The Next President is...

[Jaded]

Those of you who support Trump should go to the_Donald on reddit. It's an echo chamber with lots of conspiracy theories, jingoism, and nationalist rhetoric. It's truly a sight to behold - any poster that writes anything but blind trust in and allegiance to Trump is immediately and permanently banned. 

[tk1313]

42 minutes ago, Jaded said:

So you think Israel will ever share intel with us again? 

Our strongest and most reliable ally in the Middle East? Yes, I do. The first time I saw Israel even mentioned was from the NYT... don't they know snitches get stitches?

39 minutes ago, Jaded said:

Those of you who support Trump should go to the_Donald on reddit. It's an echo chamber with lots of conspiracy theories, jingoism, and nationalist rhetoric. It's truly a sight to behold - any poster that writes anything but blind trust in and allegiance to Trump is immediately and permanently banned. 

Nah, I'm not interested in a far-right internet gang. Look at @Sean_Spicier on Twitter, though... What's funnier than the parody tweets are the people that think it's actually Sean Spicer. 

[Jaded]

11 minutes ago, tk1313 said:

Our strongest and most reliable ally in the Middle East? Yes, I do. The first time I saw Israel even mentioned was from the NYT... don't they know snitches get stitches?

Wait, you are suggesting that it is the NYTs fault that an Israeli source was outed, and that they deserve retribution? 

[tk1313]

2 minutes ago, Jaded said:

Wait, you are suggesting that it is the NYTs fault that an Israeli source was outed, and that they deserve retribution? 

Just pointing out the irony in accusing Trump of outing Israel, while simultaneously being the first source I personally noticed mentioning Israel... The leaks to undermine Trump on this one seem more damaging than the information itself.

And no, I don't think the NYT deserves retribution.  

[brickhistory]

7 hours ago, Jaded said:

rWhat sources do you guys believe? Which do you consider "fake news"?

All media sources have their biases.  Most are for profit and their editorial stance relies on what corporate suits tell 'em to.

That said, IMO about 80% are left-leaning to one degree or another.  About 10% are right-leaning and a few try, but generally fail, to split the difference.

As individuals, we all have our own bias and like to have it reinforced (well, duh!)

That also said, take a stroll down memory lane and see if you honestly believe that Obama was subjected to the same scrutiny by as many and as relentlessly as the current Administration. 

While I'm nothing special, I do read left and right outlets.  You find little nuggets that the other side conveniently leaves out depending on editorial slant.

So you think Israel will ever share intel with us again?

How much do we give them annually in foreign and military aid?

And did you ask the same question when the previous Administration directly funded the political campaign of Netanyahu's last opponent?

Wait, you are suggesting that it is the NYTs fault that an Israeli source was outed, and that they deserve retribution? 

There's no mention of Israel on any of the illegally leaked U.S./Russia discussions so someone with access to classified committed a felony and gave the information to the NYT.  Yes, there should be some retribution on anyone committing a felony.  Previous court cases say it's not the paper's fault and they can't be prosecuted, but the leaker can be.  I hope so.

 

 

Finally, in today's 5p.m. Eastern bombshell, just in time to make the evening news and talk shows. fired FBI Director Comey supposedly wrote a memo following a meeting with POTUS in February saying POTUS asked him to drop any investigations on Flynn.  "Sources" in the FBI say they have seen the memo and Comey told them about it then.

So, A) why didn't Comey come forward with such a charge before now?  Why didn't he mention in his numerous Congressional appearances?  Why didn't he resign in protest?  Why didn't the "sources" do something about it then?

B) Now acting, then deputy, director of FBI testified under oath that "no one had tried to impede the investigation."

 

BTW, since 2003, the LA Times has been sitting on a supposedly damning speech recording that Obama gave regarding his views of Palestine and Israel.  And they have refused to release it.

Yet, a private conversation about "grabbing 'em by the pu$$y" is released just prior to the 2016 election in a vain attempt to derail Trump.

Hmmmm, objective journalism?

edited to add:  When I lived in the DC area, my literal next door neighbor was Jayson Blair.

Edited May 17, 2017 by brickhistory

[Jaded]

2 hours ago, gearpig said:

You found people anonymously spouting crazy political rhetoric on an internet message board?

Nice work, detective.

Are you talking about reddit or this thread? 

[Lord Ratner]

I just love the idea that the president of the United States isn't a high enough authority to decide what classified information we share.

Isn't this the same line of reasoning our generals use to claim they can't change things to make the AF better?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[matmacwc]

Look this one up, and he has been murdered.  Fake news is anything on Russia and our election, therefore every demo talking point.

Edited May 17, 2017 by matmacwc

[Homestar]

The term "Fake news" is being misused now. "Fake news" is a teenager in a basement in Serbia writing headlines like "Clinton has Affair with Comey" and publishing it on iWashingtonPost.biz, a domain he just registered and designed to look exactly like the Washington Post site, then posting it on Facebook. Hopefully a legit news source retweets it. Or better yet, Sarah Palin. Millions of Facebook users blindly share it because the headline looks legit. 

Fake News is not an article written by the WashPo that uses anonymous sources that one day turn out to be wrong. That is just "wrong news" and legit journalists and editors by profession are supposed to stop the publishing of "wrong news."  The Rolling Stone article on campus rape at UVA (i think) is one of the best modern examples of the failure of this system. 

Everyone knows all news sources have editorial bias that often appears in regular news reporting. Cable news has basically become 24 hour editorializing.

But please' let's stop calling all news we disagree with "fake news". 

[Toro]

 

17 hours ago, Jaded said:

What sources do you guys believe? Which do you consider "fake news"?

There's a difference between fake news (FB trash) and media sources that lean towards an agenda.  Sadly, I think there are few if any truly unbiased news sources these days, so it has become a requirement to read/watch everything critically.  Anybody who whole-hog believes everything that their source offers without at least considering (not necessarily agreeing with) opposing sources is a fool.  I subscribe to several news sources and leading up to the election I was disgusted by the WaPo's level of Trump bashing because, separated from politics, they have had excellent investigative journalism pieces.  What is sad is that the free press is what makes much of our government accountable to the people, but we're at the point where we only believe what suits us.  To watch people who deny stories about Trump because they don't believe the news source - while Trump himself is tweeting in confirmation of those actions - is just mind boggling.

8 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I just love the idea that the president of the United States isn't a high enough authority to decide what classified information we share.

100% valid, but this is where the problem lies with Trump.  I'm doubtful that the specific details of the conversation in question will ever be known, but I don't think this was a cognizant action by Trump.  In other words, I don't think Trump was briefed on code-word classified info provided by the Israelis, to which he then turned around and said, "I'm gonna give this to the Russians."  I imagine that he handled this discussion like he does any other discussion; he doesn't stick to script, he improvises (poorly), and he likes to throw in tidbits of data that he has heard from here and there to sound like he has a solid grasp of his point.  I can imagine him saying, "Listen, we're gonna crush ISIS.  We've been tracking them for a while and we know that they've got plans to do XYZ on commercial airplanes.  We're gonna stop it.  It's gonna be great."  Meanwhile the guys in the room are looking around nervously because this on the talking points.  The president's staff shouldn't have to go into damage control this often in response to what he says or tweets.

[17D_guy]

The argument isn't "was this legal," it's "was this the right thing to do."  The Pres can declassify, but as Toro said above it was probably him spouting off to sound self-important and may have put intel assets/collection at risk.

It's basically the same damn argument we have on here when CC's give LOR's when they can't get a Art-15 to stick, PT stupidity, RIF's, etc.  Interesting to see people line up on certain sides.

[Homestar]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/national-security-adviser-mcmaster-trump-s-revelations-russians-wholly-appropriate-n760136

McMaster said: "I was in the room, the Secretary of State was in the room, as you know, the deputy adviser for national security, Dina Powell, and none of us felt in any way that conversation was inappropriate."

Sooooo...someone is lying?

[nsplayr]

Justice Department names former FBI Director Robert Mueller as a special counsel to lead the investigation into possible ties between Trump campaign associates and Russia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/deputy-attorney-general-appoints-special-counsel-to-oversee-probe-of-russian-interference-in-election/2017/05/17/302c1774-3b49-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html

Edited May 17, 2017 by nsplayr

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

Justice Department names former FBI Director Robert Mueller as a special counsel to lead the investigation into possible ties between Trump campaign associates and Russia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/deputy-attorney-general-appoints-special-counsel-to-oversee-probe-of-russian-interference-in-election/2017/05/17/302c1774-3b49-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html

Fine with me.  If the investigation finds nothing inappropriate, do you think the democrats will concede the point, or demand further investigations?

 

[brickhistory]

The leviathan decided on November 9, 2016 that it would not go on a diet.

[matmacwc]

14 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Fine with me.  If the investigation finds nothing inappropriate, do you think the democrats will concede the point, or demand further investigations?

 

Nope, they'll just say the Justice department is biased because Trump runs it.  The president looks bad and the people pushing this nothingburger are the same reason, in part, why Hillary lost, we are tired of the sky is falling.

[Breckey]

41 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Fine with me.  If the investigation finds nothing inappropriate, do you think the democrats will concede the point, or demand further investigations?

 

I bet it will be like Benghazi. The opposition will not let it go.

[tac airlifter]

1 minute ago, Breckey said:

I bet it will be like Benghazi. The opposition will not let it go.

Interesting point.  You felt that event was adequately explained and the loss of life satisfactorily accounted for?  That's a rhetorical question; I would not equate current events to Benghazi but I suppose that speaks to the increased polarization we're experiencing in our country.  

 

[nsplayr]

33 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

Nope, they'll just say the Justice department is biased because Trump runs it.  The president looks bad and the people pushing this nothingburger are the same reason, in part, why Hillary lost, we are tired of the sky is falling.

Regardless of your opinion on any potential wrongdoing, calling this a "nothingburger" degrades the meaning of that term. 

The Deputy AG, who is the Acting AG in this case, and who was apppinted by President Trump, has decided this investigation is serious enough to warrant a special counsel. And he named a highly respected former director of the FBI to do it.

This is not nothing. This is something.

If Mueller and the Senate Intel committee's investigations come back with nothing serious, I can't speak for others but I'm prepared to accept that outcome. 

[brickhistory]

Fast & Furious (with the Attorney General held in contempt of Congress for ignoring a document subpoena)/IRS targeting Tea Party/Benghazi/Clinton home-brew e-mail server that the POTUS knew about and used/etc, etc, et-bloody-c...

And not one damn special counsel in 8 years.

120 days and being the majority party in both House and Senate, as well as the White House, and the GOP rolls over, even is rushing to the microphone to bellow "Watergate!"

 

Leviathans don't diet...

 

[matmacwc]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

Regardless of your opinion on any potential wrongdoing, calling this a "nothingburger" degrades the meaning of that term. 

The Deputy AG, who is the Acting AG in this case, and who was apppinted by President Trump, has decided this investigation is serious enough to warrant a special counsel. And he named a highly respected former director of the FBI to do it.

This is not nothing. This is something.

If Mueller and the Senate Intel committee's investigations come back with nothing serious, I can't speak for others but I'm prepared to accept that outcome. 

Well, it can also mean everyone is tired of it and the investigator will find nothing and close the case.  The "others" are calling for a special prosecutor with no evidence of a crime, can you say witch hunt?

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, matmacwc said:

Well, it can also mean everyone is tired of it and the investigator will find nothing and close the case.  The "others" are calling for a special prosecutor with no evidence of a crime, can you say witch hunt?

The appropriate law enforcement authorities are not tired of this investigation. In fact the Deputy AG, appointed by President Trump, undertook this new phase of the investigation because he judged it to be serious enough to warrant new action. Mueller likely took the job because he judged the situation to be serious enough that the job was worth taking and staking his stellar reputation on.

There is no more "calling for" a special prosecutor/investigator/counsel, one has been appointed. Yes the terms are technically different in subtle ways, but the same role Director Mueller will fill has been called by all three titles in past investigations.

Appointing a special counsel is not making a judgement of guilt, innocence, criminality or anything else, it's a step toward starting a more independent investigation outside the normal chain of command of the DOJ. Congress will also still continue their own investigations unless something changes there.

Look, benefit of the doubt here, if there really is nothing and the President and his campaign associates are innocent of all crimes and wrongdoing, then you have nothing to be worried about. Maybe money and time is wasted, but at this point that's pennies on the dollar to restore the American people's faith and trust in our institutions of government. The President has been pretty emphatic in his denials of wrongdoing and maybe he's right, we're all going to find out if that's the case.

I'm not a fan of over-politicizing investigations, even ones with clear links to electoral politics. Let's let things run their course, with no interference by the White House or congressional GOP and no pre-judgement by the congressional Democrats, and let the chips fall where they may.

Can you really disagree with that?

Edited May 18, 2017 by nsplayr

[waveshaper]

34 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

There is no more "calling for" a special prosecutor/investigator/counsel, one has been appointed. Yes the terms are technically different in subtle ways, but the same role Director Mueller will fill has been called by all three titles in past investigations.

Appointing a special counsel is not making a judgement of guilt, innocence, criminality or anything else, it's a step toward starting a more independent investigation outside the normal chain of command of the DOJ. Congress will also still continue their own investigations unless something changes there.

I think you're right; A Special Council is basically an Independent Investigator/Prosecutor (I could be wrong/any lawyers on this site?). I'm sure in the next year or two we will all be receiving a nauseatingly detailed education on the powers of a Special Council.

Excerpt;

- The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes. This includes crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as; perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.

- The terms "special prosecutor", "independent counsel" and "special counsel" have the same fundamental meaning, and their use (at least at the federal level in the U.S.) is generally differentiated by the time period to which they are being applied. The term "special prosecutor" was used throughout the Watergate era, but was replaced by the less confrontational "independent counsel" in the 1983 reauthorization of the Ethics in Government Act. Those appointed under that act after 1983 are generally referred to as independent counsels. Since the independent counsel law expired in 1999, the term "SPECIAL COUNSEL" has generally been used. This is the term used in the current U.S. government regulations concerning the appointment of special counsels.

While the term special prosecutor is sometimes used in historical discussions of all such figures before 1983, the term special counsel appears to have been frequently used as well, including, for example, in contemporary newspaper accounts describing the first presidentially appointed special counsel in 1875.

Edited May 18, 2017 by waveshaper

[MooseAg03]

This article has a good comparison to the previous administration. The lawlessness of the past 8 years (referenced by the scandals above) has set precedents, but apparently serious oversight only goes one way in our two party system. While I think there is a difference between Obama's public statements about Clinton and the private conversation between Trump and Comi, the parallels are unmistakable. How did Obama's justice system rubber stamp his ridiculous behavior for 8 years, and Trump's is out to get him just 4 months in? http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/447710/donald-trump-obstruction-justice-james-comey-russia


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TreeA10]

Very simple, the media has been hounding Trump non-stop. A research group tracked CNN's coverage for a day and over 90% of their coverage/guests were negative/anti-Trump. Obama was a deemed a Saint and above reproach by the media.       

Regarding Special Counsel, they have never prosecuted anyone for the reason or "crime" they were tasked to investigate but prosecuted smaller characters for procedural errors like testimony inaccuracy. Think Scooter Libby or Martha Stewart.