US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

the surveillance scandal is starting to close in on Obama.

Susan Rice, Obama's National Security Adviser is the White House official that was reading the raw intelligence spying reports on the Trump transition team AND asking for the names of U.S. citizens to be unmasked so she could identify them:



The spying seems to have been done to obtain political information on what the Trump administration was planning to do:



It also appears that the reason Nunes went to the White House was to review Susan Rice's log with the requests to "unmask" names:



https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...iates-in-intel

Was Susan Rice doing this on her own? did she keep Obama in the dark? unlikely. Rice would most likely have told Obama exactly what she knew and did this on his orders or with her blessing.

This is political espionage pure and simple.

It looks like the FBI is ramping up its investigation of the Russian influence on the US elections and the possible connections to Trump campaign associates; they are forming a special section solely to deal with the investigation:

https://www.ft.com/content/40498d94-...4-13e067d5072c

In an appearance on Wednesday night before an industry group, Mr Comey declined to discuss the investigation. But he said the FBI would follow the facts without regard for potential political consequences. “We’re not on anybody’s side, ever,” he said. “We’re not considering whose ox will be gored. We just don’t care.”

An interesting observation from another article on the same subject:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fbi-t...162300405.html

The Fox report on Saturday said that the “unmasking” was done at the request of a senior figure in the Intelligence Community. That, too sent trump to Twitter, to claim he had been “spied on” by the Obama administration. “If this is true, does not get much bigger. Would be sad for U.S.,” he wrote.

On Monday morning, Bloomberg’s Eli Lake wrote a story suggesting the unmasking of Trump associates in dozens of reports containing accounts of conversations between Trump associates and foreign actors came at the request of then-National Security Adviser Susan Rice.

According to Lake, “One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.”

This would dovetail with Trump’s repeated claim that he was placed under surveillance for political reasons. However, it also raises a fairly obvious question: If this information was gathered for a political hit on Trump during the election year -- something that would be a stunning abuse of power -- why did nothing emerge given that it’s now clear that there were multiple contacts between the Trump team and Russian officials during the campaign?

An alternative explanation is that Rice, as President Obama’s National Security Adviser, had been informed that there was an active FBI investigation into the Russian meddling and the potential connection between the Kremlin and the Trump team and that she wanted to stay abreast of what intelligence agencies were finding.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...




<O>

[vienna]

A couple of interesting editorials in the Los Angeles Times (two of four in a series):

Our Dishonest President:

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-e...est-president/

Why Trump Lies:

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-why-trump-lies/

More to come...



<O>

Great read so far.
I'd love to hear what the Trump supporters active in this thread think about it.

[August]

We'll see who wins this dog fight.

https://spectator.org/the-media-give...-to-obamagate/

It is slowly dawning on some in the media, including David Ignatius, the Washington Post reporter who served as a stenographer for leaking Obama embeds, that this story is moving in Trump’s direction. Ignatius had to make this point gingerly, lest he incur the wrath of his liberal confreres, but he made it nonetheless on Face the Nation:

So under existing surveillance orders, the United States is listening to all kinds of diplomats, intelligence officials around the world under various authorities. And when that collection picks up incidentally the names of Americans, Joe Russia happens to be calling Joe America, Joe America’s name is typically minimized. It’s — it’s masked so that that person’s privacy is — is protected. In — in certain circumstances when it’s necessary to understand who the conversation is — was between, the name is unmasked and then if — if there’s a — a legal investigation beyond that, there — there — there are even more reasons.
What’s happened this month is that what initially seemed a preposterous argument by Donald Trump, that he had been wiretapped by President Obama illegally, has morphed into an argument about privacy, about proper masking techniques, a very technical, legal issue, and is now accepted, I think, as part of the mainstream set of issues that are going to be debated by the two intelligence committees. And from — from Trump’s standpoint, that’s, I think you’d have to say, that’s a success. It may be a pyrrhic victory for Nunes, whose — whose credibility, the ability to lead the committee, is radically compromised, but that’s now in the center stage.

Eli Lake, the columnist for Bloomberg who reported on the Rice revelation (Cernovich says that Bloomberg also sat on the story until he broke it), said to the displeasure of the comically biased Katy Tur, “This is troubling what happened here.” That is not what Tur wanted to hear. She quickly tried to change the subject and later made the preposterous argument that the focus on Susan Rice helps Russia.
In other words, no one is supposed to notice that one government did interfere in the U.S. election — ours. For months and months, the Obama administration was spying on Trump and leaking hints of its investigation to the press in the hopes of helping Hillary, who, by the way, colluded in the effort. Yet even the ruthless partisan Adam Schiff can’t “definitively” cite a single proof of collusion on Trump’s part, as he reluctantly acknowledged on Sunday. Given all the spying and leaking on Trump, wouldn’t we know by now if they had any evidence of collusion?
To say that Trump in this matter is more sinned against than sinning is an understatement. He was the blatant victim of political espionage and criminal leaking by the Obama administration, then when he complained about it, he was smeared anew. Two questions have swirled around this story: Did the Obama administration spy on Trump? Did Trump collude with the Russians? The answers are yes and no. The media wanted the answers to be no and yes. So now their game is to pretend like they didn’t ask the questions or that the “real story” is Trump’s imprecise tweeting. Notice that almost every story on the Rice revelation begins with throat-clearing about how it doesn’t “vindicate Trump’s tweet,” as if grading him on a tweet, in which he was clearly using wire-tapping as a synonym for spying and investigating, is the most pressing concern here.

[Rockstar]

President Obama to Mitt Romney: "...when you were asked what's the biggest geo-politicial threat facing America, you said Russia... The 1980s are now calling and asking for their foreign policy back. Because, the Cold War's been over for 20 years."

[vienna]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Those who have no guilt will fear no investigation. So far, the only people trying to avoid or squelch any investigations are the Trump associates, the GOP, and Trump himself. I have heard of no open attempts by any others to stop an investigation. Look at it this way: if you were the President, or any of the other actors involved and you knew the charges were false, wouldn't it be far more advantageous to allow the proceedings to continue and emerge vindicated? Not only would your own record be clean, you would also have the pleasure of seeing your detractors and accusers humiliated in the public eye. Think back to the Clinton impeachment: Clinton was probably guilty of some transgressions, but not enough to warrant removal from office; the GOP mounted a grand, ludicrous spectacle of a 'trial' (including the sight of the Chief Justice of SCOTUS donning a robe design lifted from, somewhat appropriately, a Gilbert & Sullivan comic opera); the 'trial' was so farcical, by the time it was nearing an end, fully three-quarters of Americans polled wanted the whole thing stopped. The GOP came out of the affair looking like fools and lost a considerable amount of political capital in the eyes of voters. The GOP now should flip the theme on the DEMs: if there is no basis in fact to any of the allegations, let the investigations go on and just wait for vindication, leaving the DEMs to suffer public humiliation; the GOP would raise their standing in the public eye (something they sorely need) and could garner a few more seats in Congress. It's just a form of political "rope-a dope"; let your opponent exhaust themselves and, when they have weakened themselves, give them the knockout punch and walk away with the win and the championship...

But, right now, it looks like the GOP are the "dopes", flailing and throwing punches that miss their mark, acting like punch-drunk club fighters, and exhausting themselves in the eyes of the public. They are not acting like people who are confident of their stance and of their innocence; they are acting like furtive, fearful, guilt-ridden children who have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar and are desperate to deflect blame to anyone but themselves. If some one acts like they're guilty, odds are they usually are guilty...



<O>

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by vienna

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...


<O>

True, what Susan Rice did MAY be innocent, just like it MAY be political espionage. What we really need is an investigation which will happen since multiple congressmen and senators are now asking that Rice's role be investigated.

Rand Paul wants her brought before Congress so she can be asked under oath what Obama knew and when did he know it.

to be followed

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by vienna

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Those who have no guilt will fear no investigation. So far, the only people trying to avoid or squelch any investigations are the Trump associates, the GOP, and Trump himself. I have heard of no open attempts by any others to stop an investigation. Look at it this way: if you were the President, or any of the other actors involved and you knew the charges were false, wouldn't it be far more advantageous to allow the proceedings to continue and emerge vindicated? ..

<O>

well no, I think you are missing the larger picture on this. It should be obvious at this point, there is no real investigation into Trump-Russia collusion. The FBI, CIA, Democrats and liberal media have been searching desperately for 9 months and have not found one solid piece of evidence.

The purpose of the investigation is not to prove Trump colluded with Russia, but to keep the whiff of potential scandal around so Democrats can score points in the 2018 and 2020 election. That is why Democrats want to stretch it out as long as possible, by asking for a special prosecutor or a commission, while the Republicans want the investigation to stay in Congress so they can wrap it up well before the 2018 election.

Now Democrats have to be careful the whole thing does not backfire. They have nothing substantial on the Trump-Russia scandal, but the Obama surveillance scandal is only 1 month old and it is already just outside of Obama's door via Susan Rice.

[Rockstar]

"Those without guilt will not fear an investigation.". Whiskey Tango Foxtrot over!

That statement is wrong on so many levels it makes me want to vomit. Can you articulate any suspicion WHY there needs to be an investigation? Do you have any probable cause or evidence that would lead one to believe a crime has been committed? Because as our own American history has shown any investigation called for or conducted without those things amounts to nothing more than a fishing expedition, a public spectacle and ultimately leads to a national embarrassment.

But if you think its OK to begin an investigation without anyone being able to articulate thier suspicion, develop probable cause or present any evidence. You wouldnt mind then if the government investigates you for collusion, fraud, or un-American behavior and activities would you?

Though I dont have any evidence as of yet, I need to fish for err... I mean investigate your past. I just want to know who you have spoken with and what the subject matter was to discover any possibilities you might have been or are now engaged in un-American activities.

But dont worry Vienna just remember your own words if you're not guilty you have nothing to worry about, OK? Nothing to fear as I go about investigating your past, your friends and tarnish your good name. Oh, and I'll have to open your private life to the public too and publish it all on front page news feeds. You see we dont use courts or rules of law anymore to determine guilt all I need to find you guilty these days is a simple majority public consensus. Then I can act with their permission and sentence you.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Great read so far.
I'd love to hear what the Trump supporters active in this thread think about it.

I say we should unmask vienna

Just kidding vienna, but I will say to the anti-trump crowd you are more passionate than we are for POTUS Donald Trump.

Can you imagine what a run for the White House will be like in 2020 for the DNC to bring all of this 2017 news up will be a bit too much for me?

[Bubblehead1980]

The ongoing left wing freak out over President Trump is nothing short of hilarious, but also SAD.

President Trump is the FIRST President since perhaps Andrew Jackson who has been so viciously opposed by the power structure. Jackson faced powerful forces in the US primarily, where as Trump is taking on the evils of globalism, which has entrenched itself in the US over the last 70 years or so.

President Trump represents American Nationalism, which is a Civic Nationalism, not based on race or religion, but on the ideology of this country and it's people first, as it should be.Support of Capitalism, truth, pl direct speech, respect for our sovereignty, and the constitution before anything else.Opposition to globalist policies that harm our people, infringe upon our sovereignty, political correctness, etc. Finally standing up to Islam, which is the great threat to our civilization, but the so called "elites" refuse to acknowledge this.President Trump is fighting the devastating hordes of illegal immigrants and the harm caused to citizens by excess legal immigration, no because of race or religion but because before we allow others in, every citizen should go first This flies in the face of Marxist inspired globalism, and everything in it's minions agendas.

Although a billionaire, Trump is not part of the club, he is disliked, much as Jackson was, because he is not from their circles and he refuses to tow the line and can not be bought. Much as with Brexit lead by the great Nigel Farage, the people of the US chose to stand up and save our civilization before it is too late.

People are mostly shocked that someone is actually following through on campaign pledges and was not just making empty promises.Trump declared war on the globalists during the campaign with a quote that should be on his headstone:

"We will no longer surrender our country or it's people to the false song of globalism."

[eddie]

Interesting-

"But NBC has learned that Rice didn't — and couldn't — "order" the unmasking of any American because only the agencies that gathered the surveillance (usually the NSA or FBI) can make that call and the process is subject to rules and reviewed by lawyers.
The bar is high too because there has to be a legitimate intelligence reason to justify identifying the person or persons.
Also, it's not unusual for administrations to request the identities of people captured on surveillance so they can better understand the intelligence. Former NSA chief Keith Alexander told NBC he routinely turned down unmasking requests by senior officials in the Obama and George W. Bush administrations.
Unmasking does not mean making public. The reports are still highly classified and viewable by just a select group of people with top secret clearance."

[Bilge_Rat]

news is moving fast.

Susan Rice was interviewed by Andrea Mitchell. She confirms that she asked for the unmasking of the names of Trump campaign officials, but denies this was done for political purposes.

two weeks ago on PBS, she said she had no knowledge of any surveillance whatsoever.

They really have to get their story straight.

Now, Rice just dropped another nugget:

Rice implied that President Obama himself ordered the compilation of intelligence reports on Trump officials. “…the president requested the compliation of the intelligence, which was ultimately provided in January [2017].”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...drea-mitchell/

the noose is getting tighter...

[August]

Originally Posted by eddie

The reports are still highly classified and viewable by just a select group of people with top secret clearance."

Unless one ensures that the reports are leaked anonymously to the press. Then they're viewable by everyone unless the press determines that they are either damaging to the Democrats or favorable to the Republicans.

[Catfish]

^ Breitbart? Interesting.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7641826.html

How comes that sites like "Breitbart", "American Thinker" or "Daily caller" can be even quoted as only halfway credible "news"? What the hell went wrong.