US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[ikalugin]

What the state does not know of, it cannot plunder.

What if a person is a part of the state? Or much better what if the state is accountable to said person?

On the topic of gold the practice here is:
- either buy physical gold (or coins) with certificates and store them at home (or any other place that you choose - banks also offer storage services if you need them).
- or buy what you would call paper gold.

Can't agree with you on the point of hiding your gold. As we say the thermorectal cryptoanalyser would break any secrecy you can think of. You can see an example of one below:

 

Personally I don't see the point in hoarding gold and our fammily invests elsewhere.

[Bilge_Rat]

Nunes has now confirmed that:

1) the Trump transition team was spied on under a FISA warrant;

2) the surveillance had nothing to do with the Russia investigation; and

3) the reports were disseminated widely in the intelligence community.

Members of the intelligence community "incidentally collected" communications from the Trump transition team during legal surveillance operations of foreign targets, a top Republican lawmaker said Wednesday afternoon.

House Intelligence Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said this produced "dozens" of reports which eventually unmasked several individuals’ identities and were "widely disseminated."

He said none of the reports he had read mentioned Russia or Russians and he was unsure whether the surveillance occurred at Trump Tower -- as President Trump has suggested. Nunes also was unsure if then President-elect Trump was captured by the surveillance, which occurred in November, December and January.

“I recently confirmed on numerous occasions the intelligence community incidentally collected intelligence,” Nunes said.

(...)

Nunes said the surveillance collection was "legally collected foreign intelligence under FISA incidental collection." But Nunes said he was "alarmed" the intelligence "ended up in reporting channels and was widely disseminated."

It was previously reported that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was "unmasked" in this way, however, Nunes said "additional names" were unmasked as well.

He said he didn't know what foreign intelligence value the surveillance had "and why people would need to know that about President-elect Trump and his transition team." Nunes did not identify which foreign targets were under surveillance.

Asked if he thought Trump was spied on, Nunes replied: "I'm not gonna get into legal definitions here, but clearly I have a concern."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...unes-says.html

So this confirms Obama was spying on Trump.

The real question for me is why did Comey lie on monday or was he not aware of the FISA warrants? If so, who did ask for the FISA warrants?

[mapuc]

I have a confession
Trying to keep in touch with all this US Politics and what have been said or not been said about trump is sometimes for me like

"Confused watch next episode of Soap"

Markus

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Breaking news: apparently Trump may have been wiretapped by the Obama administration

At the very least, it seems the Obama administration was "monitoring" the Trump transition team after the election and that this was not part of the Russia investigation.



http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...e-obama-236366

[Bolding mine]

Did anything in Nunes' statements directly name or specify either Obama himself or members of his White House administration as the instigators or architects of any of the wiretapping of the Trump campaign, much less any wiretapping of Trump, personally? I've read the stories from the various reports and postings on the web and have watched the videos posted of Nunes making his statements and have not seen any specific claims. Obama was not the instigator of the wiretappings and surveillance; they were part of the process of investigations by the FBI and other intelligence entities into the suspicious and possibly illegal activities of certain individuals, some of whom are actors for foreign interests. The communications of those actors were monitored and, in the process, so were the communication between them and those with whom they communicated. If some of those persons were, in fact, persons who may have been associated with the Trump campaign or the Trump White House, then whatever they did or said is on their heads alone unless subsequent data proves otherwise. Even Nunes himself says the data he found was incidental, not specifically directed at Trump or his associates, and part of a normal investigative process, so no "smoking gun" for either side. I'm waiting for a fuller release of data before making a definitive decision; unlike the DEMs, I am not making any absolute declaration of Trump's guilt; Unlike the GOP, I am not making a claim there is nothing to investigate nor that all of Trump's associates are innocent. Perhaps if Trump and his circle were not given to making so many patently false statements, some outright lies, then, maybe, this whole matter could have been easily resolved. So far, the process seems to follow the Gen. Flynn step-by-step mold: (1) "I have never had contacts with Russians" [statement given under sworn oath]; (2) "OK, I did have contacts with Russians, but didn't have material conversations"; (3) "OK, I did have material conversations, but never discussed [insert possible violation(s) her, in Flynn's case, the lifting of sanctions]; (4) "OK, I did discuss [possible violation(s)]"; and there's the door, don't let it hit you on the way out...

In a bit of a related breaking news, another of those Trump associates who has previously denied any connections with Russia is facing new revelations:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...1b8_story.html

I think Manafort's well along the Flynn Process now...



<O>

[vienna]

For those inclined to read or see for themselves what was actually said by Nunes, here is a link to a site with the full text of Nunes' statements:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-hec...uide-perplexed

The full text is towards the bottom of the post and there is an analysis of the claims made by Nunes' in the main body of the post...


This is a link to a video of Nunes making his statements:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?425829...-speaker&live=




<O>

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

What if a person is a part of the state? Or much better what if the state is accountable to said person?

On the topic of gold the practice here is:
- either buy physical gold (or coins) with certificates and store them at home (or any other place that you choose - banks also offer storage services if you need them).
- or buy what you would call paper gold.

Can't agree with you on the point of hiding your gold. As we say the thermorectal cryptoanalyser would break any secrecy you can think of. You can see an example of one below:


Personally I don't see the point in hoarding gold and our fammily invests elsewhere.

Banks will be shut in times of bank runs, also states already before have cracked storage safes in banks during crisis. Keep it out of reach and out of knowledge by the state.

In Germany, you can still buy Gold up to a daily amount worth up to 14999 Euros per day, per head, without getting registered or being identified. Its called Tafelgeschäft (table deal), and perfectly legal. Also, no taxes if the format is so called investment gold (misleading term, but thats how it is). That means bars, and coins that in the past 200 years have been official currency in any state in the world. If you keep it for at least one year, you also pay no taxes when selling it.

Keynesians of course desperately want to change all this. No cash deals. No private gold ownership. No legal anonymity. The state mafia must get its share, the citizen has to be totally naked, defenceless and transparent to the state - and even then he still is suspicious and claimed guilty if he cannot prove his innocence.

If you buy gold, 1. buy it physically, 2. anonymously, and 3. do not place it in a storage at your bank. If you do not do like this, then you have no real idea why you even buy gold. As I said: its no investment, its a safety play. It alters ypur chances, and still the state can catch you if it wants - when you need to sell your gold (taxes).

[ikalugin]

So what if the person in question is the state and knows that the state would not infringe on his property rights?

Skybird if state (or any other organised) group wants your (individual's) gold they will get it, for example by abducting and torturing you (most recent example I could think of was battalion "Tornado" case). If you want to improve your security you do not hoard gold or guns, you participate in politics either in existing system or, if it no longer works, in the system that you create (local militias, etc) because the only things that protect your rights are the social contract and the the mass violence that backs it up.

Did anything in Nunes' statements directly name or specify either Obama himself or members of his White House administration as the instigators or architects of any of the wiretapping of the Trump campaign, much less any wiretapping of Trump, personally?

Same logic as when Putin comes up. If the people affiliated with the Russian state are perceived as doing something wrong Putin gets accused of ordering them to do that.

[Skybird]

You mean a state that "runs around", torturing people at random to find out whether they hide some welath or not? That would be arbitrary, like in any banana republic, a tyranny. I would flee from such dictatorship - or grab a weapon and sjoin the other side in this civil war. Because that is what this sooner or later leads to.

In the past, in the US, raids on private safes were rare during the prohibition of gold. In England, which had a very strict limit for owning private gold untol the 70s, it happened almost never. In Nazi-Germany and before, the police searched homes when they had a starting suspicion that somebody hid something. Thats why I say: if you buy gold, buy it ANONYMOUSLY. Which currently can be done perfectly legal in Germany with a daily limit of short of 15000€. You walk to the counter of a serious "Scheideanstalt" (Affinerie with kind of a banking license, or a certification), put money on the table and take gold in return and walk out. Like buying a portion of fish and chips. I would not do it in the shady shops you find at the central station, private jewelers and so forth. - In Argentine was the last time, some years ago during their crisis back then, that the police raided banks and opened lockboxes held by private people. Bank storage is no safe option in such scenarios, also,ðurign bank runs, banks are closed. You have mo access to yor lockbox. Also, there is no automatical insurrance in case the private safes get opened by robbers, like happened twice in berlin in past 10 years, and once in my own home city.

The other part of your question is too hypothetical as if I would set up my mind with it. Such a person knowing what is on order becasue that person is the state hinself - fine for him. In the end, you speak of Putin here. Why shoudl a private person compare himsef to Putin? Does not affect me, you or anyone else. Insider knowledge it is called, and using it for own profit - t happens at the stockmarkets all the time, I bet. A form of fraud with early announcement.

And keeping gold is not about keeping your security in a violance-related context, but against the loss of buying power due to the devaluing of goods and currencies (inflation, confiscation, exprpriation, penalty taxes) I meant that remark exclusively in a financial, economical context.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

For those inclined to read or see for themselves what was actually said by Nunes, here is a link to a site with the full text of Nunes' statements:

From the linked article...

When asked whether the Justice Department authorized him to make the information public, Nunes said he thought the President “needed to know,” presumably indicating he did not, in fact, have DOJ permission. Considering the focus on leaks of FISA material of Republicans at Monday’s hearings, the question of whether Nunes himself has just improperly discussed classified FISA matters in public is one that deserves at least some attention.

[ikalugin]

You mean a state that "runs around", torturing people at random to find out whether they hide some welath or not?

I was talking about organised groups. For example in Ukraine Tornado battalion (de-jure part of the state but de-facto independent) was abducting/torturing people in order to extort money from them. While Tornado battalion got disbanded and prosecuted (without sucsess) by the state authority that did not give the men affected back their anal virginity (prisoners were forced to sodomise other prisoners for the amusement of the captors).

raids on private safes

I guess that perception comes from the experience that you have studied, Soviet experience shows that if you have gold (or foreighn currency cash) and if the state wants it (and such things were illegal in USSR) they would take them and if was done within the rule of law they would not give it back.

I think we need to separte the intersts from rights. If the rights are no longer protected by the rule of law, then an individual cannot protect his property and thus hoarding gold is useless. If the rights are protected then you can protect your interests within the rule of law by participating in the political life, meaning that gold hoarding is redundant.

On the second part - if a person is affiliated with the state said person, with the insider knowledge, would be able to perceive the state's intentions and capabilities and thus, see if his interests require protection. As a such person I do not see the need to protect my interests in Russia. And if I did I would not hoard gold or any physical valuables (gems, etc), I would invest outside of my home country to diversify my wealth and, should there be a collapse in the rule of law, I would rather have loyal (volonteer) militiamen and (hired) security guards around me, rather than hoarded gold and guns.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

From the linked article...

It is indeed an interesting question whether Nunes did any proper vetting or handling of the information before he scurried off to the White House to inform Trump. It is known he informed neither his own party members on the Intelligence Committee nor, obviously, any of the DEM members, notably Schiff, the ranking member and co-chair. From what I have read and seen, none of the investigative or intelligence entities involved in the investigation(s) into possible criminal activity, any or all of whom could have been the source of Nunes' 'data', were even ever approached by Nunes prior to his meeting with Trump. This not only brings into question the reliability of his 'data', it also brings into question whether his actions constitute a serious, likely illegal, breach of protocols regarding classified information and, if his intent was to derail further investigation by 'muddying the waters', is he then guilty of deliberate hindering of a Federal investigation and/or obstruction of justice...

Another aspect that is interesting is, based on Schiff's account of his discussion with Nunes afterwards, apparently the 'data' Nunes had in his possession had some parts 'masked' or redacted, most likely the actual names persons cited in the 'data'; Schiff said:

As to the substance of what the Chairman has alleged, if the information was lawfully gathered intelligence on foreign officials, that would mean that U.S. persons would not have been the subject of surveillance. In my conversation late this afternoon, the Chairman informed me that most of the names in the intercepted communications were in fact masked, but that he could still figure out the probable identities of the parties. Again, this does not indicate that there was any flaw in the procedures followed by the intelligence agencies. Moreover, the unmasking of a U.S. Person's name is fully appropriate when it is necessary to understand the content of collected foreign intelligence information.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...ce-allegations

Either Nunes is really dense as to the real workings of the Intelligence community and its agencies or he is playing a bit 'dumb' in a disingenuous attempt to divert attention from his possible real intent. It is possible he is actually dense: he has zero intelligence experience and his main occupation before joining Congress was farming. It is to be remembered appointments to committees and their chairmanships are through a process of primarily seniority and, to a lesser degree, party cronyism. I once, in another thread, posited the question of how the vetting of a security 'clearance' for a newly elected President would be handled: would the intelligence community be fully comfortable giving full, unimpeded access to intelligence to someone who, in normal life never would get to the higher levels of security clearances, but who now, by reasons of a political process is in the Oval Office? I think the same question can be asked about members of the House and Senate: does it make any sense for anyone, of either party, to be placed in positions where they would have access to, or knowledge of, highly sensitive national security matters simply because they had 'X' number of years in office or simply because they are a political 'favorite' of the party in power. Seniority respect and party loyalty are all fine and good, but in the case of national security and the fate of the nation, a well-considered and executed selection process would seem to be a better choice of action...

Here is a link to another interesting article on the Nunes situation:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...nt-say/520455/

At the White House, however, Nunes offered an answer that muddied the waters on whether he thought the collection was in fact legal.


“What I have read seems to me to be some level of surveillance activity, perhaps legal, but I don’t know that it’s right, I don’t know that the American people would be comfortable with what I read, but let’s get all the reports,” Nunes said.


But this, too, is perplexing, as though Nunes was just now realizing for the first time that U.S. persons’ information is routinely caught up in FISA surveillance.

<O>

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

I was talking about organised groups. For example in Ukraine Tornado battalion (de-jure part of the state but de-facto independent) was abducting/torturing people in order to extort money from them. While Tornado battalion got disbanded and prosecuted (without sucsess) by the state authority that did not give the men affected back their anal virginity (prisoners were forced to sodomise other prisoners for the amusement of the captors).

I guess that perception comes from the experience that you have studied, Soviet experience shows that if you have gold (or foreighn currency cash) and if the state wants it (and such things were illegal in USSR) they would take them and if was done within the rule of law they would not give it back.

I think we need to separte the intersts from rights. If the rights are no longer protected by the rule of law, then an individual cannot protect his property and thus hoarding gold is useless. If the rights are protected then you can protect your interests within the rule of law by participating in the political life, meaning that gold hoarding is redundant.

Rights are formal rules applied by the state, basing on the law of the strongest. And if the state makes state-run robbery legal, than state-run robbery is legal. It is immoral and a violation of the natural right to own property (one of the three only human rights there are) , but legal by the letter of the rights/laws it nevertehless is. The crimes and acts of barbary by the Gestapo, the Securitate, the Stasi, the KGB, the expropriation of people by the state - all that were legal acts. Evben urder, torture, kidnapping can be legal - of state'S laws say they are. Lawful and morally okay, legality and morality are two very different things. One can act legal and immoral at the same time.

Helmut Schmnidt once said the highest instance a politician must accept his accountability to, is not the people who voted him, nor the letter of the law or the constitution, nor loyalty to his party - but his conscience. Nice comment. If he always did like this, can be discussed. Sometimes at least he did indeed.

But the state is the biggest villain of all. A rule-giver who uses his monopole to exclude himself from the rules, and can violate his own rules and afterwards make the act of violation legal by changign the rules . King Kong writing the law of the jungle.

But all that is leading to far here. i wanted to oint out only that the chnaged polcies of China and Russia of no longer putting trust in US treasuries but hording gold instead shows a trend that sooner or later must collide with financial interests of the the United States of Paper Money and Ininite Debts, and since Trump was said to have enjoyed Putin'S Trust, the fact that PÜutin nevertheless continues to buy all Gold he can get tells the opppsite. Putin is too unsentimental as if "trust" would be a motivation for his acting. His plan with the US and Europe has nothing to do with trusting Trump. Or anyone else.

[ikalugin]

But all that is leading to far here.

Ok I would drop the topic then.

i wanted to oint out only that the chnaged polcies of China and Russia of no longer putting trust in US treasuries but hording gold instead shows a trend that sooner or later must collide with financial interests of the the United States of Paper Money and Ininite Debts,

Geopolitical tensions are in my opinion the simpler explanation. The Trump-Putin relationship is even more overblown than Obama-Medvedev relationship back the day. After each of the POTUSes tried to "improve" relations with Russia we dont really trust them anymore.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by u crank

From the linked article...

standard tactic, you don't like the message, you attack the messenger, both sides do it.

Vienna, I don't have time to go into the Nunes bombshell now, but will later on today.

[u crank]

So let me get this straight. Both sides think they have scandal that will cause much pain to the other. So the possible outcome could be that Dems will prove that Trump colluded with the Russians to beat Hillary Clinton but possibly the only way to prove it is by using intelligence gathered by a sitting President, (legally or illegally), on a Presidential candidate who won the election, during the election.

More coffee. Need more coffee.