US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

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

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

We should quote left biased companies like CNN, MSNBC and ABC instead? They're just as biased the other way, even more so imo.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by 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.

that is a nice fake, but if you listen to the actual interview on MSNBC, you will hear the exact same quote at 6:39:



Knock yourself out.

[Catfish]

I heard it from the beginnning to the end, also around 6.39. What does that prove, or suggest?

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Catfish

... What does that prove, or suggest?

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Catfish

I heard it from the beginnning to the end, also around 6.39. What does that prove, or suggest?

The implication that Obama may have ordered it, certainly that he was aware of it.

Rice said the actions were legal, but the entire story raises more questions.

We now have confirmation that there were FISA warrants and that persons in the Trump transition team were being spied on. If the targets were foreign officials and the spying on U.S. citizens was "incidental", then yes, that would seem to be legal.

However, according to Nunes, the transcripts he saw had "nothing to do with Russia" which raises the question of why Rice would want to see them and know who was talking by "unmasking" the names. If the FISA warrants were being used to find out what the policies of the Trump transition team were, that would be an abuse of power and maybe illegal. This is what the Watergate scandal was all about, spying on your political enemies.

There is also the question of why Susan Rice would need those transcripts in the first place? Those are typically seen by the field investigators at the NSA and FBI who review the info and decide whether there is anything to act on.

The National Security Adviser is not an investigator. Typically, the NSA would receive a report with conclusions. Again, why would Rice want to see the actual transcripts and know the names of the Trump officials talking or being talked about? That is not her job. That does seem like she was doing her own digging and again seems to imply it was done for political purposes.

This story is not going away anytime soon.

[Bilge_Rat]

interesting.

this is from John Schindler who, even though he works for a media outlet Jared Kushner owns, is one of the most anti-Trump journalist around.

He is also a former NSA analyst. This is his take on this:

Yet there are caveats. Although it’s all but impossible to prove, if Rice asked for those identities for political—not national security—reasons, there’s a problem. Then there’s the possibility that she may not have adhered to NSA’s rigid rules about protecting the identities of those unmasked USPs. If she informed White House staffers without a need to know who those Americans were, the FBI may have something to investigate.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Susan Rice is a deeply unpopular figure with our Intelligence Community. Her abrasive personality and overall incompetence grated on the IC. Her habitually coarse language was inflicted on senior intelligence officials more than once, while nobody outside Obama’s inner circle considered Rice even marginally competent at her job. Simply put, she was the worst National Security Adviser in American history—at least until Mike Flynn’s dismally failed three-week tenure.

In addition, Rice didn’t like to play by the rules, including the top-secret ones. On multiple occasions, she asked the NSA to do things they regarded as unethical and perhaps illegal. When she was turned down—the NSA fears breaking laws for any White House, since they know they will be left holding the bag in the end—Rice kept pushing.

As a longtime NSA official who experienced Rice’s wrath more than once told me, “We tried to tell her to pound sand on some things, but it wasn’t allowed—we were always overruled.” On multiple occasions, Rice got top Agency leadership to approve things which NSA personnel on the front end of the spy business refused. This means there may be something Congress and the FBI need to investigate here.

Susan Rice and Team Trump are both despised by our intelligence agencies, albeit for different reasons. The prospect of a death-match between them is causing unusual emotions in the IC. “For us, this is like the Iran-Iraq war,” explained another longtime NSA official: “We’d like both sides to lose.”

http://observer.com/2017/04/nsa-susa...-donald-trump/

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by vienna

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Those who have no guilt will fear no investigation.

20 people who lived around Salem Massachusetts in the 1692-3 might disagree with you.

[Mr Quatro]

After President Trump won the election, Obama quietly expanded the NSA’s ability to spy on innocent Americans just days before leaving office.

In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.
The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

Trump questioned whether the NSA and FBI were behind a multitude of leaks handed to the New York Times and Washington Post.
The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people.
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch signed the new rules, permitting the N.S.A. to disseminate “raw signals intelligence information,” on Jan. 3, after the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., signed them on Dec. 15, according to a 23-page, largely declassified copy of the procedures.
These are Obama loyalists who reports suggest may have worked to sabotage Trump by ousting Flynn in order to preserve Obama’s Iran deal.
Previously, the N.S.A. filtered information before sharing intercepted communications with another agency, like the C.I.A. or the intelligence branches of the F.B.I. and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The N.S.A.’s analysts passed on only information they deemed pertinent, screening out the identities of innocent people and irrelevant personal information.
Now, other intelligence agencies will be able to search directly through raw repositories of communications intercepted by the N.S.A. and then apply such rules for “minimizing” privacy intrusions.
“This is not expanding the substantive ability of law enforcement to get access to signals intelligence,” said Robert S. Litt, the general counsel to Mr. Clapper. “It is simply widening the aperture for a larger number of analysts, who will be bound by the existing rules.”
But Patrick Toomey, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, called the move an erosion of rules intended to protect the privacy of Americans when their messages are caught by the N.S.A.’s powerful global collection methods. He noted that domestic internet data was often routed or stored abroad, where it may get vacuumed up without court oversight.
“Rather than dramatically expanding government access to so much personal data, we need much stronger rules to protect the privacy of Americans,” Mr. Toomey said. “Seventeen different government agencies shouldn’t be rooting through Americans’ emails with family members, friends and colleagues, all without ever obtaining a warrant.”

Robert S. Litt, the general counsel to Mr. Clapper said. “It is simply widening the aperture for a larger number of analysts, who will be bound by the existing rules.”

https://www.infowars.com/obama-expan...abotage-trump/

The more people that know what is going on = more people that talk behind your back

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

20 people who lived around Salem Massachusetts in the 1692-3 might disagree with you.

As would a certain former boxer immortalized by Bob Dylan...

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

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.
...

Oh, I don't wear masks; a prime reason I never liked Halloween...

As far as my being passionate is concerned, I am not necessarily anti-Trump: I'm just anti-Bandini. When the person who is supposed to be the face the US presents to the world is little more than a bullying, sociopath liar whose own ego doesn't even allow him to concede he is considerably out of his depth as President, then yes I am passionate about being opposed to that person. I mean, Trump even lies about the lies he has spoken. I would feel this way if Clinton or Rand Paul or anyone else were in the Oval Office acting as Trump has done in his short time. I say, and have said, there should be open investigations into anyone who is suspect of illegal behavior, past or present; I will, however, suggest the questionable activities of those who are currently in positions of power and influence and whose actions and activities have the gravitas of more immediate effect on the conduct of governance and an effect on the lives of our citizens is of a rather higher priority; Clinton, Rice, and whoever else may have done whatever else, whenever else, are not in positions of power - the Trump administration and its minions are and are an immediate concern. Clinton, Rice, et al, aren't going anywhere and can be dealt with at leisure; we do not have that luxury in regards to the current state of the White House...

Originally Posted by Platapus

20 people who lived around Salem Massachusetts in the 1692-3 might disagree with you.

...and those trials were conducted by self-righteous religious-based (or 'faith-based', if you will) zealots who believed their "morality" trumped the rule of law...

..although I wonder if it might not be a good idea to dunk The Donald and see if he floats or sinks...

Originally Posted by August

As would a certain former boxer immortalized by Bob Dylan...

...who was tried under a corrupt system populated by people who subscribed to a "win at any cost" mentality. It should be noted the self-same system that put Hurricane Carter in prison was, after a thorough, unbiased, and complete subsequent investigation the means that freed him. There will always be the cases that serve as the '"exceptions that prove the rule"; here in California, we have had a couple of recent cases where persons who had served quite long sentences for crimes they did not commit were subsequently found to have been innocent of the crimes; and let's not get started on the number of people executed in places like Texas who were later found to have been innocent...

In the matter of the investigations of the Trump associates or Clinton or Rice, there is the advantage of the investigations by Congress will be out in the open, or, at least, in the Senate: GOP Chairman Nunes seems to feel it is somehow proper to have closed door hearings where the subjects of the investigations will be allowed to testify without being under oath; so much for the vaunted Trump/GOP-era of rule of law, swamp-draining, and governmental transparency...


Here is the third in the series of LA Times editorials:

Trump’s Authoritarian Vision:

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-e...tarian-vision/



<O>

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Augustine may have brought back stability,

Who's Augustine?

military power of Rome after Sulla'S reforms and the professionalization of the army.

Sulla's reforms?


Sorry for the OT post, but as someone who has spent years reading about ancient Rome, I will continue to show how shaky Skybird's (even basic) knowledge of the issue is.

[Skybird]

Just in: Steve Bannon looses his NSC seat.

-----------------------------------------


Dowly, I do not know when and when not the German versions of the Greek's and Romans' Latin names equal English names, and when not. Aristotle in German would be Aristoteles, but Sulla seems to be Sulla for sure, and in his reign falls the professionalization of the Roman army which then became completely state-funded, and this indeed was a dramatic reform. In German: emperor Augustus seems to be Augustine in English, or not? Or is it simply August? In his reign falls the finalization of the transformation from the old republic to the new empirial order as he founded the first principate. He is also known as Octavian, and he was grandnephew of Gaius Iulius Ceasar.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Skybird

but Sulla seems to be Sulla for sure, and in his reign falls the professionalization of the Roman army which then became completely state-funded, and this indeed was a dramatic reform.

Yes, Sulla is Sulla. But what does he have got to do with so-called "Marian reforms" of the military?

In German: emperor Augustus seems to be Augustine in English, or not? Or is it simply August?

It's Augustus in English.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Just in: Steve Bannon looses his NSC seat.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...ole-in-shakeup

A White House official portrayed the change as a natural progression rather than a demotion for Bannon. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, contended that Bannon was placed on the committee in part to monitor Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and never attended a meeting. He’s no longer needed with McMaster in charge of the council, the official said.It isn’t clear why Bannon would be needed on the committee under Flynn but not under McMaster. A second White House official said that Trump was never comfortable with Bannon on the panel, but that his removal didn’t indicate any erosion of his influence within the White House.

Hard to tell how much of this is spin but i guess that'll become evident if Bannon continues on this apparent downward trajectory or not.

[Mr Quatro]

I think he was gone a long time ago ... remember when Trump blew up in the White House when Sessions excused himself from the Russian investigation?

Yep! That was when Trump decided to let him go ... just took a while to finish the job