Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448 
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 2, 2018 9:15:39 GMT -5
"YMAM holdouts: you'll reap what you sow. One day soon, FBI Director X or Pres. Y is going to unleash the US intelligence beast to "protect" and destroy the candidate you support, without oversight, based on a shady and hopelessly conflicted operation, and when you rightly cry 'Abuse!', the resounding answer will be: "We're doing exactly what Americans expect us to do: protect America.""
Virgil, you've drunk the koolaid. Guess who was first told about possible Russian interference because the intelligence said it was coming? I'll give you a hint, it was before both candidates won their respective parties. The DNC was told to expect hacking, and they ignored it. They were later told information on the networks was being sent back to Russia from their computers. Nothing. Then Podesta was hacked.
Did the DNC paint themselves as victims of the FBI or whatever agency? No. But they did share one thing with Trump's campaign, the unwillingness to act on intelligence they were given. That doesn't make either of them victims. Just stupid. Possibly knowingly stupid.
The intelligence community was trying to protect US interests which *shock!* included both campaigns. And perhaps you can point me to where Trump was destroyed. Because what I see is a whiny duplicitious man who won the Presidency. His guilty cohorts were taken down after he became President, therefore not hurting his ability to win. Contrast this with vague comments about potential new Hillary emails 10 days before the election. There was some destruction, but it wasn't on Donald. The intelligence community going to both campaigns and saying, "Hey guys, be sure to protect your servers, use modern security protocols, and for the love of leopard cubs don't circumvent safeguards like you-know-who did. Winter is coming. In Russia.": good for them! This is something I can get behind. If the campaigns come back, "Thanks, FBI, CIA, et al. Can you help us with security? Keep us briefed on who we might want to boot off our staff?" and the intelligence agencies provide such services: good for them! Something else I can get behind. If the intelligence agencies go to a senior panel of elected officials from both parties and say, "You know, we think Donald Trump himself may be compromised by the Kremlin. Here's the evidence, which you can clearly see originates from sources that have nothing to do with the Clinton campaign. We obviously can't involve him in any investigation to ascertain the truth. We'd like to surveil his campaign, but far be it from us to undermine Americans' faith in our goodwill, hence we're coming to you. When the details of this operation are disclosed, we want it known that the operation was conducted under the supervision of numerous seniors officials from both parties, judges, and neutral third parties with unimpeachable records of having no partisan links or bias. Let's make this happen.": they're playing with fire here, and the evidence would have to be rock solid without the faintest whiff of Clinton, but presuming it is: good for them! A third thing I can get behind. Did you get any of the above? No. You got cloak and dagger, lies, obstruction, and an investigation so cringe-worthily saturated in conflicts of interest that even the conspiracy theorists can't overstate it. "Well, they're the intelligence agencies and we can trust them. We need these kinds of things to protect democracy these days. Because Putin." Bull A. honky. Light, transparency, forthrightness. And yes, I realize Pres. Trump has his own considerable flaws in this regard. Different issue. Not an excuse.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 3, 2018 1:06:29 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,829
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 3, 2018 8:23:06 GMT -5
OMG...
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,324
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jun 3, 2018 10:08:25 GMT -5
"YMAM holdouts: you'll reap what you sow. One day soon, FBI Director X or Pres. Y is going to unleash the US intelligence beast to "protect" and destroy the candidate you support, without oversight, based on a shady and hopelessly conflicted operation, and when you rightly cry 'Abuse!', the resounding answer will be: "We're doing exactly what Americans expect us to do: protect America.""
Virgil, you've drunk the koolaid. Guess who was first told about possible Russian interference because the intelligence said it was coming? I'll give you a hint, it was before both candidates won their respective parties. The DNC was told to expect hacking, and they ignored it. They were later told information on the networks was being sent back to Russia from their computers. Nothing. Then Podesta was hacked.
Did the DNC paint themselves as victims of the FBI or whatever agency? No. But they did share one thing with Trump's campaign, the unwillingness to act on intelligence they were given. That doesn't make either of them victims. Just stupid. Possibly knowingly stupid.
The intelligence community was trying to protect US interests which *shock!* included both campaigns. And perhaps you can point me to where Trump was destroyed. Because what I see is a whiny duplicitious man who won the Presidency. His guilty cohorts were taken down after he became President, therefore not hurting his ability to win. Contrast this with vague comments about potential new Hillary emails 10 days before the election. There was some destruction, but it wasn't on Donald. The intelligence community going to both campaigns and saying, "Hey guys, be sure to protect your servers, use modern security protocols, and for the love of leopard cubs don't circumvent safeguards like you-know-who did. Winter is coming. In Russia.": good for them! This is something I can get behind. If the campaigns come back, "Thanks, FBI, CIA, et al. Can you help us with security? Keep us briefed on who we might want to boot off our staff?" and the intelligence agencies provide such services: good for them! Something else I can get behind. If the intelligence agencies go to a senior panel of elected officials from both parties and say, "You know, we think Donald Trump himself may be compromised by the Kremlin. Here's the evidence, which you can clearly see originates from sources that have nothing to do with the Clinton campaign. We obviously can't involve him in any investigation to ascertain the truth. We'd like to surveil his campaign, but far be it from us to undermine Americans' faith in our goodwill, hence we're coming to you. When the details of this operation are disclosed, we want it known that the operation was conducted under the supervision of numerous seniors officials from both parties, judges, and neutral third parties with unimpeachable records of having no partisan links or bias. Let's make this happen.": they're playing with fire here, and the evidence would have to be rock solid without the faintest whiff of Clinton, but presuming it is: good for them! A third thing I can get behind. Did you get any of the above? No. You got cloak and dagger, lies, obstruction, ... And yes, I realize Pres. Trump has his own considerable flaws in this regard. Different issue. Not an excuse.
Virgil, it seems you want things to work the way you want them to work, simply because you want it. Not because you have a deep understanding of investigations at the federal level. Not because you have a deep understanding of federal agencies, laws, etc. But because it seems right to you, therefore why shouldn't we all want this? My interpretation of your motives of the above.
If you get intelligence that one campaign is targeted and one is not, I don't know why you should waste time on the one not expected to be targeted. Is it out of some sense of equality?
Lastly, the intelligence committee oversees the agencies. The committee has subcommittees so the CIA for example reports to them directly not the general committee. It would be nice to choose where evidence comes from, but that's not RL. The important thing is whether it is true and actionable. Yes it would be cleaner if the info had never been purchased by the Clinton campaign. Only the earlier version by a Republican, but nevertheless it worried McCain enough he handed it over. The goal should be the truth. Nixon did not get away with it. If Trump is guilty, he shouldn't either.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 3, 2018 11:14:45 GMT -5
Virgil, it seems you want things to work the way you want them to work, simply because you want it. Not because you have a deep understanding of investigations at the federal level. Not because you have a deep understanding of federal agencies, laws, etc. But because it seems right to you, therefore why shouldn't we all want this? My interpretation of your motives of the above. I have what are called reasonable standards, expectations of oversight and due diligence, and very little tolerance for "well that's just the way things work at the federal level". The U.S. Attorney in Paul's video, Mr. diGenova, is saying precisely the same thing, he's asking to put the matter before a grand jury, and I can't think of any more appropriate course of action at this time. You can keep your "Trust them. They know what they're doing." blind faith in government.
If you get intelligence that one campaign is targeted and one is not, I don't know why you should waste time on the one not expected to be targeted. Is it out of some sense of equality? Not a grievance I've voiced. Lastly, the intelligence committee oversees the agencies. The committee has subcommittees so the CIA for example reports to them directly not the general committee. It would be nice to choose where evidence comes from, but that's not RL. The important thing is whether it is true and actionable. Yes it would be cleaner if the info had never been purchased by the Clinton campaign. Only the earlier version by a Republican, but nevertheless it worried McCain enough he handed it over. The goal should be the truth. Nixon did not get away with it. If Trump is guilty, he shouldn't either. Firstly, if you're hanging your hat on "true and actionable", you lose the argument. All indications are that the kompromat ranged anywhere from dubious to absurd--which was the agencies' own assessment, I should add.
Even supposing the intel was gospel truth, the agency actors couldn't know this in advance for at least two reasons: i) intelligence is legendarily fungible; and more importantly ii) people can and do lie, especially when they have ulterior motivation (such as paycheques from fusion GPS). Again this boils down to a difference in standards. You evidently don't care where intel comes from, as long as it's plausible enough. I very much do.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,407
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 3, 2018 12:32:41 GMT -5
... The U.S. Attorney in Paul's video, Mr. diGenova, ... Actually, the former (30 years ago) U.S. Attorney. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,407
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 3, 2018 12:34:32 GMT -5
... I have what are called reasonable standards, expectations of oversight and due diligence, ... Called by who? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,703
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 3, 2018 12:53:00 GMT -5
he lost me before 1:00. literally everything he said during that time was a lie. my tolerance for such people has gone to nil.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,744
|
Post by happyhoix on Jun 3, 2018 15:05:10 GMT -5
Yep I've had my fill of creative hyperbolists, too.
Ready for some truthiness transparency. |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 3, 2018 15:12:51 GMT -5
... I have what are called reasonable standards, expectations of oversight and due diligence, ... Called by who? Me. As opposed to Joe McCarthy, Josef Stalin, or Deng Xinaoping, who'd no doubt agree the agencies hadn't overstepped in the least. I admit I can't invoke a universal law to prove to you that cloak-and-dagger meddling in an elections process is the single most effective way to destroy public faith in government. Even so, your yawning and smacking your lips, deeming what we've seen as an acceptable standard: carelessness. Apathy, partisanship, naivety, or some combination thereof. But this is hardly a unique situation, is it? Me fretting over precedents and implications, and you yawning loudly? The irony being that you and your countrymen will be the ones to suffer the greatest consequences.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,324
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jun 3, 2018 16:49:06 GMT -5
Virgil, it seems you want things to work the way you want them to work, simply because you want it. Not because you have a deep understanding of investigations at the federal level. Not because you have a deep understanding of federal agencies, laws, etc. But because it seems right to you, therefore why shouldn't we all want this? My interpretation of your motives of the above. I have what are called reasonable standards, expectations of oversight and due diligence, and very little tolerance for "well that's just the way things work at the federal level". The U.S. Attorney in Paul's video, Mr. diGenova, is saying precisely the same thing, he's asking to put the matter before a grand jury, and I can't think of any more appropriate course of action at this time. You can keep your "Trust them. They know what they're doing." blind faith in government.
If you get intelligence that one campaign is targeted and one is not, I don't know why you should waste time on the one not expected to be targeted. Is it out of some sense of equality? Not a grievance I've voiced. Lastly, the intelligence committee oversees the agencies. The committee has subcommittees so the CIA for example reports to them directly not the general committee. It would be nice to choose where evidence comes from, but that's not RL. The important thing is whether it is true and actionable. Yes it would be cleaner if the info had never been purchased by the Clinton campaign. Only the earlier version by a Republican, but nevertheless it worried McCain enough he handed it over. The goal should be the truth. Nixon did not get away with it. If Trump is guilty, he shouldn't either. Firstly, if you're hanging your hat on "true and actionable", you lose the argument. All indications are that the kompromat ranged anywhere from dubious to absurd--which was the agencies' own assessment, I should add.
Even supposing the intel was gospel truth, the agency actors couldn't know this in advance for at least two reasons: i) intelligence is legendarily fungible; and more importantly ii) people can and do lie, especially when they have ulterior motivation (such as paycheques from fusion GPS). Again this boils down to a difference in standards. You evidently don't care where intel comes from, as long as it's plausible enough. I very much do.
I am getting real sick of you posting your belief as fact. I don't believe the intelligence agencies are perfect, but I trust far less the smear campaign against them which is possibly coordinated by the WH itself.
The dossier is not the be all and end all for evidence. It wasn't and it couldn't be. You need something better than that to convict or charge anyone. The investigation isn't over. The WH is trying to kill it using friendly media, like FOX, Trump's almost personal news network. We are roughly in the same stage of Lygate as we were in Watergate.
I might discuss the dossier in another post. By itself, it cannot be used to convict someone, but it should be used as suggestions on where to investigate. Sure sources of information matter. And depending on where they come from you may trust them a lot or not very much. If you care about security, really care, you need to use the information you get and see if it can be verified instead of sitting on your high horse waiting for some better sourced info to come to your lofty attention. If it turns out to be made lies and allegations, then at least you did the right thing and checked it out. If it turns out some of the worrying allegations are true, then you've verified the intelligence had some value. Plus maybe it leads to uncovering crimes and getting convictions.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,324
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jun 3, 2018 17:01:53 GMT -5
Me. As opposed to Joe McCarthy, Josef Stalin, or Deng Xinaoping, who'd no doubt agree the agencies hadn't overstepped in the least. I admit I can't invoke a universal law to prove to you that cloak-and-dagger meddling in an elections process is the single most effective way to destroy public faith in government. Even so, your yawning and smacking your lips, deeming what we've seen as an acceptable standard: carelessness. Apathy, partisanship, naivety, or some combination thereof. But this is hardly a unique situation, is it? Me fretting over precedents and implications, and you yawning loudly? The irony being that you and your countrymen will be the ones to suffer the greatest consequences.
Perhaps I am mis-remembering, but I don't remember you being all that upset about Assange meddling in our election by publishing DNC emails. Its seems you were perfectly fine with the info getting out and not really caring if Assange's main motivation might be he hates Hillary. Yet now, because Hillary and Donald were competing for the Presidency, its a big deal that the dossier received by the intelligence community was last paid for by the Clinton campaign?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,703
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 3, 2018 17:07:23 GMT -5
Yep I've had my fill of creative hyperbolists, too.
Ready for some truthiness transparency. I don’t know what I want But I know what I need I need an honesty hour And I can't find it I need an honesty hour And I find it Can’t buy it Can’t fuck it What is it? Fuck it Honestly I need an honesty hour Fuck it up for all the liar ones Take the pliers to them Everything’s good in a fire The back stock and the buyer Take the time Make it worth your while Make it worth a smile -Show Me The Body, "Honesty Hour"
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 3, 2018 18:10:07 GMT -5
Me. As opposed to Joe McCarthy, Josef Stalin, or Deng Xinaoping, who'd no doubt agree the agencies hadn't overstepped in the least. I admit I can't invoke a universal law to prove to you that cloak-and-dagger meddling in an elections process is the single most effective way to destroy public faith in government. Even so, your yawning and smacking your lips, deeming what we've seen as an acceptable standard: carelessness. Apathy, partisanship, naivety, or some combination thereof. But this is hardly a unique situation, is it? Me fretting over precedents and implications, and you yawning loudly? The irony being that you and your countrymen will be the ones to suffer the greatest consequences.
Perhaps I am mis-remembering, but I don't remember you being all that upset about Assange meddling in our election by publishing DNC emails. Its seems you were perfectly fine with the info getting out and not really caring if Assange's main motivation might be he hates Hillary. Yet now, because Hillary and Donald were competing for the Presidency, its a big deal that the dossier received by the intelligence community was last paid for by the Clinton campaign? ibid: "I don't particularly approve of [Mr. Assange's] methods either, but I trust what he puts out more than I trust the CIA. That's not an endorsement of Mr. Assange as much as it is an indictment of the CIA."
Other reasons why I'm less concerned about Mr. Assange and Wikileaks: Mr. Assange isn't in the business of entrapment, and has no resources or ability to do so. He doesn't stand to inherit power or a government office by defeating his foes. He's quintessentially an unethical journalist with a chip on his shoulder, not an out-of-control US intelligence juggernaut with nigh unlimited resources. Most importantly, when I say "the single most effective way to destroy public faith in government," I'm not talking about the publication of secrets, I'm talking about the means by which those secrets are spied out. Say what you will about Mr. Assange, he doesn't represent the US government, his misbehaviour doesn't reflect badly on your government.
If we were to go by your standard instead--"The important thing is whether it is true and actionable.", i.e. the ends justify the means--we should consider him a great champion of American democracy. His dumps showed instances of collusion between the media and DNC officials, and a clear preferential bias for Ms. Clinton.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 3, 2018 18:24:42 GMT -5
I am getting real sick of you posting your belief as fact. Not as sick as I am of you portraying this as a battle of facts when we clearly agree on the facts. This is an argument over standards, values, and trustworthiness. I might discuss the dossier in another post. By itself, it cannot be used to convict someone, but it should be used as suggestions on where to investigate. Sure sources of information matter. And depending on where they come from you may trust them a lot or not very much. If you care about security, really care, you need to use the information you get and see if it can be verified instead of sitting on your high horse waiting for some better sourced info to come to your lofty attention. Not without procedures and safeguards that demonstrate conduct beyond reproach. Far too great a risk of abuse otherwise. Public trust is undermined (and rightfully so). As an agency, you've done more damage than the enemy ever could, and you have only yourself to blame. I know you disagree. Again: a difference in standards and values.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,661
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 3, 2018 20:03:02 GMT -5
Bottom line is this: In any question of truth, honor, and integrity between Donald Trump and his administration against any other person, agency, entity, or whatever, even if you give Trump the benefit of EVERY doubt, he still loses 100-0. I may not have 100% trust in our federal agencies, but I have ZERO in Donald Trump.
WORST. PERSON. EVER. ELECTED. AND. WORST. PRESIDENT. IN. HISTORY.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,703
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 3, 2018 21:52:33 GMT -5
(wash) (rinse) (repeat)
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,829
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 3, 2018 22:50:01 GMT -5
Putting this here for some truthiness. Crowd cheers when valedictorian quotes Trump. Then reveals it was ObamaLOUISVILLE (Kentucky) — Bell County High School student and valedictorian Ben Bowling wanted to share some words of wisdom with his graduating class, but there was a twist that no one saw coming. "This is the part of my speech where I share some inspirational quotes I found on Google," Bowling said in his speech. "'Don't just get involved. Fight for your seat at the table. Better yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table.' — Donald J. Trump." The crowd burst into applause. "Just kidding," Bowling said. "That was Barack Obama." The 18-year-old valedictorian said the crowd quickly went silent. Complete article here: Crowd cheers when valedictorian quotes Trump. Then reveals it was Obama |
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,324
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jun 3, 2018 22:58:52 GMT -5
Thanks Tenn, not surprised. I wouldn't have phrased it the way TG did, but I agree. In the end, Lygate pits a known opportunistic liar against other people. My bet is on the federal agencies even if I think they are 50 or 60% correct. It easily beats 0%. And the sad thing is I am fairly certain some high ranking Republicans have enabled Lygate. Certainly a good portion of them hit the news every time Trump lets loose a large deflection whopper. |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 3, 2018 23:33:57 GMT -5
Bottom line is this: In any question of truth, honor, and integrity between Donald Trump and his administration against any other person, agency, entity, or whatever, even if you give Trump the benefit of EVERY doubt, he still loses 100-0. I may not have 100% trust in our federal agencies, but I have ZERO in Donald Trump. WORST. PERSON. EVER. ELECTED. AND. WORST. PRESIDENT. IN. HISTORY. "The man has zero standards and he's probably guilty, hence low standards for the intelligence agencies are good enough for me." ...said Joe as America marched into Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein, only to pay dearly later. "The man has zero standards and he's probably guilty, hence low standards for the intelligence agencies are good enough for me." ...said Jill as America tortured the enemy combatant to obtain critical intel, only to pay dearly later. "The man has zero standards and he's probably guilty, hence low standards for the intelligence agencies are good enough for me." ...said Tallguy as he shrugged off a cloak and dagger Cold War era operation to surveil/entrap a presidential candidate, only to pay dearly later. If your defense is that you're no more hypocritical than the Republicans, unfortunately I can't claim otherwise. I just wish for once one of the two sides circa 2018 held standards higher than "At least we're better than the other guy."
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,661
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 4, 2018 0:08:01 GMT -5
Supposition. You can choose to believe whatever you want about the "operation." I choose not to believe anything coming from the right-wing nuts trying to spin this in favor of the president's wild claims. They have no more integrity than he does. I'll wait until everything is concluded, but there are a number of offenses already proven, and guilty pleas already obtained. More will follow. Good riddance to every corrupt official that can be put away. This is the most corrupt campaign and administration in our history. F*** every one of 'em.
|
|
retread
Established Member
Tribbial Pursuit
Joined: Feb 12, 2018 17:54:45 GMT -5
Posts: 481
|
Post by retread on Jun 4, 2018 5:30:57 GMT -5
Putting this here for some truthiness. Crowd cheers when valedictorian quotes Trump. Then reveals it was ObamaYou misspelled fraudiness. |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 4, 2018 7:07:53 GMT -5
Some people's imaginations are really fantastic!  Like some people imagining an imaginary 4th branch of government- an "Investigative" branch that can run around unchecked obstructing the President in the performance of his duties. It's all coming to an end... |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 4, 2018 7:18:21 GMT -5
Bottom line is this: In any question of truth, honor, and integrity between Donald Trump and his administration against any other person, agency, entity, or whatever, even if you give Trump the benefit of EVERY doubt, he still loses 100-0. I may not have 100% trust in our federal agencies, but I have ZERO in Donald Trump. WORST. PERSON. EVER. ELECTED. AND. WORST. PRESIDENT. IN. HISTORY. "The man has zero standards and he's probably guilty, hence low standards for the intelligence agencies are good enough for me." ...said Joe as America marched into Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein, only to pay dearly later.
I actually wasn't aware that "probably guilty" was grounds for a search warrant. What the poster has to understand is that the opinions about Trump are subjective, and that if this "low standard" is allowed to stand, it will be used against someone like Obama in the future. Of course, the poster will not see that train coming just like they didn't see the abandonment of the filibuster consequences coming. "The man has zero standards and he's probably guilty, hence low standards for the intelligence agencies are good enough for me." ...said Jill as America tortured the enemy combatant to obtain critical intel, only to pay dearly later.
In point of fact, no one was ever tortured at the hands of Americans as a matter of official US policy. We have a BBQ every year with a waterboarding station and I always go first to kick things off. It's a tiny bit scary- that's about it. "The man has zero standards and he's probably guilty, hence low standards for the intelligence agencies are good enough for me." ...said Tallguy as he shrugged off a cloak and dagger Cold War era operation to surveil/entrap a presidential candidate, only to pay dearly later. If your defense is that you're no more hypocritical than the Republicans, unfortunately I can't claim otherwise. I just wish for once one of the two sides circa 2018 held standards higher than "At least we're better than the other guy."
So, let us dispense with the bullshit.
The OP of this thread has been established. We need no further information to understand what happened. It's all about who did what and who's going to prison. |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 4, 2018 7:22:26 GMT -5
Supposition. You can choose to believe whatever you want about the "operation." I choose not to believe anything coming from the right-wing nuts trying to spin this in favor of the president's wild claims. They have no more integrity than he does. I'll wait until everything is concluded, but there are a number of offenses already proven, and guilty pleas already obtained. More will follow. Good riddance to every corrupt official that can be put away. This is the most corrupt campaign and administration in our history. F*** every one of 'em. The wildest claim in the history of American politics in my lifetime- well, besides this: Is the outrageous claim that anyone in the Trump campaign 'colluded' with Russians to swing the election. It's absurd. There's not one shred of evidence it happened, and there never will be. This bullshit witch hunt / cover-up operation is over. |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 4, 2018 7:40:20 GMT -5
It's easy to find a "timeline of Trump - Russia collusion" - but for obvious reasons, the radical alt-left DNC propaganda media hasn't bothered to even look at, let alone detail, the operation against Donald Trump. Here's a really good (maybe the only) timeline of the collusion against Trump: sharylattkisson.com/2018/05/20/collusion-against-trump-timeline/It's important that readers understand that this is not an opinion piece. None of this is conjecture, it's not guesswork, and no one on either side disputes any of this happened. It's all very well documented. That leaves the Obama regime and his "small group" of soft-coup conspirators to explain it. |
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,744
|
Post by happyhoix on Jun 4, 2018 7:46:03 GMT -5
I am getting real sick of you posting your belief as fact. Not as sick as I am of you portraying this as a battle of facts when we clearly agree on the facts. This is an argument over standards, values, and trustworthiness.You keep saying that, then aligning yourself with the party that has knowingly, chronically lied from the very outset of the campaign, and then spent a good deal of time denying that they lied, until backed into a corner, when they grudgingly admitted they lied, but then changed the dialogue to come up with a good reason for the lie, or to pretend the lie didn't really matter.
Remember Trump St kept insisting he didn't know about the Trump Tower meeting between Trump Jr and the Russians? That was just a meeting to talk about adoptions? Trump Sr insisting he didn't assist in writing the memo that supposedly came from Trump Jr about that meeting?
The WH is finally admitting that was a lie. Trump Sr wrote the memo that supposedly came from Trump Jr - and then lied about it. But their new argument is, it doesn't matter anyway, because the President can't be indicted. Or, as Giuliani said, the President could shoot Comey in the Oval Office and not be indicted for it.
slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/lawyers-admit-trump-dictated-response-to-trump-tower-meeting-despite-denials.html
(Of course, this might screw of Trump Jr, who testified he and he alone wrote the memo in testimony to Congress).
Now that Trump finally admitted he knew about the Trump Tower meeting, and that he wrote the memo supposedly written by Trump Jr, his new strategy seems to be to bluff the public by claiming the president can't be indicted - which is, interestingly enough, the exact opposite of what Giuliani was saying back when Clinton was being impeached. And these are the guys you trust more than the DOJ?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 4, 2018 7:53:46 GMT -5
Me. As opposed to Joe McCarthy, Josef Stalin, or Deng Xinaoping, who'd no doubt agree the agencies hadn't overstepped in the least. I admit I can't invoke a universal law to prove to you that cloak-and-dagger meddling in an elections process is the single most effective way to destroy public faith in government. Even so, your yawning and smacking your lips, deeming what we've seen as an acceptable standard: carelessness. Apathy, partisanship, naivety, or some combination thereof. But this is hardly a unique situation, is it? Me fretting over precedents and implications, and you yawning loudly? The irony being that you and your countrymen will be the ones to suffer the greatest consequences.
It's no secret that I'm no fan of Democrats-- but I have always tended to side with them in matters of civil libertarianism. Before the crazed murderous foaming at the mouth hatred of police leftists appeared on the scene, I've always agreed that the police shouldn't be blindly trusted, and because they are literally the bloody teeth of the government leviathan with the power of life and death literally at their disposal, everything they do can and should be scrutinized. If they don't like it, they should find a new line of work. They must be absolutely and unquestioningly accountable to the people. I'm for prison reform. I believe things like "driving while black" do actually happen, and that wrong place, wrong time erroneous convictions have occurred based in large part on the racial biases of the juries involved. I think ending the war on drugs is a high quality idea. I've eaten crow on Iraq and Afghanistan and acknowledge I was wrong- that "regime change" and nation-building-- especially in the Middle East where it amounted to killing all the zoo keepers and opening the cages-- were bad ideas. For some reason I agreed with W that the whole world was yearning for Jeffersonian Democracy if we could just show up and throw off their brutal dictators. Turns out- there's a better way which Trump is illustrating in North Korea (and Iran). I find it almost unforgivable that the party of civil libertarianism has abandoned all principle to support J. Edgar Comey and his ilk's attempt to subvert our Constitution, criminalize political opposition, and turn us into a literal police state, and our FBI into a Stasi-like domestic political spying organization over the fact that they don't like the outcome of the election and their irrational hatred of Donald Trump. If the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI et al are not brought to heel, you will all regret it like you've never regretted anything in your lives. It will be the literal end of America as we know it. |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 4, 2018 8:00:49 GMT -5
Not as sick as I am of you portraying this as a battle of facts when we clearly agree on the facts. This is an argument over standards, values, and trustworthiness.You keep saying that, then aligning yourself with the party that has knowingly, chronically lied from the very outset of the campaign, and then spent a good deal of time denying that they lied, until backed into a corner, when they grudgingly admitted they lied, but then changed the dialogue to come up with a good reason for the lie, or to pretend the lie didn't really matter.
Remember Trump St kept insisting he didn't know about the Trump Tower meeting between Trump Jr and the Russians? That was just a meeting to talk about adoptions? Trump Sr insisting he didn't assist in writing the memo that supposedly came from Trump Jr about that meeting?
The WH is finally admitting that was a lie. Trump Sr wrote the memo that supposedly came from Trump Jr - and then lied about it. But their new argument is, it doesn't matter anyway, because the President can't be indicted. Or, as Giuliani said, the President could shoot Comey in the Oval Office and not be indicted for it.
slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/lawyers-admit-trump-dictated-response-to-trump-tower-meeting-despite-denials.html
(Of course, this might screw of Trump Jr, who testified he and he alone wrote the memo in testimony to Congress).
Now that Trump finally admitted he knew about the Trump Tower meeting, and that he wrote the memo supposedly written by Trump Jr, his new strategy seems to be to bluff the public by claiming the president can't be indicted - which is, interestingly enough, the exact opposite of what Giuliani was saying back when Clinton was being impeached. And these are the guys you trust more than the DOJ?
So, you're going to hang your hat on the Trump tower meeting with the Russian lawyer? Mueller apparently doesn't think it's important enough to have bothered to contact her after more than a year. There's also been no attempt to get Mifsud back here. I suspect because they don't want the country to ever hear her answers to questions. Because the reality is that like Mifsud (whom I'm certain you can't meaningfully identify of the top of your head because you're willfully uninformed) she was probably in on it. www.businessinsider.com/ap-russian-lawyer-questions-why-mueller-hasnt-contacted-her-2018-4 |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,661
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 4, 2018 8:20:47 GMT -5
Supposition. You can choose to believe whatever you want about the "operation." I choose not to believe anything coming from the right-wing nuts trying to spin this in favor of the president's wild claims. They have no more integrity than he does. I'll wait until everything is concluded, but there are a number of offenses already proven, and guilty pleas already obtained. More will follow. Good riddance to every corrupt official that can be put away. This is the most corrupt campaign and administration in our history. F*** every one of 'em. The wildest claim in the history of American politics in my lifetime- well, besides this: Is the outrageous claim that anyone in the Trump campaign 'colluded' with Russians to swing the election. It's absurd. There's not one shred of evidence it happened, and there never will be. This bullshit witch hunt / cover-up operation is over. For what must be the hundredth time here: When Obama said the, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" line it WAS true. Existing plans were grandfathered in under the ACA. They were allowed to stay as long as they were not closed or changed. It is a fair question to ask if it was foreseeable that those existing plans would be quickly changed by the insurance companies and that Obama knew they would inevitably and immediately be changed. If you believe that, then argue that. It is not fair to suggest that Obama's statement was a lie at the time it was made. It was not. It was true at the time. It became untrue due to the actions of the insurance companies. Claiming it as a lie shows only your own extreme bias and disregard for truth. |
|
