to conduct political surveillance.
I am prompting the video to 02:20 to focus one aspect of the interview on the Republican led FISA-702 reauthorization and extension. I agree with almost everything Mr Patel says about the ramifications of the GOPe House, led by HPSCI Chairman Mike Turner, and the FISA extension. However, there is also an aspect that 99% of everyone misses, and within that dynamic we become victims to our own willful blindness. First, watch the segment on FISA-702 (prompted):
OK, do you hear Patel discussing the horrible decision-making by the republican controlled House as it pertains to FISA-702 extensions.
Everyone agrees the version of the House authorization by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) is the worst possible outcome; it expands 702 abuse by expanding the surveillance authority. That reality is factually accurate and correct.
So, reconcile this:
[Source]
Wait, what?
If the 702-reauthorization bill that passed the HPSCI committee vote is as bad as Patel and everyone says it is (which it is); and if the bill completely ignores the reforms that were suggested and advocated for by Patel and Nunes (which it does); then how does Kash Patel reconcile his boss Devin Nunes supporting the bill per Mike Turner?
The reconciliation is found inside the issue I have recently written about.
Mike Turner is lying about the support from John Ratcliffe and Devin Nunes for the HPSCI FISA-702 reauthorization bill. Ratcliffe and Nunes do not support the Turner construct.
But wait, if that is true (which it is), then why are Ratcliffe, Nunes, and by extension Patel, silent about Turner’s false support claims?
The answer…. Institutional preservation of the HPSCI compartment, and a desire for access therein.
Yes, that is correct. They will rage against the outcome of the institutional endeavor, but only so far as the value of the institution itself must be maintained. Ratcliffe, Nunes and yes, Kash Patel are functionaries of the system. Their sense of identity is dependent on the system.
The CIA director, NSA director, ODNI, FBI Director, etc are not in charge of the compartments they represent. They are simply functionaries -middle men- who operate in the space between where the compass points are directed, where the data originates, and oversight of that data that is ultimately filtered and delivered to the functionaries, who then brief the representatives…. who then create policy… albeit flawed policy…. based on a very specific, controlled, compartmented and skewed information flow. (more)
The value of Kash Patel’s institutional currency is connected to his access, even with Republicans in charge. The same is true for Nunes and Ratcliffe.
The institutional leadership, those functionaries in control of the compartment (silo), can block access to the silo thereby devaluing the career currency of other functionaries. The DC preservation system is contingent upon this process being retained.
Nunes, Ratcliffe and Patel will not speak honestly about the Mike Turner outcome, specifically as it relates to the conniving manipulation therein (ie. it’s a f**king lie), because they would run the risk of being ostracized from the HPSCI compartment – from which their value is determined.
The institutional corruption is retained, yet they rail against the outcome of the institutional corruption. See the game?
If this were not the case, Mike Turner would be directly confronted, the lies and manipulations exposed, and a very serious battle would take place publicly.
Unfortunately, that public battle is viewed as too risky. As a result, the corrupt DC functionaries operate without any accountability, no corrective action takes place, no accountability is metered out, and WORSE…. the oblivious general public cheer on the people like Patel who give the illusion they are railing against corruption.
For those who choose denial and pretending over the brutal reality of the example expressed, your criticism of me is irrelevant. The truth exists regardless of your comfort level.
Accepting you are an abused victim to professional gaslighting, manipulation and Machiavellian deceit, carried out by those who claim to be your allies, is painful and unnerving. However, failing to accept the reality of the example cited only retains your status as a victim, a codependent enabler, a battered conservative.
It is a remarkable dynamic. Many people can see how the functionaries played against President Donald Trump this way, but they cannot see how they, themselves, are continually being played.
Want to break the cycle? Then publicly ask Patel in this type of forum, “if the House 702 reauthorization and extension is so bad, then why is Mike Turner saying your colleague Devin Nunes enthusiastically supports it?”
Lastly, the absence of that question showcases why Maria Bartiromo is considered a “key influencer” by those in DC who rely on key influence. Oh wait, you’re thinking maybe Bartiromo just doesn’t know what question to ask. I mean, she just interviewed Mike Turner, so she probably forgot. Yeah, yeah, that’s the ticket.
Post a Comment