Oct 2024. Eric Holder explains that his vetting of Tim Walz for Kamala’s VP didn’t miss “anything of substance."
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) January 5, 2026
"Authentic guy with a great record."
They knew about Walz.
Everything they said about this guy in the 2024 campaign was a lie. pic.twitter.com/mRrOMBfSri
January 5, 2026
"Did you and your team of lawyers miss important information about [Tim Walz] during the vetting process."
Posts
79 comments:
Did I miss something? Has Walz been indicted?
* They hired some Somalis to do the vetting.
“I wouldn’t say we were missing it…..”
Tim Walz doesn’t lie, he misstates.
Ah office space reference
Perhaps they used H&H Barkad to do the vetting.
Holy cow, I am shocked! Wolf Blitzer is still on the air?
Tim Walz was sitting on BILLIONS OF DOLLARS of stolen income tax payments Americans had been paying all year.
So of course Kamala chose him as running mate.
Do you really think donors just GAVE a completely unvoted for candidate, who hadn't won a SINGLE PRIMARY she was ever in, who didn't win their party's nomination, and who was usurping the party's actual nominee ... you really think they just GAVE Kamala Harris a billion fucking dollars to run a campaign?
Or do you think maybe they fucking stole the money?
I'm going with B.
They ran so far away from the jew in Pennsylvania, they didnt care what they had.
Nobody has proven Walz has personally taken money or was involved in fraud. This only came about because the NYT's wanted to investigate and get Walz out of the race for Governor.
What would have happened if he was VP? Maybe if he'd somehow became POTUS, this would've come up so they could get rid of Walz - if they'd wanted.
Wolf Blitzer is still on the air?
No. This aired October 10, 2024.
With a black hindu women as your POTUS candidate with a Jewish husband, you needed a white man as VP. And you didn't need a Jew. Especially one who's hyper-leftwing.
RCOCEAN following the Democrat Playbook to a tee.
1. Republicans are racists for raising this issue.
2. This issue divides Americans and is beneath us.
3. This is a serious issue and we must wait for the proper investigations, which are under way and we expect to be completed sometime in the next decade.
4. Nobody has proven Walz has personally taken money.
< You are here.
...he was doing exactly what was asked of him...
Nobody has proven Walz personally took money or benefited financially from the fraud. If they do, he should be prosecuted.
Thank you, Former Law Clerk.
Commie smear technique:
1) Joe says X
2) You say X
3) Therefore you and Joe are the same.
Thank you justabill
Thank You Juniper
When you lose the equivalent of your states yearly budget of course you're involved
Not to mention his lesuo state re china but thats neither here nor there
They thought it wouldnt matter with the MSM cover. There were no problems with publicity in spite of extensive prosecutions and information on the scandals going back many years.
It was an amateur video from way out in left field that broke through to public attention. That was unexpected.
The real problem is everyone else said no.
There is no way Walz was their first choice. They tried to get Shapiro to do it and he wouldn't do it. They tried it with other candidates. Nobody wanted to be on that ticket because they knew it was going to be a blowout and they were pissed about the no primary thing.
Gross incompetence is the reasonable complaint against Walz, and to be fair the entire system of state governance. Such a massive series of fraudulent scams should never have been permitted to happen, no matter if many cases were subsequently prosecuted.
FormerLawClerk said...
1. Republicans are racists for raising this issue.
2. This issue divides Americans and is beneath us.
3. This is a serious issue and we must wait for the proper investigations, which are under way and we expect to be completed sometime in the next decade.
4. Nobody has proven Walz has personally taken money.
< You are here.
Perfect.
"It was an amateur video from way out in left field that broke through to public attention.
Andrew Breitbart for the win.
Nick Shirley is no amateur.
buwaya said...
Gross incompetence is the reasonable complaint against Walz, and to be fair the entire system of state governance. Such a massive series of fraudulent scams should never have been permitted to happen, no matter if many cases were subsequently prosecuted.
And all of the convictions were thrown out by democrat judges. This was a coordinated operation at all levels of government.
1. They brought in illegals.
2. They gave them asylum and naturalized them.
3. They took money from Americans and gave it to them.
4. They opened up obvious avenues of voter fraud which were organized and obvious.
Achilles @7:21 encapsulates my thinking (which gives me pause - at minimum, Achilles is happy to say a lot of things bluntly that I do not feel I could support with solid arguments): Walz was the only person they approached who didn't run screaming into the night.
I have long thought that J. Shapiro's very diplomatic response when asked how his conversation with Harris went indicated not that SHE didn't want him and he knew it, but that HE didn't want that albatross around his neck and bowed out.
Justabill said...
Holy cow, I am shocked! Wolf Blitzer is still on the air?
Yes, they let him out of the cryogenic chamber for big stories.
It's pretty obvious at this point that Shapiro told the Harris team "No."
The dems knew about this corruption. It was a feature, not a bug, to get them Minnesota. How much of the stolen money went to the campaign is the only real question.
And yet hes probably the soberest one of the lot there
This is astounding. Holder wouldn’t admit that they missed $9b in fraud. All his team had to do was read Scott Johnson’s reports on Power Line blog and check PACER.
It’s routine to check the court docket.
The Dems are all okay with this theft-for-votes scam.
a BILLION Dollars! in untracable "donations"..
ALL of which came from fraud.
It was EXACTLY what they wanted
Of course they saw, and liked what they saw. What criminal hivemind would turn down hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars bled from the national coffers by the Walz/Somali fraud machine?
Per Bill Shipley (Shipwreckedcrew)'s post about the Minnesota fraud situation, as of early 2024 Biden's DOJ had prosecuted over 60 people in the Feeding Our Fraud actions and had wound down their investigation.
I'm sure the team vetting Walz was aware of the potential for scandal (the guys at Powerline had been writing stories on it for years) but I suspect they assumed it had been handled, which for all intents and purposes it had been at that point.
This is all making me wish I read Powerline for more than the TWIP, but whoever is in charge of rooting out moral turpitude over there banned me several years ago for my hypothetical about a rape victim calling the person who was telling her to understand the cultural difference that caused her to be raped an "asshole." Unlike here, where Blogger makes the moral turpitude decisions, over there it was a human being who read my comment and decided it was worthy of a lifetime ban.
And I'm too proud to change my login info, so I only go over there for a laugh, not - apparently - for the worthwhile reporting they've done.
Gov. Walz may just be The Last Walz for Dems, meaning the last white guy patsy. Holder and Obama still have hard ons for Kamala so they might just pick her to balance Newsom even though that would be an absurdly California ticket.
The important thing for Dems is to return Kamala to the first in line. She is wholly unelectable on her own but she is perfect puppet material for Obama's fourth term.
I should add that this was back in the days when they his their "no naughty words" rule in tiny print at the very bottom of the page. I even emailed the blog administrator to - I won't say apologize, because I still hadn't seen the rule at that point, but to open a dialog about it, and was told, "You used a naughty word, so you're banned for life."
It was ... disappointing. Especially after hanging out with the freewheeling crew over here.
@chickelit - I just got back from a month in CA visiting family. I cannot imagine an all-CA ticket getting anywhere - I always think they underestimate how much CA people are hated, even in other blue states - but I have been so wrong before that I'm certain I could be very wrong now.
So far 14% were generous and say they were just stupid. 86% say evil.
Achilles said...
"Nobody wanted to be on that ticket because they knew it was going to be a blowout and they were pissed about the no primary thing."
When was the last real Dem primary? 2008 I'd guess, which Obama won. 2016 was utterly fixed in Hillary's favor. 2020 was fixed as was 2024. Can they still pull it off?
But he can fix his own truck, God dammit!
"It was ... disappointing."
I hear you there. I've been banned several times and I've never been exactly sure why. On occasion, I thought I had an idea but then, somebody else would post the very thing I thought I was banned for and nothing happened.
Now that you have to pay to post, I tend to just browse the articles (and TWIP) and call it good.
"Nobody wanted to be on that ticket because they knew it was going to be a blowout and they were pissed about the no primary thing."
You must have made a fortune betting on Trump then. Guess the betting markets were so "stupid". Unlike you.
"1. They brought in illegals.
2. They gave them asylum and naturalized them.
3. They took money from Americans and gave it to them.
4. They opened up obvious avenues of voter fraud which were organized and obvious."
As Musk stated, its been the Democat Party plan for 20 years.
Jamie said...@chickelit - I just got back from a month in CA visiting family.
I lived in CA for 25 years before leaving 5 years ago. It is politically one party. Here is my somewhat dated analysis for almost 14 years ago, comparing modern CA to Jim Crow South: link.
The walz are closing in on Tim Walz.
There have been bad tickets with bad candidates before, candidates who just couldn't break through or maybe had some baggage or were not great communicators, but come on. Harris/Walz was the most incompetent, obviously not up to it couple of people any of us have ever seen, and maybe even at any level, especially Harris. Walz was ridiculous, but Harris is the only candidate who was a worse communicator than her boss who had obvious dementia. That's pretty bad and not even an exaggeration. The woman could not speak at a high school level or answer the simplest question. It never should have happened, and she almost won. It's a stain on our system, but especially the Democrat party.
"Did you and your team of lawyers miss important information about [Tim Walz] during the vetting process"
Did you miss that the top of your ticket was a babbling fool?
That would be a reasonable question, and I'd like to hear the answer. It was a lot harder to miss than Walz's background. You didn't even need to do any research.
She wanted a white man who was dumber than she was. So that’s what they found.
"When was the last real Dem primary? 2008 I'd guess, which Obama won."
Nope. Don't you remember that Obama was given the nomination on the first day "by acclimation", which was arranged for television and sympathy purposes so that Hillary herself stood up with the microphone and declared before the convention delegates that Obama should hereby be declared the Democrat Party nominee?
I am trying to think of the last presidential political convention that didn't have the eventual winner already chosen and went down to actual delegate votes...was it Reagan in 1980? Carter in '76? McGovern in '72? Nixon in '68? Fillmore in 1850? ....dunno.
Prof Althouse- please add the following choice to your poll:
"They knew about Walz and, Holder et. al are in league with his fraud actions."
They knew Walz was crooked but counted on their news media lapdogs to hide that fact. After all, they got away with Biden openly taking bribes and Hillary's "foundation" that was one giant money laundering operation. Having Somalis steal billions from taxpayers and then funneling a fat percentage back to Democrats was just more of the same. Who'd a thunk this particular corruption would be the iceberg that would sink their ship of frauds?
We now have one party that hopes the molasses continues to flow so slow that their corruption never really gets punished, and another party that hopes their endless promises of inquiry and harsh letters will suffice while this all drips slowly through the sieve that magically never catches anything, no matter how large the impure particles may be.
1976 Republican convention was the last one in doubt when it began, with no candidate having a majority. Grok: This left the nomination undecided until the floor vote, where uncommitted delegates and last-minute shifts gave Ford the win on the first ballot with 1,187 votes to Reagan's 1,070.
But could Reagan have won nationally in '76 without 4 years of Carter and stagflation first?
Thank you, Ralph L! 50 years since delegates decided a presidential nominee and not polls or Party power players.
Re no proof Walz was benefiting from fraud. Maybe the point is his obvious incompetence more than the suggestion of graft. With his AG it’s the other way round.
It’s politics. Democrats see nothing wrong with fraud, lying, cheating because that’s just politics. That’s all they are interested in- winning at politics at all costs. I recall Kamala Harris had a cackle about this while being interviewed as a presidential candidate some time ago.
There more than a few whistleblowers in MN re the fraud if the reporting is to be believed. If true, I have a hard time believing Walz wasn’t aware of the fraud and therefore protecting his “constituency”. Also, to be a tiny bit sympathetic, this may be one of these situations that started out small, done by a couple of people, but when word got out, as happens in tight communities, it snowballed or, more aptly, avalanched. He is and was ill equipped to stop or curtail it.
The question is whether Walz was complicit or incompetent. I can see strong arguments for either case. There's also the possibility that he was complicit in an incompetent way.....The same can be said for Holder.....There were many other candidates that Harris could have and should have picked over Walz. She could have done what McCain did with Palin and picked a candidate out of left field. I'm sure Mamdani would have been honored to be her running mate and would have added youth and energy to the ticket.
The problem with Minnesota Donks is always the same - because they live in a hothouse where they are lovingly cared for by the local media and the bien pensant gentry in the Twin Cities, they appear from the outside to be wildly successful and brilliant performers. Walz, Klobuchar and DNC honcho Ken Martin all have faltered once they encountered real opposition. It's one of the reasons Klobuchar is likely to be Walz's replacement - the local media and giant "Alliance for a Better Minnesota" money machine will take loving care of Our Amy, ignoring her abysmal performance as a presidential candidate and her uncorrected personality traits.
Walz has always been a lazy moron (best case) or a cornfed commie, but he has one undeniable skill - he's a brilliant liar, which made him perfect for Minnesota, where we love to lie about ourselves and our moral goodness.
"..brilliant liar"? Nah, he's even second rate at that.
They didn't see anything, because the graft is built in. The MN fraud is just the tip of the iceberg. The Dems are now in full damage control mode on a national scale.
My take is that Klobuchar is making noises about running for governor in order to clear the field so they can find someone who will protect the brand, and tamp down any "reform" candidate. No way she's actually going to give up her Senator status.
Sadly, they made a common hiring mistake. They looked in the mirror and saw the perfect candidate.
RCOCEAN II said...
"Nobody has proven Walz has personally taken money or was involved in fraud. "
There was a movie where Christopher Walken plays the mobster. The dialog goes something like this. "Nothing goes down in this town , (NY), but I get a piece of it."
Waltz is up to his eyebrows in it. I would doubt if that dumb motherf*cker has shoe boxes full of cash and Cayman bank accounts. There is no altruism in politics. Just graft. Especially if Democrats are involved.
North of the one 0 one @ 7:53
I first read that as "cognac chamber" and thought to myself, "Damn. Im missing out."
Federal aid to states has increased massively since 2019, to the point where we have what has been exposed in MN--$Billions of dollars of fraud with only the little players at the base exposed, and no flashing alarm bells to alert the voters. The idea that MN is a one-off is a little hard to believe.
"The question is whether Walz was complicit or incompetent."
Qwinn's Razor, or if you prefer, rozaR s'nolnaH: Never ascribe to stupidity what is adequately explained by malice.
Proof:
The merely stupid are never motivated to make their actions appear malicious.
The malicious are always motivated to make their actions appear merely stupid.
All of those trips to China with kids raised red flags to me.
RED flags.
I spend too much time onlkine, but I have known about all of the MN fraud issues for years (including Ilhan Omar marrying her broher, which powerline nailed years ago). Even so, I am shocked about how bad the fraud is. You know who deserves and is now getting a lot more attention - Ann Bauer (yes she was in WSJ). She lived in MN and screamed about the fraud and nobody cared. Her efforts though lead to the in
@countyhwy piece that forced the NY Times to report it which lead to the current army of Davids.
Wolf Blitzer--"asking the tough questions". You write that sentence and you know you are laughing your behind off and rolling on the floor.
Harris became the Democrat nominee about 7/22/24. She had no time to do any fundraising but the campaign had more than a BILLION dollars to spend. Walz presents as an effeminate buffoon, thinking that he would be a bridge to "regular men" is not credible. But Walz was Governor of a state with massive fraud. Weird. I wonder where all the money that the Harris campaign spent came from?
balloloeenX,
Whether or not it was legal to do so, didn't the Harris campaign in practice inherit all the funds raised by Biden / Harris?
They didn't think this would ever be uncovered because their consideration set is incompatible with Nick Shirleys of the world existing.
Just an aside. I wish the right would focus mainly on "How many kids went hungry because the Dems let the money be stolen. How many mothers struggle to find day care because the Dems let the money be stolen".
It's the kind of emotional/effective tactic the left uses all the time. Much more potent (IMO) than "unbelievably large amount of money vanished. That lets the argument be, "It wasn't 8 billion, it was only $150 million.
Listen and learn MAGA.
Then, once emotional impact is in place, talk about fraud and prosecute.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.