Or Bongino is leveling with the people. And Epstein really did kill himself. Dan says he has seen the tape and it clearly shows no outside interference with this man and he says vwill release the tape shortly once they are 100% sure there is no more evidence to be lifted from it.
And, respectfully, what does the Hegelian dialectic have to do with anything to do with these two men? In other words, what is the thesis and what is the antithesis you see, brother? And then what is the synthesis you are suspecting?
Thanks for asking pastor. On its face, my concerns come from regognition of trends. This trend is two men, Dan and Kash, that have been extremely articulate and in the lime light doing so, of inproriates in government. Kash had first hand experience of having media contentions against him. I am encouraged to hear that
@Batman trust their discernment (Dan and Kash). But because of my views on Trump, I do tend to be overly critical of his administration. As a means of not falling prey to my perhaps own grandiose views.
Since both Dan and Kash are very articulate and very aware of subtly (Kash was very active in countering Russia Gate for example), what concerns me is both Dan and Kash omitting circumstances known at the time of Epstien's murder. As a refresher from Wikipedia:
After initially expressing suspicion, Attorney General William Barr described Epstein's death as "a perfect storm of screw-ups". Both the FBI and the Department of Justice's Inspector General conducted investigations into the circumstances of his death. The guards on duty were later charged with multiple counts of record falsification.[1] Many public figures accused the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) of negligence; several lawmakers called for reforms to the federal prison system. In response, Barr removed the Bureau's director.
Due to violations of normal jail procedures on the night of Epstein's death,[note 1] the malfunction of two cameras in front of his cell, and his claims to have compromising information about powerful figures, his death generated speculation and conspiracy theories about the possibility that he was murdered.[4][5] Other theories claimed his death was feigned. In November 2019, the contested nature of his death spawned the "Epstein didn't kill himself" meme. Public opinion polls suggest that only a small percentage of Americans believe that Epstein died by suicide; one such poll saw 16% of respondents saying they believed Epstein died by suicide, 45% believing he was murdered, and 39% being unsure.[6]
Death
When Epstein was placed in the Security Housing Unit (SHU), the jail informed the Justice Department that he would have a cellmate and that a guard would look into the cell every 30 minutes. These procedures were not followed on the night he died.[28] On August 9, Epstein's cellmate was transferred, and no replacement was brought in. The evening of his death, Epstein met with his lawyers, who described him as "upbeat" before being escorted back to the SHU at 7:49 p.m. by guard Tova Noel.[25] CCTV footage shows that the two guards failed to perform the required institutional count at 10:00 p.m. and recorded Noel briefly walking by Epstein's cell at 10:30 p.m., the last time the guards entered the tier where his cell was located.[29] Through the night, in violation of the jail's normal procedure, Epstein was not checked every 30 minutes.[28] The two guards assigned to check his cell overnight, Noel and Michael Thomas, fell asleep at their desk[note 4] for about three hours and later falsified related records.[30][31] Two cameras in front of Epstein's cell also malfunctioned that night.[32] Another camera had footage that was "unusable".[32]
Controversy
Epstein's death was the first death ruled a suicide at the MCC in 14 years. Michael Baden and 60 Minutes questioned whether Epstein, who was almost 6 ft (1.8 m) tall and weighed 185 pounds (84 kg), could have been able to hang himself from the lower bunk. Photos taken after the death also show bottles and medicine standing upright on the top bunk.[25] Baden also questioned why Epstein did not use other materials available in his cell as a ligature, such as wires and tubing from a sleep apnea machine, which were stronger and longer.[25]
. . . . .
To me, in contrast to the above, to just say "There is no there there" in light of even attorney general suspicion initially just seems like somehow we are orchestrated in drumming down. Is it possible all those above mentioned things occured in the highest profile case and watch in the country? I suppose. Sure. But normally when that much drama surrounding events is present on such a high watch person, it reasonably opens up proportionate concerns. I think what might have been more helpful of Dan and Kash would be to address those known "incossitencies" which all occured together, and how they are explained away when looking at "the file." But that is not even mentioned. Its ignored.
So after a high profile case falls into a high profile storm of perfect errors meets, "there is no there there," that just has potential ingredients of addressing America from a "lets dumb them down" posture. At least it could be seen as such. Am I wrong? In this way it is kind of like being treated light idiots. In a similar way Trump wanted Calfiornia to fawn over him as a rescuer of flowing water from the North that never made it to the South nor to areas affected by California fires. Yet, from the posturing, we would never know that. We would have to go out of our way to even know there was no "there there" either. So pastor, I am just saying that these uses of media could qualify as suspected gaslighting...and not as much as "conspiracy theory."
Now there may be a perfectly good explanation of Trump and the Northern waters. But absolutely no one has that evaluation. To me, it would just be more respectful to the nation for Dan and Kash (in light of the great issues we have all been through together over the past decade) to speak to the anomalies (at least in part) rather than just say they know better and truth them. We have seen enough of that. So in and of itself it does not mean that Dan and Kash are compromised. But in a "compromise rich" political climate the nation is in, how does it escapse two very capable men from noticing their comments do not heal the ever expanding "compromise rich" environment we are all experiencing in the country together? And since they are wiser than the average Joe, and don't operate from what could have been reasonable wisdom to do so, it would just seem odd and somewhat compromising on its face.
Again, these are the places I force myself to hold my self views accountable since they are not the mainstream views of evangelical eschatology. Granted, an unnecessary psychosis could emerge in so doing all of that. And may all be for not. But where they might come in handy (even if subtle notice may have merit for other reasons that are valid to even the extent of reasonably dismissing my own eschatological views), is perhaps they could provide fodder to consider oddities in Trump Admin use of media. And highlight something of important but not necessarily related to anything I may be thinking entirely.
. . . . .
Sorry for the long post. But I am doing my best to show nuance here. The concern of those who hold Hagelian Dialectic (HD) views today are not my views. In fact, I believe I have been the most outspoken against HD on our forum. Because to me HD the way it is used in the watcher world is a stretch...and could suragate as an all seeing eye sense about itself too. For that reason, I reject standard HD views as they relate to escatology. But even so, as great an advisary to those views as I am, I do so with the most open consideration I would hope this too would be considered to come also from the HD side concerning views somewhat considerable in arenas of eschatology I might traffic in (the golden rule). In the standard HD view, they believe that all is theater. And its just globlalism or Luciferian Light that brings us to the tribuation. And there is no other path. Therefore all government is in cahoots with some grand wizard. So in that view, our worst case scenario of HD with Dan and Kash is that once they get into power, they fall under the spell of the grand wizard of HD that leads us to the tribulation. They no longer have their own views, but become puppets of theater that can only have one outcome according to the HD view. Global control that brings on the tribulation.
Again though, this is not my view. I believe there are factions. There are good faith players. Some of these won't even be believers. Maybe most wont. So my contrast to HD is massive. But when I see two capabable men bring ways of expressing America through media that seem very much like being under an HD spell to me, it does cause me concern to wonder. Now it could be just that Dan and Kash, in their mature insights, don't equally have ways to best discern how to inform the public. That is a given, amen. But the battle those two men have been fighting have exactly to do with how the optics in America have clearly all been a long the lines of America being gaslit all over the place. It would just seem reasonable that if Dan and Kash are that entrenched in that mode and species of warfare on behalf of America, they themselves would come across distinctly different from that which they profess to oppose. And maybe there is no "there there." But the level of concern some people have over the way this has been conveyed by Dan and Kash, to me, is not unreasonable to consider. Given the nature of the very warfare for our country these two men profess to be about.
. . . . .
At the end of the day, over time we will get a sense. In part I make a loud enough outcry here as a counter-intuitive literary device to hopefully turn out, by contrast, to be wrong. In that sense, here, in this thread, I would represent a good-faith concern on behalf of those who hold the HD tribulaiton view. And I myself partner to argue on their behalf even though overall I do not subscribe to their charactorization of eschatology. Given "them" the benefit of the doubt along the way. In honesty and sincere good faith. But also, as a literary device function, demonstrate more so my own eschatological views as having more weight. In part, because of the sheer honesty by which I pursue to challenge my own views and and willing to go into the deepest waters with the HD view aligned brethren. In this way, I employ to exhaust reasonable consideration from eschatological view perspectives I don't hold. As a good faith gesture for those who hold the HD view. Giving every consideration for their view to make its case. And doing that, as a means of investigating my own convictions. Even to the point of placing my own views to near death exposure if necessary to remain as honestly neutral as one might be. Which I would hope from the HD view side to do. So far, it does not seem the HD view perspective would do the same. Nor would they have to. But any sense in their hopefully doing so, would, in my estimation, be encouraged by, I would (stated like Yoda for fun). But I understand in doing that, wow, that is a ton of work to process like that. Perhaps not all members of the body need to travel those roads, amen. But I would just hope those on the forefront might. Not that I am holding my breath. lol. It probably will never happen. But that is not something I can control. But what I can do is get as honestly close to seeing how they see (in genuine practical ways) so as to be able to most genuinely consider what in their views might have merit.
We live in a day and age where kind of quite the opposite in communication style is more of the pop-culture trend type. To TRIPPLE down on our own convitions. Tripplying down on those convictions not ours might seem to be ridiculous. Admittedly. But it is "a" way to understand with them. Since my eschatology does differ significantly in places, as much as it might be on me, lets say, to have a burden of proof. It would equally be on me I believe as much to honestly seek out the budens of proof of others where in my own estimates might be lacking. Because for me its not the best proof that can likely provide the best end time hermeneutic. But rather the John 15:15 principle in operation that becomes that which would likely be providing the better part. And likely serve as some form of end time hermeneutic. A rather nuanced and complex one. But hopefully, that, in the sense of end resulting in deeper simplicity...I would hope. lol. That probably does not make a whole lot of sense. But just would seem to have to go with the territory if one, life myself, would on the regular see rather differently. Taking the mantle of proofing as more a John 15:15 genuine exercise than what proof a, b, or c, conviction might be discoverable. And in that practice, hopefully like in the first century, so in perhaps the last. To see more or less what the Father is doing. Blessings.
www.zerohedge.com
