{"id":98233,"date":"2021-11-11T18:46:16","date_gmt":"2021-11-11T23:46:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=98233"},"modified":"2021-11-11T18:46:27","modified_gmt":"2021-11-11T23:46:27","slug":"the-daily-gouge-archive-wednesday-november-10th-2021","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=98233","title":{"rendered":"The Daily Gouge Archive, Wednesday, November 10th, 2021"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s Wednesday, November 10th, 2021…but before we begin, ICYMI, taking time off from going maskless at the wedding of her fellow uber-rich (more on that to follow)…<\/strong><\/p>\n

Pelosi agrees with comment that US military a “larger polluter than 140 countries combined<\/span><\/a>“<\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi\u00a0agreed during her trip to Scotland with a suggestion that the\u00a0U.S. military\u00a0is an egregious polluter<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Asked by questioner if the U.S. military is “exempt” from climate talks even though it is “a larger polluter than 140 countries combined,” Pelosi responded by saying, “We recognize that as well<\/em><\/span>.”<\/span> Pelosi added<\/em><\/span> that the military is a “big user of fuel” but argued there have been “many initiatives over time to convert from fossil fuel to other sources of fuel to run the military” because “it would make the biggest difference<\/em><\/span>.”<\/strong><\/span>…”<\/p>\n

Xi Jinping and his ChiCom, coal-burning cohorts…<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

…disrespectfully disagree<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Now, <\/strong>here’s\u00a0The Gouge<\/em>!<\/strong><\/p>\n

First up, in a forward from Jeff Foutch, The\u00a0Western Journal<\/em>\u00a0details how…<\/strong><\/p>\n

Project Veritas Journalists’ Homes Raided by FBI in Connection to Alleged Theft of Biden Family Possession<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“…In all, three residences tied to\u00a0Project Veritas\u00a0have been searched by order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Project Veritas never published<\/em><\/span> the contents of the diary that initiated the raids because O\u2019Keefe said its authenticity could not be verified.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

In a\u00a0statement<\/a><\/span><\/em><\/span>\u00a0on the Project Veritas website, O\u2019Keefe expressed shock that the Times was even made aware<\/em><\/span> of the raids.<\/span> \u201cWithin an hour<\/em><\/span> of one of our reporters\u2019 homes being secretly raided<\/em><\/span> by the FBI, the New York Times, who we are currently suing for defamation<\/em><\/span>, contacted the Project Veritas reporter for comment,\u201d he said. \u201cWe do not know how the New York Times was aware of the execution of a search warrant at our reporter\u2019s home or the subject matter of the search warrant, as a grand jury investigation is secret<\/em><\/span>.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe FBI took<\/em><\/span> materials of current and former Veritas journalists despite<\/span><\/em> the fact that our legal team previously contacted<\/em><\/span> the Department of Justice and voluntarily conveyed unassailable facts that demonstrate Project Veritas\u2019 lack of involvement in criminal activity and\/or criminal intent<\/em><\/span>,\u201d O\u2019Keefe said.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

O\u2019Keefe said the FBI raids came after<\/em><\/span> Project Veritas voluntarily surrendered the journal<\/em><\/span> to\u00a0law enforcement.<\/span> \u201cLate last year, we were approached by tipsters claiming they had a copy of Ashley Biden\u2019s diary. The tipsters indicated that they were negotiating with a different media outlet for the payment of monies for the diary.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cAt the end of the day, we made the ethical decision that because, in part, we could not determine if the diary was real, if the diary in fact belonged to Ashley Biden, or if the contents of the diary occurred, we could not publish the diary and any part thereof. Project Veritas gave the diary to law enforcement<\/em><\/span> to ensure it could be returned to its rightful owner.<\/span> We never published it<\/span><\/em>,\u201d he said.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Defenders of O\u2019Keefe and Project Veritas accused the\u00a0FBI\u00a0of trying to intimidate conservative journalists<\/strong><\/span>…”<\/p>\n

Three thoughts immediately come to mind: Thought #1 is question shared by Jonathan Turley: WHY is the FBI involved in the “case” of a supposed missing diary AT ALL<\/em><\/span><\/a><\/span>?!?.\u00a0 Thought #2: How DID The Times<\/em> know about a supposedly secret FBI operation<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/a>?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Thought #3: This is the SAME FBI that furthered the Russian collusion narrative it KNEW to be fabricated by the Clinton campaign AND<\/em><\/span> helped hide the contents of Hunter’s laptop.\u00a0 Consider<\/strong><\/p>\n

Speaking of the Russia hoax, NRO<\/em>‘s Andy McCarthy offers the update we’ve been awaiting ever since the Danchenko indictment, though it’s not nearly what we’d hoped:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n

Where John Durham\u2019s Investigation Is Heading<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/h1>\n

Reading the tea leaves, it appears the special counsel\u2019s end game is something other than a sweeping indictment<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/h3>\n<\/div>\n<\/header>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“…For those of us who\u2019ve closely followed it, the most dismaying part of the collusion caper (as we observed in our\u00a0editorial<\/a><\/span><\/em><\/span>\u00a0over the weekend) has been the FBI\u2019s abuse of its investigative authorities. Durham is not saying<\/em><\/span>, in his indictments, that there was no such abuse<\/em><\/span> \u2014 as in recklessness, incompetence, and failure to be as forthright with the court as the law and agency procedures require<\/span><\/em>.<\/span> But he is also not alleging<\/span><\/em> that the FBI \u2014 either as an institution, or in a conspiracy among individual agents \u2014 defrauded the court or otherwise obstructed justice<\/em><\/span>. (Though Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and others undoubtedly DID!<\/em>)<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Sussmann, like Danchenko, was indicted for allegedly lying to the FBI. And, like Danchenko\u2019s indictment, the Sussmann indictment avoids the question of whether the defendant actually believed the substance of his suspicions about Trump.<\/span> Sussmann is not accused of lying when he claimed that Trump was using Alfa Bank as a conduit for secret communications with the Kremlin; he is alleged to have deceptively concealed that he was advancing this claim on behalf of clients \u2014 the Clinton campaign and a tech executive who was hoping for a government job if Clinton defeated Trump.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

There is one<\/em><\/span> FBI official who can<\/em><\/span> be said to have caused misinformation to be given to the FISA court, lawyer Kevin Clinesmith.<\/span> But he was\u00a0indicted<\/a><\/span><\/em><\/span>\u00a0for\u00a0lying to an FBI agent<\/em>\u00a0about whether the CIA had informed the bureau that Carter Page had been an agency informant, not<\/em><\/span> for defrauding the court. In fact, in sentencing him to no jail time, the judge (implausibly<\/em><\/span>) seemed to accept<\/em><\/span> that Clinesmith\u00a0did not intend to deceive the court<\/a><\/span><\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The bottom line of all this is that Durham\u2019s position is that\u00a0the FBI was duped<\/em>, not<\/span><\/em> that it was part of a grand conspiracy.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

It may well be true \u2014 I think it is true \u2014 that the FBI was predisposed to believe the worst about Donald Trump.<\/span> This predisposition, if it existed, would almost certainly have influenced the bureau\u2019s dereliction in failing to take rudimentary steps to verify the outlandish allegations being made about Trump before relying on them for investigative purposes<\/em><\/span> (including<\/em><\/span> in sworn<\/em><\/span> court applications). The FBI would thus be culpable, in a practical and moral sense<\/span><\/em>, for enabling the Clinton campaign to exploit government power for political purposes.<\/span> But plainly, Durham is not<\/em><\/span> going to allege that FBI officials\u00a0knowingly and willfully conspired to deceive the court<\/em><\/strong>.<\/span>..”<\/p>\n

Here’s the juice: While we hope and pray McCarthy’s mistaken, and those we know<\/em><\/span> to be guilty are held to account and brought to ruin, we’re not bettin’ on it, as it appears all Durham’s doing is…<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

There’s the way we wish<\/em><\/span> things were, and then there’s the way they are.\u00a0 And in the case of most if not all of the worst actors in this conspiracy, their punishment will come from a much higher authority.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Next, the Editorial Board at the Journal<\/em>\u00a0lists the names which should<\/em><\/span> live in infamy, as it highlights the lowlights after thirteen…<\/strong><\/p>\n

Republicans Rescue Biden\u2019s Agenda<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/h1>\n

Will the infrastructure bill grease the wheels for the Democrats\u2019 $4 trillion spending blowout<\/span><\/a>?<\/span><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“…The country needs spending on such public works as roads and bridges, and some<\/em><\/span> projects will offer an economic return on the investment. But this bill throws<\/em><\/span> money at far more<\/em><\/span> than that, with only $110 billion<\/em><\/span> reserved for this traditional infrastructure.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The bill includes tens of billions in public broadband subsidies that will pre-empt private investment. Amtrak gets a $66 billion bailout that should<\/em><\/span> be enough to build a high-speed line in the Northeast corridor but almost certainly won\u2019t<\/em><\/span> because of union and political stipulations.<\/span> Some $16 billion will go to a national rail network that is unnecessary and bleeds money<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The bill is also a large<\/em><\/span> down payment on the Green New Deal<\/em><\/span>.<\/span> There\u2019s $7.5 billion for electric-car charging stations that the Transportation Department will allocate<\/em><\/span>. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm gets $21.5 billion for a new Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, which will pass out subsidies to favored projects.<\/span> This<\/em><\/span> will be a festival of corporate welfare serving political interests<\/em><\/span> rather than the best return on investment. Think Solyndra, the sequel<\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Though the bill doesn\u2019t include a broad tax increase on individuals, it does<\/em><\/span> include $14 billion in new Superfund excise taxes on 42 chemicals, minerals and metallic elements that will be passed along to consumers<\/em><\/span>. The Congressional Budget Office (CB0) found the bill will add $256 billion to the federal deficit over 10 years, plus another $196 billion over the 2021 budget baseline in the government\u2019s contract authorit<\/span><\/strong><\/span>y<\/strong><\/span>…”<\/p>\n

But no worries; As evidenced by her entry in our Quote of the Day<\/em> at the top of the page, Nicole Malliotakis has the Dimocrats JUST where she wants them, Trump’s comments to the contrary…in her face<\/em><\/span><\/a>…notwithstanding!\u00a0 And if you believe that<\/em><\/span>, not to mention the CBO numbers, we’ve got a bridge in Alaska designed by Lisa Murkowski…<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

…we’d like to sell you.<\/strong><\/p>\n

And since we’re on the subject of the senior senator from Alaska, we should remind you she was among the 19 Senate Republicans<\/em><\/span> who voted to advance Biden’s spendathon, along with\u00a0<\/strong>Roy Blunt,\u00a0<\/strong>Richard Burr,\u00a0<\/strong>Shelley Moore Capito,\u00a0<\/strong>Bill Cassidy,\u00a0<\/strong>Mike Crapo,\u00a0Deb Fischer,\u00a0<\/strong>Lindsey Graham,\u00a0<\/strong>Mitch McConnell,\u00a0<\/strong>Rob Portman,\u00a0<\/strong>Jim Risch,\u00a0<\/strong>Mitt Romney,\u00a0Dan Sullivan,\u00a0<\/strong>Thom Tillis,\u00a0<\/strong>Todd Young,\u00a0<\/strong>Chuck Grassley,\u00a0<\/strong>John Hoeven,\u00a0<\/strong>Kevin Cramer and S<\/strong>usan Collins…<\/strong><\/p>\n