US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Platapus]

No one has been able to provide a reason why the Russian's would bribe someone for the Uranium One deal

1. There was no uncertainty that it would be approved by the CFIUS. By the time a deal gets to the CFIUS, it is pretty well accepted. In the case of the Uranium One deal, there was no controversy and no doubt that the committee would have recommended approval.

2. Why would the Russians bribe one person on this committee when there were eight others that evidently were not bribed. Bribing one out of 9 does not make any sense... Especially since none of the 9 had the authority to approve or disapprove the deal at all. That authority rested with the president.

3. If anyone on the CFIUS would have been a good target for influence, it would have been the Chair of the CFIUS which was the Sec Treasury.

Why bribe when you are already going to get the deal you want?
Why only bribe one out of nine people on the committee?

The Russians are many things but they are not stupid nor are they careless with their money.

That's the problem with conspiracies, they often fail even the most rudimentary common sense evaluation.

I dislike Hillary and would love to see her get her comeuppance. But this is a nothing sandwich with extra nothing sauce on the side.

I would rather people focus on her E-mail issues. Those are measurable and verifiable.

[vienna]

^ Agreed. The whole Uranium one non-scandal really does fall apart when facts and reason are applied to what the Far Right tries to make of it; the FR spend so much time chasing 'nothing burgers', they fail to act on the matters on and in which they might make an impact; instead of pulling stupid stunts like Nunes' memo debacle, they could show some maturity and focus on what they could have a shot at in regards to Hillary...

In my previous posting regarding the FISA Court and its operations, I had wanted to point out the FISA Court has a built in Court of Review to handle questions about the decisions ad/or actions of the main court proper:

http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/FISCR

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review was established in 1978 when Congress enacted The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which is codified, as amended, at 50 U.S.C §§ 1801-1885c. The Court sits in Washington D.C., and is composed of three federal district court or appeals court judges who are designated by the Chief Justice of the United States. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review was established to review the decisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ourt_of_Review

It would seem to me, if the GOP, Trump, Page, or any of the others either indicted, about to be indicted by a Federal Grand Jury as pat of the Special Counsel's investigations, or having a warrant levied against them by the Main FISA Court, it would be in their interest to raise the issue of a warrant's legality with the FISA CoR as a means of remedy; the fact none of them has done so suggests those so affected have very little faith in their argument(s) and the ability of such to withstand review; if they really believe they have been wronged, the FISA COR exists to address their concerns: what is stopping them?...

Maybe the parties complaining so loudly think it is easier and more profitable for them to try their case in the 'Court of Public Opinion'; the flaw there in that tack is the court(s) that really matter is/are the courts of actual law, not political spin...









<O>









<O>

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by vienna

<O>









<O>

OMG! They're multiplying!

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Platapus

No one has been able to provide a reason why the Russian's would bribe someone for the Uranium One deal

Why would the Russians bribe one person on this committee when there were eight others that evidently were not bribed. Bribing one out of 9 does not make any sense...

Why bribe when you are already going to get the deal you want?
Why only bribe one out of nine people on the committee?

The Russians are many things but they are not stupid nor are they careless with their money.

The money was available for bribery through a middle man .... their was budget. Bribes don't always make it to the news ... bribes don't always include just money ... they also include sexual favors (male and female), vacations, food, etc.

If it was money, as in this case, the final payoff may not have been as much as reported in order for the middle men to make a profit.

Why? Because the Russian's are liars and greedy and chess players from way back.

It was wrong to deal uranium from American soil to any of our enemies ... a chess move approved by the highest of the players Putin himself.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Dowly

OMG! They're multiplying!

...and, soon, they will take over the entire world...





Apologies for the duplicate; got interrupted and didn't realize I had already signed off...









<O> (Singular)

[vienna]

A couple of years ago, I raised the question of how security clearances are handled at the White House level and how a person who would never get a clearance as an individual applying outside the WH can actually get very high clearance once they are in the WH circle (I also posited the question of a President who would not be eligible for the highest security clearances outside of office being in possession of sensitive intel, but that is another matter). We are now seeing the very serious and real implications of WH clearances manifest in the Trump Administration; already, in Trump's first year in office, 7 out of the 12 first tier WH appointees (58%) have left their positions under clouds and many more in the lesser tiers have also been ousted from their positions, some for issues reflecting on their judgement and capabilities. This op-ed piece makes a good argument for really tightening up the vetting process:

Government security clearances, not Rob Porter, are the real issue --

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-hou...e-real-problem


Although I do not fully ascribe to the author's claims of a particular anti-Trump sentiment as being the sole reason for the vetting process' problems and failings (the fact a number of the Trump nominees had/have problems and situations enough to give any vetting agency pause is not touched upon in the piece), the piece does illustrate a serious problem that has only gotten worse...


As far as the quality and abilities of Trump appointees, there is this op-ed piece:

Trump's Vow to Hire the 'Best People' Isn't Panning Out --

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-t-panning-out


As a bit of a capper, there is this today:

Veterans Affairs chief Shulkin, staff misled ethics officials about European trip, report finds --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.8ce10cda6fc1

Veterans Affairs Secretary David J. Shulkin’s chief of staff doctored an email and made false statements to create a pretext for taxpayers to cover expenses for the secretary’s wife on a 10-day trip to Europe last summer, the agency’s inspector general has found.


Vivieca Wright Simpson, VA’s third-most-senior official, altered language in an email from an aide coordinating the trip to make it appear that Shulkin was receiving an award from the Danish government, then used the award to justify paying for his wife’s travel, Inspector General Michael J. Missal said in a report released Wednesday. VA paid more than $4,300 for her airfare.

The account of how the government paid travel expenses for the secretary’s wife is one finding in an unsparing investigation that concluded that Shulkin and his staff misled agency ethics officials and the public about key details of the trip. Shulkin also improperly accepted a gift of sought-after tickets to a Wimbledon tennis match, the investigation found, and directed an aide coordinating the trip to act as what the report called a “personal travel concierge” to him and his wife.

You'd think, after all the fuss about Hillary's emails and such, those in the Trump administration would be a bit more circumspect...











<O>

[Mr Quatro]

Thank you vinnea for posting and your concerns are my concerns, but $4,300 is nothing compared to the 20 trillion dollars figure of national debt.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/msn/i...ity/ar-BBJ5Itr

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned lawmakers Tuesday that failing to curb the national debt could jeopardize national security.

Coats is the latest national security official to warn of security risks posed by the national debt, which is now roughly $20 trillion

The only good that would come out of going to war with China, pick a reason any reason, would be not having to pay them back for the loans they give us for the national debt.

I've brought up the national debt before and wham everyone hits me with we (the USA) has to have some debt based on GDP.

War drums with NK is not good for the economy

Speaking of the economy: https://www.wsj.com/articles/japans-...efModule=nwsrl

TOKYO—Japan recorded its eighth straight quarter of growth, the longest streak since its heyday in the late 1980s, and economists generally expect modest expansion to continue this year

.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Thank you vinnea for posting and your concerns are my concerns, but $4,300 is nothing compared to the 20 trillion dollars figure of national debt.

...

Its not a question of quantity or quality: its a question of right and wrong, particularly if you hold a position of public trust or national security. To deliberately falsify emails, which, in the terms of the government, are official documents, with the intent to, essentially defraud or mislead, is a grave matter, regardless of who the parties are or the 'cost' of the offense. In the case cited, the charges could include fraud, forgery, malfeasance, perjury, and, perhaps, criminal conspiracy, among other possible charges. Until somebody, regardless of party affiliation or political bent, actually follows through on fully enforcing laws, regulations, and standards, it will be the same corrupt, inefficient, inept, and irresponsible 'business as usual'. At this point, the "Swamp Drainer" has only made the swamp bigger, sleazier, and with more 'gators than ever...











<O>

[Rockstar]

FBI Director James Comey stated: "It is a very big deal from a national security perspective and from a counterintelligence perspective. It’s a treasure trove of information about everybody who has worked for, tried to work for, or works for the United States government."

Speaking at a forum in Washington, D.C., Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper said: "You have to kind of salute the Chinese for what they did."

President-elect Donald Trump said: "China, relatively recently, hacked 20 million government names. How come nobody even talks about that?"

From a personal point of view my entire family (wife, brother, mother and father and three close friends) has been put at risk and still is because of the OPM breach in 2015. Because nobody in the swamp gave a crap or forethought about protecting 20 million people and placed this nations security at risk as well. Now you want a to make a mountain out of a molehill because of one persons inability to obtain a security clearance as some great threat national security because?

A complete waste of fekin bandwidth crying over it, its just a storm in a tea cup compared to what the swamp allowed in 2015.

[Mr Quatro]

I'm sure the FBI is taking our security measures seriously, but mean while the Russians are still up to their old dirty tricks while we are still investigating the 2016 elections:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/msn/u...ons/ar-BBJ5Gxy

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said Tuesday "there should be no doubt" that Russia sees the 2018 US elections as a target.

Coats and the other top national security officials told the Senate Intelligence Committee that they still view Moscow as a threat to the 2018 elections, a stance that appears at odds with President Donald Trump's repeated dismissals of Russian election meddling.

"We expect Russia to continue using propaganda, social media, false-flag personas, sympathetic spokesmen and other means to influence, to try to build on its wide range of operations and exacerbate social and political fissures in the United States," Coats said at a hearing on worldwide threats. "There should be no doubt that Russia perceives its past efforts as successful and views the 2018 US midterm elections as a potential target for Russian influence operations."

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

FBI Director James Comey stated: "It is a very big deal from a national security perspective and from a counterintelligence perspective. It’s a treasure trove of information about everybody who has worked for, tried to work for, or works for the United States government."

Speaking at a forum in Washington, D.C., Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper said: "You have to kind of salute the Chinese for what they did."

President-elect Donald Trump said: "China, relatively recently, hacked 20 million government names. How come nobody even talks about that?"

From a personal point of view my entire family (wife, brother, mother and father and three close friends) has been put at risk and still is because of the OPM breach in 2015. Because nobody in the swamp gave a crap or forethought about protecting 20 million people and placed this nations security at risk as well. Now you want a to make a mountain out of a molehill because of one persons inability to obtain a security clearance as some great threat national security because?

A complete waste of fekin bandwidth crying over it, its just a storm in a tea cup compared to what the swamp allowed in 2015.

So, basically, what you're saying is the transgressions of the Russians and their US enablers associated with the Trump campaign and administration and both of their associations with Assange and WikLeaks should be overlooked just because you happen to believe the 2015 incident(s) have been overlooked and/or forgotten? Even without any proof the FBI and other intel agencies may very well be actively and may have been actively pursuing the matter(s) out of the public and media eyes? And, yes, I have no proof myself they are or have been, in fact, pursuing the matter(s), but wouldn't it be a reasonable surmise a competent investigative agency would seek to reveal as little of their methods and/or results as possible to avoid tipping their hand(s)? Unless you can present actual proof to support your contention, it remains open...

The "Well, they did it, too!!" defense for wrongful actions is something the vast majority of adults left behind with nursery and elementary school, although, in keeping with the pre-adolescent nature of the current occupant of the Oval Office, it is to be expected. But, should it be expected from an administration that has bellowed so loudly and often about the rule of law and order to abandon any semblance of law and order to preserve their sorry political butts? I seem to recall something abut two wrongs not making a right...

All I want to see is someone, anyone, regardless of party or bent who has the guts to say "Enough!!" and do the right thing rather than cower to the petty demands of whatever political whim is prevalent; and, I think, I am not all alone in that wish...

Oh, and incidentally, it is not solely about one person's inability to get a security clearance: it is about dozens of persons not eligible for clearance, who occupy office of high public trust and national security , including Trump's son-in-law and sons and a disturbingly large number of persons very high in the White House administration...













<O>

[vienna]

Yet another Trump campaign figure appears about to throw in the towel and cooperate with the Special Counsel Mueller's investigation:


Exclusive: A top Trump campaign adviser close to plea deal with Mueller --

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/polit...ion/index.html


This development comes on the heels of Gates losing his third set of attorneys, last week, since his indictment by the Special Counsel. Gates co-defendant, former employer Paul Manafort ,would now be the only indicted Trump campaign figure to have not struck a deal with the SC. This does not bode well for Manafort...











<O>

[Platapus]

Proactive rats have dry feet.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by vienna

Yet another Trump campaign figure appears about to throw in the towel and cooperate with the Special Counsel Mueller's investigation:


Exclusive: A top Trump campaign adviser close to plea deal with Mueller --

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/polit...ion/index.html


This development comes on the heels of Gates losing his third set of attorneys, last week, since his indictment by the Special Counsel. Gates co-defendant, former employer Paul Manafort ,would now be the only indicted Trump campaign figure to have not struck a deal with the SC. This does not bode well for Manafort...

<O>

Steve Bannon was too interviewed for (IIRC) 20 hours by Mueller's team the past week or the week before.

In other news, remember that story about Trump most definitely not humping a pornstar named Stormy Daniels? Well, Trump's own attorney has now confirmed that there was a NDA agreement. Bit of an oops, since the NDA *allegedly* said the existence of the NDA should not be mentioned.

Sources (first ones I found on google for I am lazy):
On Bannon: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...t-week-n848421
On Stormy Daniels: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/14/u...hen-trump.html

[Platapus]

First rule of an NDA is not to talk about the NDA