Today in hypocrisy...

[LookieRookie]

17 hours ago, nsplayr said:

The entire executive branch is accountable to the President, who is accountable to Congress, term limits and the American voters, but he does not control the entire executive branch. Nor should he! Nor can he!

This statement is false.

“Article II, Sec 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

And Sec 2

”he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices,”

 

 

[Guest nsplayr]

It’s not that the President doesn’t have sufficient authority to turn the DOJ into his personal vendetta police, it’s that he shouldn’t do that and all presidents, in writing, have agreed to limit comms between the WH and DOJ ahead of time in order to prevent even the appearance of impropriety.

Maybe some of y’all are a lot younger than me or weren’t taught proper contemporary US history or IDK, but if you want to go back to a pre-Nixonian setup I mean ok, but that’s not a popular opinion among any stripe of expert nor IMHO a wise one.

Nixon committed crimes, directed others to commit crimes, and when the crimes started coming to light he tried to order the DOJ to cover it all up. I would prefer for that not to be an option available to any American President, and since Nixon, other relevant authorities eg Congress and voters have largely felt the same way.

Edited August 20, 2022 by nsplayr

[Guest nsplayr]

I 1000% guarantee you that if Garland has gone to Biden ahead of time and Biden personally signed off on the FBI paying Trump a visit, the right wing media outlets would have absolutely lost their f-ing minds about how improper that all was and how Biden would have massive conflicts of interest and how he was a dictator going against his own written policy and long-standing norms.

And ya know what, had that happened, they would be right!

Like I can’t believe some of y’all are wishcasting for Dark Brandon, fresh off of big legislative victories, to personally direct the dark forces of The State against his chief political opponent 😂 I mean…if I were a Republican I would not want that but 🤷‍♂️

Edited August 20, 2022 by nsplayr

[disgruntledemployee]

Fighting over Trump reminds me of this little TV series clip.

 

[jazzdude]

The FBI was built in the early 20th century at the direction of President Roosevelt. It was under his authority an autonomous agency of law enforcement was stood up. Not congress, not the Supreme Court, solely the President. 

And where does the funding for the FBI come from?

Presidents can start initiatives, but without funding (i.e. consent) from Congress those ideas for pretty quickly.

[FLEA]

57 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

And where does the funding for the FBI come from?

Presidents can start initiatives, but without funding (i.e. consent) from Congress those ideas for pretty quickly.

 

And.....?

 

Edited August 20, 2022 by FLEA

[FLEA]

So sort of spin back to hypocrisy here and what to do about it. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/media/desantis-press-secretary-roasts-abc-news-double-standard-for-bill-coverage.amp

Ignore the fact it's fox and it's one sided, but the content of the tweets themselves. This is honestly a fantastic analysis of political press hypocrisy. It's not that Fox News doesn't use similar techniques, but when they are pointed out it is incredibly pointed at showing how language can alter the take away from an article. I'm wondering if a tool that scans and points out loaded press language would be useful at increasing the size of the first two standard deviations of the electorate. 

[MCO]

5 hours ago, FLEA said:

So sort of spin back to hypocrisy here and what to do about it. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/media/desantis-press-secretary-roasts-abc-news-double-standard-for-bill-coverage.amp

Ignore the fact it's fox and it's one sided, but the content of the tweets themselves. This is honestly a fantastic analysis of political press hypocrisy. It's not that Fox News doesn't use similar techniques, but when they are pointed out it is incredibly pointed at showing how language can alter the take away from an article. I'm wondering if a tool that scans and points out loaded press language would be useful at increasing the size of the first two standard deviations of the electorate. 

I regularly flip between Fox and CNN to see the spin words each use in an article. It’s frustrating to not have a neutral main stream media, but it seems like most people just want to watch whatever confirms their own views.

[Guest nsplayr]

I’ve found the BBC to be pretty neutral when covering American news. In fact it’s the only TV news I can ever stand to watch on occasion.

[GrndPndr]

10 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I’ve found the BBC to be pretty neutral when covering American news. In fact it’s the only TV news I can ever stand to watch on occasion.

Regretfully however, their website is all about victims.  Every story describes a victim and what they've suffered.  It's tiring.

You can try the Times of London, but like the WSJ, it is a pay site (I am paying $4./mo).  They hate Trump and BoJo (I know, no longer a factor), but the opinions seem a little more to the middle and right.

[Prozac]

21 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I’ve found the BBC to be pretty neutral when covering American news. In fact it’s the only TV news I can ever stand to watch on occasion.

PBS isn’t bad either of you must “watch” your news. I think many conflate it with NPR but I’ve found PBS (particularly the News Hour) to be much more neutral in addition to being willing to do deeper dives on important topics vs the sound bite warfare conducted by the likes of MSNBC, Fox, and CNN. Reading multiple sources remains the best way to stay informed. I don’t have access anymore but I always appreciated the Early Bird as a daily conglomeration of stories that affected my life as a military member. Not sure if the EB is even still being compiled, but if so, it might be a good place to start for generally well written articles from across the journalism spectrum. 

[Pooter]

Reuters is also good for basic facts and the breaking points podcast (recommended ad nauseum by Rogan) is great for in depth analysis. 

[FourFans]

Holy hell.  This thread is what happens when graduated assistant-to-the-deputy group commanders are now 737 FOs and no longer have O-3 execs to pontificate at concerning their immense, hard earned, and expansively broad wisdom.

 

Oh yeah, BrightNeptune: You should go home.  You're drunk.

[JBueno]

[ClearedHot]

On 8/20/2022 at 9:29 AM, nsplayr said:

I 1000% guarantee you that if Garland has gone to Biden ahead of time and Biden personally signed off on the FBI paying Trump a visit, the right wing media outlets would have absolutely lost their f-ing minds about how improper that all was and how Biden would have massive conflicts of interest and how he was a dictator going against his own written policy and long-standing norms.

And ya know what, had that happened, they would be right!

You were saying...

White House Counsel asked the nationbal Archives to give the FBI Access to Trump documents

 

[timberlin]

5 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

You were saying...

White House Counsel asked the nationbal Archives to give the FBI Access to Trump documents

 

 

[Guest nsplayr]

5 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

You were saying...

White House Counsel asked the nationbal Archives to give the FBI Access to Trump documents

 

Maybe I don’t get it…the FBI wanted to look at documents collected by the archives in January (that were also marked classified, up to TS/SCI and SAPs!), and the archives officials wanted the executive branch to adjudicate on the question of Trump’s claim of executive privilege.

The WH council, not Biden personally, said, “Yea go ahead FBI, we are the executive now and we assert no privilege over these documents.”

That’s how I read it anyways.

ps the NY Post website is an virtual bazar of ads and spam…please tell me you use reader view on there 😅

Edited August 24, 2022 by nsplayr

[ClearedHot]

Come on man...it wasn't up to the Biden admin to assert executive privileged on those documents.  The WH had zero business being any part of that discussion.

More will come out, just like the whistle blowers form the FBI that have come forward and said the FBI purposely tried to minimize the laptop. 

I do use reader view, but don't read the Post all that often, just happened to see the link to their story.  There has an will continue to be a flurry of legal filings around the constitutionality of what happened, but just like buying votes...I mean forgiving student debt, timing just before the mid-terms is key to both of these stories.

[Guest nsplayr]

Didn’t the archives as the WH whether or not they wanted to assert privilege?

Because trump wanted to do so, but since he’s no longer in office that opinion no longer matters for the docs in question.

I will admit I am not as tied in to the right-wing outrage-o-sphere as you are, so I’m open to being not up to speed on some detail here, so long as you’re open to it being well short of tyranny when the FBI looks into someone having boxes and boxes of TS/SCI in their Florida gold club 🍻

Edited August 25, 2022 by nsplayr

[ClearedHot]

4 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Didn’t the archives as the WH whether or not they wanted to assert privilege?

Because trump wanted to do so, but since he’s no longer in office that opinion no longer matters for the docs in question.

I will admit I am not as tied in to the right-wing outrage-o-sphere as you are, so I’m open to being not up to speed on some detail here, so long as you’re open to it being well short of tyranny when the FBI looks into someone having boxes and boxes of TS/SCI in their Florida gold club 🍻

It wasn't up to current WH to ask about Trump's privilege.

I am open to and hope the FBI will look into such things, legally...and hold those who violate the law accountable...you know like when Hillary had TS/SCI SAP on her wide open server...by the way in your so called Whataboutism defense, you completely ignore the fact that the FBI has officially said the stuff on her server WAS compromised by foreign actors...isn't that just peachy...I know I know, nothing to see her because she is a democrat and the outrage only applies when Trump has classified.

There are some serious shenanigans around the timing of the raid when all they had to do was ask, instead they let it sit there in the "Florida Gold Club."  Trump is claiming he declassified the documents...a crappy argument if he is trying to make it after the fact, but by law he did have the authority when his people took the documents.

[Sim]

 

Quote

“Whistleblowers have recently contacted my office to share serious concerns about the FBI’s handling of Hunter Biden’s laptop,” Johnson wrote, adding that FBI leaders at the local level told employees that “you will not look at that Hunter Biden laptop” when it was discovered at a Delaware computer repair shop in 2019.

The new claims “allege that the FBI did not begin to examine the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop until after the 2020 presidential election—potentially a year after the FBI obtained the laptop in Dec. 2019,” Johnson said.

The whistleblower also allegedly said the leadership essentially said that employees are “not going to change the outcome of the election again,” possibly referring to former FBI Director James Comey’s 2016 letter to Congress about Hillary Clinton’s private email server that came just days before the 2016 General Election.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-whistleblower-claims-fbi-leaders-delayed-key-investigation-sen-johnson_4685738.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport

 

Nothing political about FBI, right? right? 

[Guest nsplayr]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

It wasn't up to current WH to ask about Trump's privilege.

 

My understanding is that it was. The archives wanted to know if the executive was claiming privilege over the documents, and the Biden WH, being the executive, said no.

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

It wasn't up to current WH to ask about Trump's privilege.

I am open to and hope the FBI will look into such things, legally...and hold those who violate the law accountable...you know like when Hillary…

This is the textbook definition of the “whataboutism” that I mean. What about Hillary, what about Hunter…

What about we focus on the case at hand? Is it defensible for trump to have documents marked TS/SCI at mar a lago?

Hillary's case wasn’t handled well, and I feel that way probably for different reasons than you, but on that we agree. So should we handle trump’s case badly also?

I’m curious what your desired endgame is for this current, relevant investigation. If it’s anything other than it should be handled fairly and any people who committed crimes should be held accountable, I would be surprised, because you and I both know that’s the only correct answer. No one is above the law.

TBH I’m also ready to tap out here y’all…you know my position and we’ve covered the same ground quite a bit.

Edited August 25, 2022 by nsplayr

[slc]

10 hours ago, nsplayr said:

No one is above the law.

Except if you're a Democrat...

[ClearedHot]

16 hours ago, nsplayr said:

My understanding is that it was. The archives wanted to know if the executive was claiming privilege over the documents, and the Biden WH, being the executive, said no.

I do not agree with your understanding, likely some unsettled law.  Harvard has a couple articles about using the SCOTUS cases that arouse during Watergate.  Some indicating the current administration has the hammer, others think it should apply to the past President.  It is likely to be re-adjudicated by SCOTUS because of this circumstance...Under your interpretation Biden can use it as a political weapon and release any of Trump's information.

16 hours ago, nsplayr said:

This is the textbook definition of the “whataboutism” that I mean. What about Hillary, what about Hunter…

What about we focus on the case at hand? Is it defensible for trump to have documents marked TS/SCI at mar a lago?

Hillary's case wasn’t handled well, and I feel that way probably for different reasons than you, but on that we agree. So should we handle trump’s case badly also?

Sorry brother but this is absolute horse crap, was it defensible that Hillary had SCI on her server?  For the record, I do not advocate we handle Trump's case poorly, I advocate that if we are going to run trump through the wringer, GO BACK and run that horrible bitch through the same wringer.  Hold her accountable, why is that so difficult for you to say?  it is not ancient history...apply the freaking law EQUALLY TO ALL.

16 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I’m curious what your desired endgame is for this current, relevant investigation. If it’s anything other than it should be handled fairly and any people who committed crimes should be held accountable, I would be surprised, because you and I both know that’s the only correct answer. No one is above the law.

I've made my desired endgame very clear.  It is very simple and follows your theme that no one is above the law.

1.  Investigate Trump and hold him accountable to the letter of the law.

2.  Open the case against Hillary back up and hold her accountable to the letter of the law...don't be a Comey this time and change the verbiage of how she handle TS/SCI just to skirt the law.

3.  Investigate the laptop and Hold Hunter and the "Big Guy" to the letter of the law.

Stop the Wahtaboutism mantra and just agree all need to be held accountable...it is not rocket surgery.

[Guest nsplayr]

You can hold everyone accountable, that’s fine.

Where we disagree maybe is that I’m not a fan of going back years to re-litigate cases where no charges were brought. How far back do you go? To what end?

”Go back and run that bitch through the same ringer” is not a sound legal theory for equal justice under the law. And FWIW I don’t want to “run Trump through the ringer,” I want the law applied and the investigation to be thorough, no more and no less.

If Hunter’s case is still pending, by all means investigate that to a logical conclusion.

We agree that Hillary’s case wasn’t handled well, great. It is not defensible to have TS/SCI on her server, I haven’t defended that, nor is it defensible for Trump to have similarly classified docs (marked as such) in a random closet at his Florida golf club. Trump’s case is being investigated right now, let’s have the DOJ handle the case correctly.