US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

But that's all that any "side" in politics ever does. This forum is an excellent example of that thinking.

"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right."
-H.L. Mencken

This is true, it's probably one of the biggest flaws in the democratic system. Still, I'd rather have it than any other that we've tried so far.

[Rockstar]

Sometimes we just need to turn off our mind relax and just gently float down stream.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Sometimes we just need to turn off our mind relax and just gently float down stream.

I'm cool with that, just so long as that sound in the distance are trees in the wind and not a waterfall.

[Platapus]

You know, I told you people something a long time ago, and it's just as pertinent today as it was then. Ladies and gentlemen, take my advice - pull down your pants and slide on the ice.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Sidney, poker?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by STEED

Sidney, poker?

I hardly even knew her.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I'm cool with that, just so long as that sound in the distance are trees in the wind and not a waterfall.

The stream I was thinking about is more along the line of the Beatles "tomorrow never knows"

[Jimbuna]

The POTUS now accuses the ex-POTUS of tapping his phones during the election campaign

US President Donald Trump has been urged to provide evidence to back his allegation that his predecessor, Barack Obama, ordered his phones to be tapped during the election campaign.
The Republican president has supplied no details to back his claim.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39170985

[Oberon]

I was being kind and not bringing this one up, Jim.

But since we're here...if this is true, and not just a Breitbart article, then it suggests that a FISA court had grounds to grant a warrant for wire-tapping in regards to the investigation to Trumps Russian ties.

Does make you feel sorry for White House staff though, doesn't it? Apparently this one caught them all off guard, and now they have to try and work out how to respond to it without dropping the Donald in the sewage.

[Bilge_Rat]

well no, there was not and still is not any credible evidence of illegal ties between Trump and Russia.

If the Obama admin was eavesdropping on a political opponent to obtain damaging information to help the Dems win the election, that is a major political scandal on the level of Watergate since this is exactly what Nixon did.

In summary: the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...dermine-trump/

[August]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...eillance-trump

To summarize, reporting indicates that, prior to June 2016, the Obama Justice Department and FBI considered a criminal investigation of Trump associates, and perhaps Trump himself, based on concerns about connections to Russian financial institutions. Preliminary poking around indicated that there was nothing criminal involved. Rather than shut the case down, though, the Obama Justice Department converted it into a national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA allows the government, if it gets court permission, to conduct electronic surveillance (which could include wiretapping, monitoring of e-mail, and the like) against those it alleges are “agents of a foreign power.” FISA applications and the evidence garnered from them are classified – i.e., we would not know about any of this unless someone had leaked classified information to the media, a felony.

Of course, doing so is controversial, as President Bush learned after he directed the NSA to conduct warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists following the 9/11 attacks. Nevertheless, we should not allow the statements of Obama spokesmen to confuse us here. The Justice Department and FBI have two missions: (a) criminal law-enforcement and (b) national security. It would be scandalous (though probably not constitutional) for a president to interfere in the law-enforcement mission by ordering the Justice Department to prosecute someone outside its normal procedures. But it would not be inappropriate e–ven though civil libertarians would raise holy hell — for the president to direct warrantless surveillance against a target, even an American citizen, if the president truly believed that target was functioning as an agent of a foreign power threatening U.S. interests.

To be clear, there does not seem to be any evidence, at least that I know of, to suggest that any surveillance or requests to conduct surveillance against then-candidate Donald Trump was done outside the FISA process.

Nevertheless, whether done inside or outside the FISA process, it would be a scandal of Watergate dimension if a presidential administration sought to conduct, or did conduct, national-security surveillance against the presidential candidate of the opposition party. Unless there was some powerful evidence that the candidate was actually acting as an agent of a foreign power, such activity would amount to a pretextual use of national-security power for political purposes. That is the kind of abuse that led to Richard Nixon’s resignation in lieu of impeachment.

Moreover, it cannot be glossed over that, at the very time it appears the Obama Justice Department was seeking to surveil Trump and/or his associates on the pretext that they were Russian agents, the Obama Justice Department was also actively undermining and ultimately closing without charges the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton despite significant evidence of felony misconduct that threatened national security. This appears to be extraordinary, politically motivated abuse of presidential power.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...eillance-trump

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

Unless there was some powerful evidence that the candidate was actually acting as an agent of a foreign power, such activity would amount to a pretextual use of national-security power for political purposes. That is the kind of abuse that led to Richard Nixon’s resignation in lieu of impeachment.

That is the $24m question, because honestly what would be the point of Obama launching such a thing when through-out most of the campaign the Trump party constantly suffered misfortunes and was factored by most to not have much of a chance of winning.
In short, if your enemy is making a mistake, why interrupt them? Why open yourself to that risk? Particularly in October where polls gave Clinton a sizable lead.
Just now, James Clapper flat out denied that Trump tower was bugged, but whether that is true or not is anyones best guess. It's not as if his memory hasn't been spotty before. Still, we'll see if Trump turns up any evidence for his claims, or whether this is just a chaff dispensing before tomorrows apparent Travel Ban Mk II launch.

[Catfish]

Please do not post too much Breitbart links here, and i promise not to link Pravda.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Just now, James Clapper flat out denied that Trump tower was bugged

James Clapper?

The same James Clapper who lied under oath to Congress about whether the NSA was spying on U.S. citizens? There is a reliable source.

Interesting that they would send him on air.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Please do not post too much Breitbart links here, and i promise not to link Pravda.

Nothing wrong with Breitbart, I visit the site regularly, just like I visit Real Clear Politics, Politico, NY Times, BBC, Guardian, Spiegel, etc.

90% of the stories on Politico and Breitbart are the same, except that Politico has a anti-Trump and Breitbart a pro-Trump slant.