Former Obama Official Admits She Lied About Having Evidence of Russian Collusion

[K Watt]

I told you my job.

"...ensure the police, fire, street crews, emergency operations, and power line workers have the tools to respond effectively..."

That doesn't sound like a federal government job.

 

[grasping the after wind]

"Admits she lied" is a direct quote of the headline for the story referenced here. However, in the actual 72-page transcript of the interview ( https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/ef15.pdf ) Ms. Farkas makes no such admission. In fact, the word "lie" never was spoken during the interview, by anybody. Now, since that word--"lie"--has been discussed so extensively in recent posts here on CF, it might be better just to say that Matt Vespa of Townhall believes that Ms. Farkas lied, and leave it at that.

Better yet, go to her own words and decide if she admitted to lying. If she did not say she lied then she did not admit lying. If she said she was wrong or mistaken in what she earlier said or had made an unwitting false statement or said she did not know what she was talking about but was jsuet assuming something that was not actually true then she did not admit to lying. She may have just admitted to popping off at the mouth while being totally ignorant that is not the same as admitting to lying. That some person or persons might have believed any false information she may have disseminated does not prove she intentionally disseminated false information. Lying requires intent. Not only intent to say something as a means to an end but intent to misinform.

“I didn’t know anything,” Farkas said. Seems not to be an admission of lying but rather an admission of ignorance or stupidity.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

. . .Most Americans have no interest in those jobs that produce nothing of value but merely allocate other people's money to favored causes.

This is a common conservative talking point, but it is all about emotion, not substance. The topic deserves its own thread, but for now, let's just note that ". . .nothing of value. . ." is a judgment statement, and opinions will vary. Many Americans believe that an office worker at a Social Security office is providing a service more valuable than that provided by a palm reader or a salesman of condominium time-shares. And saying that a "free market choice" has value, while a government-mandated service doesn't, is once again a matter of opinion. After all, the free market places a very high value on drugs, gambling, sex, and entertainment in general, but a fairly low value on healthcare insurance (which is why so many younger, healthy people choose to go without health insurance. They decide that they don't need it now, and then give zero thought to paying into the system now so that they will have care available when they are older. To them, it has no value.)

So that whole thing about government jobs producing "nothing of value" is simply an expression of a self-centered opinion, not a statement of any sort of actual fact.

 

[K Watt]

This is a common conservative talking point, but it is all about emotion, not substance. The topic deserves its own thread, but for now, let's just note that ". . .nothing of value. . ." is a judgment statement, and opinions will vary. Many Americans believe that an office worker at a Social Security office is providing a service more valuable than that provided by a palm reader or a salesman of condominium time-shares. And saying that a "free market choice" has value, while a government-mandated service doesn't, is once again a matter of opinion. After all, the free market places a very high value on drugs, gambling, sex, and entertainment in general, but a fairly low value on healthcare insurance (which is why so many younger, healthy people choose to go without health insurance. They decide that they don't need it now, and then give zero thought to paying into the system now so that they will have care available when they are older. To them, it has no value.)

So that whole thing about government jobs producing "nothing of value" is simply an expression of a self-centered opinion, not a statement of any sort of actual fact.

I'm speaking in the economic sense. Moving funds from one pile to another is not technically producing value.

 

[grasping the after wind]

This is a common conservative talking point, but it is all about emotion, not substance. The topic deserves its own thread, but for now, let's just note that ". . .nothing of value. . ." is a judgment statement, and opinions will vary. Many Americans believe that an office worker at a Social Security office is providing a service more valuable than that provided by a palm reader or a salesman of condominium time-shares. And saying that a "free market choice" has value, while a government-mandated service doesn't, is once again a matter of opinion. After all, the free market places a very high value on drugs, gambling, sex, and entertainment in general, but a fairly low value on healthcare insurance (which is why so many younger, healthy people choose to go without health insurance. They decide that they don't need it now, and then give zero thought to paying into the system now so that they will have care available when they are older. To them, it has no value.)

So that whole thing about government jobs producing "nothing of value" is simply an expression of a self-centered opinion, not a statement of any sort of actual fact.

I think it is safe to say that a worker in a government bureaucratic job is providing a service as valuable as a palm reader.

 

[Arcangl86]

The truth will set you free:

"House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election," he added. "Instead, the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted Trump to win, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed. They said that CIA analysts also objected to including that flawed, substandard information in the assessment."

Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20% of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Did Hillary Clinton Give 20% of United States' Uranium to ...

www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russi…

Truth huh? Here's the truth then. Hilary couldn't have spiked the Uranium One deal even if she wanted to. The only person who had the authority to do so was the President.The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States is only advisory, and even if it wasn't, it is made up of representatives of various Cabinet agencies. As for the $145 million dollars, you should read your own linked page instead of just misleading quoting part of it. But over a $131 of that was pledged before Hillary became Secretary of State, and years before Uranium One was bought by the Russians, at which point the person who had given the money in the first place was no longer associated with Uranium One.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Just listen to yourself. 'Leftists'. Like this is some rubbish cold war spy movie. No, sorry to disappoint you, there isn't some huge secret plot to infiltrate the government and sneakily give people healthcare or whatever evil plot you think these 'Leftists' are hatching.

As for your smear of people who work for the government, a lot of people actually believe that helping their follow citizens and their country are positive goals and make for an enriching career.

There's actually a prize they award now to the people in government who make a huge difference that year, they call the Sammies (Samuel J. Heyman Service to America Medals). It was brought in because it turns out people working in government actually achieve some amazing and wonderful things for their fellow citizens, and receive almost zero credit because of attitudes like yours.

Here's a few of the 2018 finalists achievements:

"A team from the Health and Human Services Department is developing a promising new vaccine to prevent the spread of the Zika virus.

An FBI task force is in the midst of a record takedown of the MS-13 gang, arresting more than 60 leaders and members from the group to date.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention employee spent her career pioneering research to understand autism and other developmental disabilities.

A Veterans Affairs Department employee, while on detail to the Federal Emergency Management Agency during last year’s slew of historic hurricanes, found a way to improve FEMA’s system to assess flood damage from major storms. His work helped FEMA deliver aid to storm survivors more quickly and saved millions of dollars in appraisal costs."

So yeah, quite a lot more going on than just 'allocate other people's money to favored causes'...

A friend of mine recently took a job with DHS to build software tools that could speed up the processing of asylum applications by orders of magnitude, meaning that people could wait minutes or hours to find out their fate, rather than being locked in cages for days. His normal political leanings are sort of a more reasonable version of "left-wing anarchist hacker", so becoming a fed (at DHS no less) was something of a big deal for him, but the project had the potential to help so many people that he couldn't say no.

“I didn’t know anything,” Farkas said. Seems not to be an admission of lying but rather an admission of ignorance or stupidity.

Did you watch the video or read the transcript? It's not an admission of stupidity. It was mostly Trey Gowdy trying to play word games to throw a soundbite to the dishonest pundits on the right, like those quoted by the OP.

It needs to be exposed. Leftists have infiltrated and still control much of our federal bureaucracy.

It makes sense. Most Americans have no interest in those jobs that produce nothing of value but merely allocate other people's money to favored causes.

I'm speaking in the economic sense. Moving funds from one pile to another is not technically producing value.

All a banker does is move funds from one pile to another, yet many firms find great value in that reallocation, particularly when it requires a lot of skill to do effectively and when the proper optimization can result in a substantial windfall or in regulatory compliance.

IOW, your understanding of economics is excessively narrow, informed more by right-wing propaganda than by any real valuation of the skills and services those agencies provide.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

I'm speaking in the economic sense. Moving funds from one pile to another is not technically producing value.

Now you're also describing a stock broker.
As for your point, don't forget that "something of value" can be goods or services. So perhaps that stock broker is providing a valuable service, but if you consider Social Security as merely moving money from one person to another. . .well, yes, that's a pretty valuable service.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

I think it is safe to say that a worker in a government bureaucratic job is providing a service as valuable as a palm reader.

Cute, only I said more valuable than, not just as valuable.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I'm speaking in the economic sense. Moving funds from one pile to another is not technically producing value.

Value is not produced. It is assigned. A thing is produced or a service is rendered. You value one thing more and I value something else more and someone else either agrees or disagrees with one or both of us . If I value moving funds from one pile to another more than anything else then I am willing to pay for that to be done very handsomely , if you do not value it at all you are not willing to pay anything at all for it. There is only assigned value not intrinsic value. The market , when it works objectively and is not being rigged in some fashion by some outside force, takes a vote on value through currency or trade and that is how value is assigned. A thing or service is only worth what someone is willing to give to acquire it.

 

[Arcangl86]

I think it is safe to say that a worker in a government bureaucratic job is providing a service as valuable as a palm reader.

No it's not. Do you think that a palm reader is as valuable as a palm reader? All the warfighters in the DoD wouldn't be able to do their job without bureaucrats doing theirs. It's bureaucrats in the Department of Transportation that regulate things like trucks and aircraft to make sure they are safe. It's bureaucrats in the Department of Housing and Urban Development that fights our homeless epidemic by providing subsidies to allow people to afford places to live. It's bureaucrats in the Department of Energy who regulate nuclear energy to make sure we don't have a Three Mile Island every week. Buerocrats do a lot.

 

[Monksailor]

That doesn't sound like a federal government job.

Anyone who pays taxes does what they described.

 

[K Watt]

All a banker does is move funds from one pile to another, yet many firms find great value in that reallocation, particularly when it requires a lot of skill to do effectively and when the proper optimization can result in a substantial windfall or in regulatory compliance.

IOW, your understanding of economics is excessively narrow, informed more by right-wing propaganda than by any real valuation of the skills and services those agencies provide.

A banker provides capital for growth and profits from the transaction. That is not moving funds from one pile to another, it is creating capital.

 

[K Watt]

Anyone who pays taxes does what they described.

True.

 

[K Watt]

Now you're also describing a stock broker.
As for your point, don't forget that "something of value" can be goods or services. So perhaps that stock broker is providing a valuable service, but if you consider Social Security as merely moving money from one person to another. . .well, yes, that's a pretty valuable service.

Economically speaking, no new value is created by making social security payments. If that was all a country did, it would go broke.

 

[iluvatar5150]

A banker provides capital for growth and profits from the transaction. That is not moving funds from one pile to another, it is creating capital.

He moved funds from one pile into another.

Economically speaking, no new value is created by making social security payments. If that was all a country did, it would go broke.

Okay, so a banker is "creating capital" when he moves funds from the bank's pile into the pile of a person taking a business loan, but a social security clerk is doing nothing of the sort when she moves funds from the government pile into the pile of the person who wants to pay rent or groceries.

What?

If nothing else, the value is in the service itself - in the moving of the money. Without that banker or that social security clerk, the money wouldn't get to where it would be better allocated.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

Economically speaking, no new value is created by making social security payments. If that was all a country did, it would go broke.

No, that is technically not correct. Value is created when a product is manufactured or a service is provided. Value is created when somebody collects your trash and carries it away. Obviously, for any group of people to survive, they must produce more than just one thing; they can't all be trash collectors. Anyway, think of all the ways that money is earned not by creating things, but by preserving them or replacing them. Security companies. Insurance. Doctors. None of these create any value in a strict according to a certain point of view, they only preserve or replace what was already there. And yet the service they provide is considered valuable.

 

[hislegacy]

The plot to take down Trump with the false narrative of Russian collusion is being exposed. Do you admit that this entire episode was a politically motivated hit job?

QFT - I believe that John Durham's (sp?) investigation is coming to being made public and there are people getting really antsy that their misdeeds are about to become public.

 

[Belk]

That doesn't sound like a federal government job.

You don't think the federal government has IT workers?

 

[K Watt]

He moved funds from one pile into another.



Okay, so a banker is "creating capital" when he moves funds

A banker doesn't just move funds. They create new capital by assigning loans beyond the amount of cash they have on hand.