Most people know about the “two greatest lies ever told.”
(Respectively, that the devil doesn’t exist and that he’s a good guy.)
For the third greatest lie ever told, this writer humbly nominates Michelle Obama’s Democratic rallying cry about how they go high when the opposition goes low.
Time and time and time again, the blue donkeys have proven that there’s no low to which they won’t stoop to help push their insane (and insanely unpopular) agenda.
The latest exhausting example of this came Wednesday when CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, FBI Director Kash Patel, and other top officials testified about national security threats to the House Intelligence Committee.
While it certainly sounds like what should be a very serious and grave conversation focused on the facts, leave it to a Democrat to bring in conspiratorial character attacks — or an “offensive line of questioning,” if you will — to the proceedings.
Democratic California (of course it’s California) Rep. Jimmy Gomez was speaking to the security officials when his line of questioning veered to the Signal messaging app drama that saw a private journalist added to a text chain regarding military operations in Yemen. Included on that chain were some heavy hitters, like national security advisor Mike Waltz, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Vice President J.D. Vance.
After accusing the Trump administration of becoming “the swamp,” Gomez launched a truly unhinged diatribe about Hegseth, based on nothing more than hearsay and rumors.
In other words, it was a classic Democrat “feelings-over-facts” moment for Gomez.
“Additionally, the main person who was involved with this thread, that a lot of people want to talk to is Secretary of Defense Hegseth,” Gomez said. And had he simply stopped there, perhaps Gomez would have ended this exchange in the right.
Love it or hate it, the Signal incident was simply not the best look for anyone involved, and questions do need to be answered.
But, as Dems are wont to do, Gomez couldn’t help himself.
“And a lot of questions were brought up regarding his, uh, drinking habits in his confirmation hearing,” Gomez continued. “To your knowledge, do you know whether Pete Hegseth had been drinking before he leaked classified information?”
Seriously? Even The Atlantic, in all of its far-left beliefs, didn’t suggest that when it published the full messages included in the thread, including those from Hegseth.
Gabbard proffered a diplomatic response: “I don’t have any knowledge of Secretary Hegseth’s personal habits.”
Director Ratcliffe, on the other hand? He wasn’t nearly as diplomatic when poked by Gomez to answer the same question.
“Yes or no?” Gomez asked.
“You know, no,” Ratcliffe said. “I’m going to answer that. I think that’s an offensive line of questioning.
“The answer is ‘no.’”
Ratcliffe and Gomez then got into a bit of a shouting match, accusing each other of being out of line, and with Ratcliffe dropping this gem of a facetious question: “You asked me a question. You want an answer?”
You can watch the entire hearing below, but the relevant portion comes at roughly the 1 hour and 50 minute mark:
Look, it would be foolish to suggest that those involved in this Signal incident are somehow above reproach or criticism. Quite the opposite, in fact. By being public servants, they should be especially susceptible to criticism.
But what Gomez pulled here isn’t a criticism. It’s an unfounded character attack, and, yes, it is indeed “offensive,” especially to this writer, who has dealt with plenty of alcoholics in his life. It’s a simple matter of right and wrong.
It’s a shame that there used to be a time when even Democrats knew the difference between the two, but those days are clearly long gone.
Leave a Comment