The Next President is...

[Vertigo]

20 hours ago, brickhistory said:

So no one can compare the current Administration's accomplishments to the last one.

But the last one gets credit for what's occurring now?

That's convenient.

 

Ah well, it's still not Hillary in the White House.

How does "it's great this has continued under the current administration" equate to not giving Trump credit?

It's a fact those two trend lines started under Obama's administration and has continued during Trump's presidency. I'm giving them both credit. There's been plenty of policy changes that has had an effect on the economy so that this economy is solely Trump's now, and it's continued to improve- the trend has continued on. That's giving him credit for not reversing what was started under Obama.  

[tac airlifter]

18 hours ago, Vertigo said:

 That's giving him credit for not reversing what was started under Obama.  

Using that logic, do you blame Obama for reversing the gains started by Bush in iraq?  

Not looking to debate the efficacy of the original Iraq war, I think the whole thing was a massive mistake by Bush.  Regardless, when Bush left office things were quantifiably trending better and under Obama they went to epic shit levels.... rise of the caliphate, etc.  

And under Trump that issue has been resolved.  All of us should know the demise of IS as a territory holding major force is 100% attributable to this administration.

So does Trump get credit for reversing Obama‘s policies in Iraq? And should Obama be blamed for reversing Bush’s policies? 

Edited May 5, 2018 by tac airlifter

[brickhistory]

Speaking of trying to reverse an Administration's (potential) policy:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/05/04/kerry-quietly-seeking-salvage-iran-deal-helped-craft/2fTkGON7xvaNbO0YbHECUL/story.html

 

I thought it was frowned upon (*cough* Logan Act *cough*) for a private citizen to engage in foreign policy.

Pretty sure the FBI had a little chat to new NSC Director Flynn about this.

Does Kerry get a pass?

[Vertigo]

23 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Using that logic, do you blame Obama for reversing the gains started by Bush in iraq?  

Not looking to debate the efficacy of the original Iraq war, I think the whole thing was a massive mistake by Bush.  Regardless, when Bush left office things were quantifiably trending better and under Obama they went to epic shit levels.... rise of the caliphate, etc.  

And under Trump that issue has been resolved.  All of us should know the demise of IS as a territory holding major force is 100% attributable to this administration.

So does Trump get credit for reversing Obama‘s policies in Iraq? And should Obama be blamed for reversing Bush’s policies? 

Yes and no. I put the majority of the blame on the Iraqis themselves for not maintaining the security that was in place before we left. At this point we shouldn't be having to hold their hand in securing their nation, they've had plenty of time to get themselves in a position to have kept IS from retaking territory. That being said, I think Obama was more than likely briefed that once we leave there's a good possibility that IS would be emboldened and will once again take over control of areas of Iraq. He should have listened to that and ensured the Iraqi government was 100%, rather than just leaving and saying "your problem now, deal with it".

So how long do we stay this time? Are we going to maintain a permanent presence in Iraq? If we leave again in the future and IS once again takes over territory, do we then recognize that it's not our policies but rather the lack of resolve by the Iraqis themselves?

[tac airlifter]

28 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

So how long do we stay this time? Are we going to maintain a permanent presence in Iraq? If we leave again in the future and IS once again takes over territory, do we then recognize that it's not our policies but rather the lack of resolve by the Iraqis themselves?

I don’t have any answers to those questions bro.  No idea what the solution is out there.  Hard to care, which  I know his immature. 

Mainly just curious how you saw that situation, and if you’d give Trump credit for reversing any of Obama’s failures.  Not sure I understand your “yes and no” reply. 

[Vertigo]

2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

I don’t have any answers to those questions bro.  No idea what the solution is out there.  Hard to care, which  I know his immature. 

Mainly just curious how you saw that situation, and if you’d give Trump credit for reversing any of Obama’s failures.  Not sure I understand your “yes and no” reply. 

I give Trump credit for bringing in Mattis on his team and allowing him essential free reign to do what he sees fit to accomplish the mission. IMO he's the only guy in his administration that meets Trumps bill of "only hiring the best people".

[matmacwc]

2 hours ago, Vertigo said:

I give Trump credit for bringing in Mattis on his team and allowing him essential free reign to do what he sees fit to accomplish the mission. IMO he's the only guy in his administration that meets Trumps bill of "only hiring the best people".

It is definitely the #1 appointment of this administration, I think Nikki Haley is on that list as well.

[matmacwc]

Friend of mine made the front page of Breitbart.

https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/05/12/former-navy-seal-waterboarding-sleep-deprivation-box-confinement-just-another-day-office/

[tk1313]

I thought SERE was awarded to SEALS for good behavior.

[brickhistory]

So Nobel Peace Prize winner and former President Barack Obama has taken to making derogatory statements about the current Administration's actions in public venues.

Today, two former Obama NSC staffers published a NYT editorial recommending that European countries expel US Ambassadors (I know, they should be dead ones, but I digress...) over the US' withdrawing from the Iran deal.  Because "if the US doesn't live up to sacred agreements, then this is expected action. "  You know, the deal signed by one guy but not a binding treaty and unsigned by another guy as if it never existed.

 

[brickhistory]

Whether you think it for good or bad, Trump does seem to be actually doing things. Including one that his predecessors of both parties said the US should do, but always held off doing so.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/united-states-opens-its-israeli-embassy-in-jerusalem/ar-AAxfV7K?OCID=ansmsnnews11

[brickhistory]

FBI/DOJ's story on the when and why they started investigating the Trump campaign continues to unravel.

See NYT for poorly written article.

Informative because it states, including exactly when said investigation began, so to me, that implies the leaker was involved in order to know such details, and that involved a small, unofficial group of FBI agents, five or less.  Who happened to be part of the same group who were on the Hillary e-mail/espionage investigation.

Poorly written because it contradicts itself by stating mid-way through the article that the senior DOJ Nat'l Security lawyer was involved and that then Deputy DOJ Atty Gen Yates said they were low-key efforts.  So she knew about it.

And that Comey, then Director of the FBI was briefed occasionally on it.  So he knew.

 

So, sure, I probably need to apply a fresh coat of peanut butter to my tinfoil hat, but here is another piece of the powerful law enforcement and/or IC institutions of government being used for political gain or intel in order to acquire gain.

Sure as sh1t, the right will do it as well.  No complaining when it does if heads don't roll now.

-Unmasking of numerous US citizens who just happen to be opposition party

-FBI Director leaking classified to the press

-FISA warrants obtained using opposition research

etc etc etc/

 

 

[drewpey]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

FBI/DOJ's story on the when and why they started investigating the Trump campaign continues to unravel.

See NYT for poorly written article.

Informative because it states, including exactly when said investigation began, so to me, that implies the leaker was involved in order to know such details, and that involved a small, unofficial group of FBI agents, five or less.  Who happened to be part of the same group who were on the Hillary e-mail/espionage investigation.

Poorly written because it contradicts itself by stating mid-way through the article that the senior DOJ Nat'l Security lawyer was involved and that then Deputy DOJ Atty Gen Yates said they were low-key efforts.  So she knew about it.

And that Comey, then Director of the FBI was briefed occasionally on it.  So he knew.

 

So, sure, I probably need to apply a fresh coat of peanut butter to my tinfoil hat, but here is another piece of the powerful law enforcement and/or IC institutions of government being used for political gain or intel in order to acquire gain.

Sure as sh1t, the right will do it as well.  No complaining when it does if heads don't roll now.

-Unmasking of numerous US citizens who just happen to be opposition party

-FBI Director leaking classified to the press

-FISA warrants obtained using opposition research

etc etc etc/

The article explicitly says "just a coffee boy" Papadop was the leaker, and initiated this whole thing.  He was totally involved, but we knew this months ago.

Also the (R) claim that the FBI was colluding against Trump is ridiculous.  The Clinton investigation was leaking like a sieve and was dominating the news cycle with negative headlines, while the Trump investigation wasn't even discussed until after the election was over.  If you were going to weaponize the FBI, or the intel gained from this type of investigation that's got to be the dumbest possible way to do it...wait until you've been shot to pull out your gun.  Believe me I know the DNC can be completely incompetent at times, but this is beyond the pale.

Can you educate me on the "espionage" aspect of the Hillary investigation you mention?

Are you against unmasking if the contents of the communications involve crimes of conspiracy against the united states?

Do you have a citation for the FBI director leaking information that was classified at the time of the "leak"?

Evidence is evidence, regardless of the source.  The investigators have to convince a judge for a FISA warrant, and they did.  If you want to complain about the FISA warrants, complain to your congressman about the process, not about those that followed the process lawfully and came to a result you didn't like.

[brickhistory]

If you have classified e-mails on your personal server, you can be charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 among other USC violations.

 

Numerous examples from the previous Administration that didn't involve handing over secrets to another country, just had classified where they shouldn't have.

As to the rest of your post, I disagree

I stand by my interpretation of the facts/info that I know of to expect government powers to be misused even more often and further.

 

edited to add:  Interesting to note that two reasonably intelligent (an assumption regarding both) people can read an article and draw largely different conclusions as to the important points.  🍺

 

Edited May 17, 2018 by brickhistory

[drewpey]

You are always entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

The facts as they are made aware to us at this moment show that the unmasking was legal, Comey did not "leak" any classified information at the time he released the information, and the FISA warrant was approved on legal and straightforward grounds.

If you come to different conclusions regarding the information we've been provided then you are likely not reading news, but rather sensationalized "entertainment" or "fake news" as they say.  That's not to say these facts as we know them today aren't misleading, but no evidence has been produced by anyone to prove your conspiracy theories.  That's the thing about conspiracy theories...they rely on the evidence of absence, not the evidence of facts.

[tac airlifter]

6 hours ago, drewpey said:

You are always entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

..., but no evidence has been produced by anyone to prove your conspiracy theories.  That's the thing about conspiracy theories...they rely on the evidence of absence, not the evidence of facts.

The above statement is exactly how I feel about the Russian collusion narrative.  A year of hardcore investigation by a special council filled with partisan democrats has produced zero evidence the Trump campaign colluded or conspired with Russia to win the election.  How much longer should the nation endure the Mueller probe?  

[brickhistory]

7 hours ago, drewpey said:

You are always entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

The facts as they are made aware to us at this moment show that the unmasking was legal, Comey did not "leak" any classified information at the time he released the information, and the FISA warrant was approved on legal and straightforward grounds.

If you come to different conclusions regarding the information we've been provided then you are likely not reading news, but rather sensationalized "entertainment" or "fake news" as they say.  That's not to say these facts as we know them today aren't misleading, but no evidence has been produced by anyone to prove your conspiracy theories.  That's the thing about conspiracy theories...they rely on the evidence of absence, not the evidence of facts.

So much for comity.  

(See what I did there?)

And as I stated, it is interesting to note how the same facts can be looked at and two different conclusions drawn.

I look forward to the current Ambassador to the UN requesting the IDs of multiple US citizens as the last one did.  I look forward to the current DNI lying under oath to Congress as the last one did.  I look forward to the current FBI director providing government-owned and classified at the time (per the DOJ IG) memos to a 'friend' who also happened to be an FBI special employee who in turn leaked that information to the press.

I look forward to the next NIE being produced and reviewed by the current CIA director's hand-picked analysts by only the FBI, CIA, and, if memory serves, one other instead of the entire IC as is the SOP.  To which the then director of the NSA disagreed with the findings, but the dissenting section was also omitted unlike every other NIE.

And other facts that are known.  So conspiracy theory?  I'm not thinking so, but I do know that those on the other side of the spectrum would be lighting torches in the street if the roles were reversed.

And they are going to be if those who abused, or allowed to be abused, the instruments of national power for partisan political advantage.

Politics is a full-contact sport.  No problem with politicians engaging in mud fights.  Professional, executive branch institutions and individuals are not supposed to knowingly help one side or the other.  If those who have done so aren't punished now, it will only get worse.

[Azimuth]

3 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

The above statement is exactly how I feel about the Russian collusion narrative.  A year of hardcore investigation by a special council filled with partisan democrats has produced zero evidence the Trump campaign colluded or conspired with Russia to win the election.  How much longer should the nation endure the Mueller probe?  

Kenn Starr was appointed to investigate the Clinton’s in August of 1994 and didn’t release his report until September of 1998. 

I’d say Mueller has some time.

Zero evidence? Then why was Manafort and Gates indicted?

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/387837-judge-rejects-manafort-motion-to-dismiss-russia-probe-charges%3famp

 

[tac airlifter]

39 minutes ago, Azimuth said:

Kenn Starr was appointed to investigate the Clinton’s in August of 1994 and didn’t release his report until September of 1998. 

I’d say Mueller has some time.

Zero evidence? Then why was Manafort and Gates indicted?

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/387837-judge-rejects-manafort-motion-to-dismiss-russia-probe-charges%3famp

 

Did you read your own link?  Those charges aren’t related to trump “collusion” with Russia during the 2016 campaign.  Your link answers your question- those folks were indicted for pre-campaign shenanigans unrelated to the reason a special council was originally authorized.  I don’t care.

 So yea, one year and zero evidence of the original claims that opened this SC.  

[drewpey]

4 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

The above statement is exactly how I feel about the Russian collusion narrative.  A year of hardcore investigation by a special council filled with partisan democrats has produced zero evidence the Trump campaign colluded or conspired with Russia to win the election.  How much longer should the nation endure the Mueller probe?  

No credible claim has been provided to claim these people are "partisan democrats".  Do I need to parade all the Republicans praising the selection of Mueller one year ago?  He was universally welcomed to sort out this mess, until he started asking tough questions.

I agree the left has some ridiculous conspiracy theories as well, but in general everyone should want to see the results of the investigation, and assess the validity of the investigation on the underlying facts.  Everyone wants to jump to conclusions about where this is going and to be honest only the Special Counsel knows because they run a very tight ship, and we only hear about where they've been 6 months after the fact.  The right needs to cool it trying to discredit the investigation, and the left needs to cool it thinking Mueller is some super hero savior that will save america.  He's just a law officer doing his job.  America needs to sort itself out.

[drewpey]

4 hours ago, brickhistory said:

So much for comity.  

(See what I did there?)

And as I stated, it is interesting to note how the same facts can be looked at and two different conclusions drawn.

I look forward to the current Ambassador to the UN requesting the IDs of multiple US citizens as the last one did.  I look forward to the current DNI lying under oath to Congress as the last one did.  I look forward to the current FBI director providing government-owned and classified at the time (per the DOJ IG) memos to a 'friend' who also happened to be an FBI special employee who in turn leaked that information to the press.

I look forward to the next NIE being produced and reviewed by the current CIA director's hand-picked analysts by only the FBI, CIA, and, if memory serves, one other instead of the entire IC as is the SOP.  To which the then director of the NSA disagreed with the findings, but the dissenting section was also omitted unlike every other NIE.

And other facts that are known.  So conspiracy theory?  I'm not thinking so, but I do know that those on the other side of the spectrum would be lighting torches in the street if the roles were reversed.

And they are going to be if those who abused, or allowed to be abused, the instruments of national power for partisan political advantage.

Politics is a full-contact sport.  No problem with politicians engaging in mud fights.  Professional, executive branch institutions and individuals are not supposed to knowingly help one side or the other.  If those who have done so aren't punished now, it will only get worse.

My earlier comment about Papadop was aimed at what I guessed was the NYT article you mentioned, but it was actually a WSJ (R) article.  I had to hunt it down after POTUS mentioned it.  It's behind a paywall though, but I don't see a lot of other news outlets picking it up which makes me question if its just speculation or actual reporting.

Anyways...I agree there has been a lot of lying under oath to congress lately and it pisses me off.  Congress needs to get off their ass and start punishing those that do.  They are a complete joke, and the people going to speak to them know it and use it to their advantage.

Again, no proof the leaked memo was classified from Comey.  This is a lie that the right keeps pushing.  He classified the memos...after he was kicked to the curb the FBI upgraded the classification, but that was later disputed as improperly done.

As far as the NIE thing, I'll have to read up on this is the first time I'm hearing about it and can't speak to it.

[tac airlifter]

21 minutes ago, drewpey said:

No credible claim has been provided to claim these people are "partisan democrats". 

 I agree in principle with the sentiments of your post. Except this part above.  I’m not sure what you would consider a “credible claim” so I will share this article  and allow everyone to draw their own conclusions.  I think my characterization was fair, and you  should acknowledge that the assembled SC team is disproportionately full of democratic donors with a history of working for partisan democratic causes.

Whether or not they can set aside personal opinions and remain objective is up for debate, I don’t know.  That his team  is comprised exclusively of partisan Democrats is a fairly straightforward statement. 

[YoungnDumb]

On 5/16/2018 at 9:45 PM, drewpey said:

You are always entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

What about alternative facts?

[tk1313]

On 5/17/2018 at 8:41 AM, Azimuth said:

Kenn Starr was appointed to investigate the Clinton’s in August of 1994 and didn’t release his report until September of 1998. 

I’d say Mueller has some time.

Zero evidence? Then why was Manafort and Gates indicted?

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/387837-judge-rejects-manafort-motion-to-dismiss-russia-probe-charges%3famp

 

You're talking about very different time periods with respect to how quickly information can be gathered. I can only dream of a world where Twitter was around during Bill Clinton's Presidency...

Edited May 18, 2018 by tk1313

[brickhistory]

Does anyone find it curious that the same media outlets that did their utmost to publish damaging material about the CIA, FBI, etc previously are now their staunchest defenders?

 

The other side of the coin fits as well.  Conservative media trashing those same institutions.  My bias shows in that the damaging information being revealed now is the overtly political activity against US persons.  I'm agin the federal government being used that way.