US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Oberon]

Ah, American exceptionalism...always found that a bit creepy if I'm honest.

[DicheBach]

Originally Posted by u crank

Interesting article in Wall Street Journal by Shelby Steele, The Exhaustion of American Liberalism.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-exh...1826?mod=e2two

I think he hits it out of the park.

Sounds quite apt to me too. I used to subscribe to WSJ while I imagined doing some day trading. Then the Russians invaded Urkaine and sent the markets into unpredictable undulations and I lost interest in reading the paper.

One of the few outlets I can think of which seems to do a good job of staying balanced.

Their hosting those editorials attacking Pewdiepie was rather out of character I thought.

[ikalugin]

http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...085e2-46190889

[Bilge_Rat]

interesting, someone pointed me to this report which appeared in the BBC in january.

BBC? that vaguely rings a bell, is that a reliable news source?

1. although not spelled out, it seems the source for the story is most likely former CIA director John Brennan:

On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to me by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He would never volunteer anything - giving up classified information would be illegal - but he would confirm or deny what I had heard from other sources.

"I'm going to write a story that says…" I would say. "I don't have a problem with that," he would reply, if my information was accurate. He confirmed the sequence of events below.

2. Ostensibly, the reason to obtain the wiretap was info about secret payments from the Kremlin to the Trump campaign:

Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was - allegedly - a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign.

It was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States. The CIA cannot act domestically against American citizens so a joint counter-intelligence taskforce was created.

3. However that info seems to have been only the excuse they gave to obtain the warrant, since you will notice that supposed "tape" has never surfaced or even been discussed by any other news source.

The taskforce included six agencies or departments of government. Dealing with the domestic, US, side of the inquiry, were the FBI, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice. For the foreign and intelligence aspects of the investigation, there were another three agencies: the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency, responsible for electronic spying.

Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.

Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge.They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day

4. that last paragraph is important, there were 3 FISA applications, one in june, one in july and one in october. It is also important to note the first two applications were rejected which would not have happened if the information was reliable. This does make it look like it was a "fishing expedition" just to find dirt on Trump.

5. now we get to the juicy part, according to at least one source, the target of the investigation was Trump:

Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities - in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony offence.

A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case - told me that three of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.

6. now we get to the actual purpose of the investigation, smearing Trump just before the election to make sure Clinton wins. That was the reason Harry Reid was publicly pressing FBI director James Comey to announce that there was an investigation:

The investigation was active going into the election. During that period, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid, wrote to the director of the FBI, accusing him of holding back "explosive information" about Mr Trump.

Mr Reid sent his letter after getting an intelligence briefing, along with other senior figures in Congress. Only eight people were present: the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, and the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties in Congress, the "gang of eight" as they are sometimes called. Normally, senior staff attend "gang of eight" intelligence briefings, but not this time. The Congressional leaders were not even allowed to take notes.
'Puppet'

In the letter to the FBI director, James Comey, Mr Reid said: "In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and co-ordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers, and the Russian government - a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Mr Trump praises at every opportunity.

"The public has a right to know this information. I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public. There is no danger to American interests from releasing it. And yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

[Oberon]

"BBC? Here's another beauty..."

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Oberon

"BBC? Here's another beauty..."

so I take it the BBC is NOT a reliable news source...

[ikalugin]

Wikileaks:

 

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

so I take it the BBC is NOT a reliable news source...

According to the White House, no.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Wikileaks:

 

Doesn't work for me, which is ironic...but I'm going to guess that this is about Vault 7?
I'd be interested to see what would happen to Wikileaks if they tried something like this on the FSB... They'd probably all suddenly have 'heart attacks'.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Doesn't work for me, which is ironic...but I'm going to guess that this is about Vault 7?
I'd be interested to see what would happen to Wikileaks if they tried something like this on the FSB... They'd probably all suddenly have 'heart attacks'.

Yes, Vault-7.

[DicheBach]

Bizarre . . . I keep hearing people say that "Hillary's campaign received several million ($20?? maybe even $200?)" from Saudia Arabia.

If it would be "illegal" for Trump or any of his associates to receive funds from Russia, then surely it would also be illegal for the Clinton campaign to receive funds from Saudi Arabia!? Yet I never see this treated as a big deal that needs to be refuted, just a sort of off hand comment . . .

Half the **** you read is just plain false and half of the other half is only half right.

[Oberon]

I think the key is not so much the funds from Russia, which is, like you say, dirty but not exactly unusual, but more the way that information was suddenly leaked which was highly advantageous to the Trump campaign. That's what gets me. If wikileaks wanted to even have an smidgeon of impartiality then they'd have gone for the Republican emails as well as the Democrat ones, but they didn't. There's little doubt that there is dirt there, but the people who did the digging against the Democrats are strangely reluctant to do the same for the Republicans, which makes you think...doesn't it?

[Reece]

Why would Donald bother with funds? He has enough of his own!!

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Reece

Why would Donald bother with funds? He has enough of his own!!

That's the thing that's always made me ponder about big businessmen, how much money they actually have, vis a vis how much money they claim to have, and how much is given to them because of their worth.
I'm reminded of a story I heard once of a man, probably back in the Victorian era, who was worth so much money that he was able to go to cafes and shops and get things without paying for them up front, because he had a good reputation and was known to be quite wealthy, and this was many years before the age of the credit card, but in a way it acted in a similar manner.

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by Oberon

That's the thing that's always made me ponder about big businessmen, how much money they actually have, vis a vis how much money they claim to have, and how much is given to them because of their worth.

That's the problem here, we just don't know. He refuses to release tax statements describing all this. I really don't care what he's actually worth, as long as he hasn't broken any tax laws, which might be the case since the he filed for that loss and supposedly hasn't filed since, but that's not the point. The point is, as president, you need to have clarity and be unambiguous in your motives. By not releasing the requested forms, it appears he is hiding something. If there's nothing to hide, or even if there is, release them. Clear up the story, get over it and move on.


And now, about the new health care act. You know it has problems when Ann Coulter is attacking it.




And then there's this gem from the BBC (which is my preferred news source, followed by the AP and Reuters):

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39200733

"It seems like passing the recently unveiled Republican Obamacare replacement bill will be about as difficult as making a half-court basketball shot. From a moving car. While blindfolded."

With The president and Congress all controlled by the same party, they should be slamming legislation, good or bad, down the throats of the American people. But they're not.

The presidency is in shambles and a disgrace to the American public, and Congress is left trying to pick up the pieces. But the pieces are scattered so far that they can't keep up. This guy is making Romney look like a saint. I would have voted for Romney or McCain over Hillary if I had been given that option.