The new, temporary FBI Director Andrew G. McCabe says that employees loved Comey:
Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe Thursday rejected assertions by the White House that FBI employees had lost faith in James Comey and that the bureau's probe into Russian election meddling was one of its most minor concerns. "I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity," McCabe told members of the Senate intelligence committee. He said Comey, who was fired by President Donald Trump on Tuesday, enjoyed "broad support within the FBI and still does to this day." He added, "The majority, the vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep, positive connection to Director Comey."
Furthermore, he will inform the Senate of any interference with the Russia investigation:
Acting FBI director Andrew McCabe vowed Thursday that he would tell the Senate Intelligence Committee if the White House tried to interfere with the bureau's probe of possible coordination between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 presidential election — though he asserted that there had "been no effort to impede our investigation to date."
Meanwhile, President Trump has undermined the White House's messaging on Comey's firing, saying that he planned to fire "showboat" and "grandstander" James Comey regardless of any recommendation from Attorney General Jeff Sessions or Deputy Attorney General Ron Rosenstein. The President also insists that he is not under FBI investigation.
Related Stories
We had three different political stories submitted. In the interest of trying to keep political discussions from spilling over into other stories, I have merged them all into this one story. If you are not interested in politics, you are free to ignore this story — another story will be along presently. --martyb
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @02:52PM (3 children)
President of the United States -or- Baghdad Bob? (Memba him?)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @03:07PM
I member!
Baghdad Bob 2024!
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday May 12 2017, @03:23PM
Regardless Baghdad media will support all truth! :-)
Brought to you by OwnEverything Inc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @05:13PM
What didn't Trump know and when didn't he know it?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @02:57PM (39 children)
Meanwhile, President Trump has undermined the White House's messaging on Comey's firing, saying that he planned to fire "showboat" and "grandstander" James Comey regardless of any recommendation from Attorney General Jeff Sessions or Deputy Attorney General Ron Rosenstein.
Dude. He didn't just plan on doing it no matter what, he came right and said he did it because of the Russia investigation into his campaign.
“When I decided to [fire Comey], I said to myself, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story,”
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-admits-russia-probe-played-into-comeys-firing-2017-05-11 [marketwatch.com]
The guy admitted to obstruction of justice on camera and republicans still love him.
He was totally right when he said, [youtube.com] "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 12 2017, @03:09PM (4 children)
He's trying to get out in front of something:
James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press! [thehill.com]
“Two people who have heard his account of the dinner” told The New York Times that Trump asked Comey to pledge his political loyalty at the dinner but was rebuffed by Comey, who promised honesty but not loyalty.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @03:17PM
I don't think that is anything more than an attempt to intimidate Comey.
The loyalty pledge thing sounds completely in character. Its been widely reported that Turmp values loyalty over all else:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2016-11-15/donald-trump-s-cabinet-loyalty-over-experience [bloomberg.com]
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/columns/2017/02/24/trump-obsession-with-loyalty-hurts-his-ability-govern/Dkv2vGTsMUQiel9Y9zhZUO/story.html [bostonglobe.com]
https://politicalwire.com/2017/03/15/trump-prizes-loyalty-experience/ [politicalwire.com]
http://jamiedupree.blog.ajc.com/2016/11/18/early-choices-by-trump-have-one-thing-in-common-loyalty/ [ajc.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @03:28PM (2 children)
better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations
I said, I'll show you where they have some nice furniture. I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn't get there. Then all of a sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits and everything. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @08:48PM
Comey is disgusting. That's why he had to go.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 13 2017, @05:19AM
Why can't I grab them by the cyber? :(
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 12 2017, @03:35PM (5 children)
The guy admitted to obstruction of justice on camera and republicans still love him.
Whitehouse Spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders also admits to obstruction of justice by Trump Administration [deathandtaxesmag.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by butthurt on Friday May 12 2017, @04:03PM (4 children)
from your linked article:
“We want this to come to its conclusion, we want it to come to its conclusion with integrity,” Sanders said in regard to the bureau’s Russia investigation. “And we think that we’ve actually, by removing Director Comey, taken steps to make that happen.”
Sanders said that her boss would “love nothing more for this investigation to continue to its completion.”
A possible interpretation is that she meant they were taking steps to bring integrity to the investigation, rather than that they were taking steps to end the investigation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @04:32PM (3 children)
Holy shit, dude!!! Do you actually believe that? Stop being so damned naive!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @04:43PM (1 child)
I think that is the way she meant for it to be interpreted.
President ManBaby does not have the impulse control to lie for very long.
But spin is what spokespeople do for a living. So it is unlikely that deliberate obstruction of justice was the idea she was trying to communicate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 13 2017, @05:21AM
DeathMonkey should know better. Weasel words in an interview are not obstruction of justice. Deliberately misleading on the stand is different, and not the context for that.
Shame. Yes, shame on you DeathMonkey! Trump & co. do enough wrong; don't propagate strawmen or cry wolf. There's real work to be done and real obstruction to bring to light.
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Friday May 12 2017, @05:29PM
You may even get tired of integrity and you'll say please, please mister president, It's too much integrity! We can't take it anymore!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday May 12 2017, @04:06PM (9 children)
There's a certain subset of American voters for whom being both stupid and asinine are not only tolerated, but the only things they strongly value in political candidates.
50 years ago, these people were more evenly split between the two major parties, making them a dominant bloc in neither. Now they're all hardcore republicans, and they have communication channels that are designed to reinforce their worst tendencies.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday May 12 2017, @04:14PM (8 children)
Don't forget the Republicans called Hillary supporters. Stupid and asinine both apply perfectly.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday May 12 2017, @04:21PM (7 children)
Yeah, no. "Both sides are bad" is a flagrantly retarded argument whose sole intent is to ignore the tremendously awful by pointing to vague dislike.
Sorry if this is condescending, but you're a completely dishonest fuckwit for acting this way.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Friday May 12 2017, @05:30PM (3 children)
Both sides are and were bad and corrupt. Hillary deserved to lose. But Trump & cohorts are and were considerably worse. Unfortunately, the two main minor parties appear to be nearly as bad as Trump...though not as corrupt, but that may be due to lack of opportunity.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday May 12 2017, @07:41PM
the two main minor parties appear... not as corrupt, but that may be due to lack of opportunity
To be fair, this may also be because they are better at concealing corruption.
Or it may be that one or both of them is simply interested in government of, by, and for the people, rather than in corruption.
Not too many takers for that for many decades. Anymore it's not even given lip service outside elementary school classrooms.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Saturday May 13 2017, @01:26AM (1 child)
The main difference between HRC and Trump, were:
1) While they are equally evil, HRC was the more competent evil.
2) Her win would cement Clintonism for at least a decade.
3) HRC would do all the right wing stuff Trump does (remember how she thought he didn't bomb Syria _enough_), but NOBODY would protest it because Democrats still wear the shine of being the party of the people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 13 2017, @03:59AM
Dude.
You need to see a doctor.
Your hillary hard-on has lasted waaaaay more than 8 hours.
Priapism is a serious medical condition that can be fatal if left untreated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @10:40PM (1 child)
What is a retarded argument is to strawman your opposition by making unflattering assumptions about their motives, without ever addressing their claims nor providing evidence for said assumptions.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Saturday May 13 2017, @01:18AM
I think that's generally true, but when it comes to the topic at hand do we really gain anything in the conclusion by running down the exceedingly long and depressing list of policy outcomes to support the same assertion? I mean, really, do we need to inventory bi-partisan support for the invasion of Iraq, bi-partisan support for the CIA torture program, bi-partisan support for extra-judicial killings of Americans by drone, bi-partisan support for the NSA's unconstitutional spying, bi-partisan support for the TPP...? Do we have to reiterate the daily growing list ad nauseum, ad infinitum because ostriches bury their heads in the sand, chanting "Nuh-uh! Nuh-uh!"?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday May 13 2017, @01:29AM
Vague dislike? Here's a list of what HRC has done: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-belville/the-problem-with-hillary-clinton_b_9349590.html [huffingtonpost.com]
If she was dude and spoke in a Texan accent, Democrats would roast her alive.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday May 12 2017, @04:55PM (15 children)
That's because the Republican Party does not believe in the rule of law.
For the rich and powerful, they haven't believed in the idea of law since at least Richard Nixon, who famously said "Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal." Trump definitely doesn't believe in the rule of law: To Trump, legal proceedings are people starting some sort of feud with him and trying to get up in his business. And Trump has 2 ways of dealing with threats: Buy them off (e.g. Pam Bondi), or intimidate them (e.g. Marla Maples). Truth, justice, and honesty have no role in this process, what matters is power as expressed by money, political support, and ultimately force of arms.
It's worth noting that this opposition to the rule of law isn't limited to the movers-and-shakers at all, this actually pervades many ideas pushed by many Republicans, like:
- Jury nullification, in which a juror believes the defendant is guilty but finds them not guilty regardless because they either disagree with the law or agree with the guilty defendant's actions. Which means that guilt or innocence can now be determined not by the law, nor by the facts of the case, but whether a juror decides they like the defendant more than the victim.
- Prosecutorial discretion, in which a prosecutor doesn't bring charges even though they have sufficient evidence to convict, not in exchange for information as part of a deal but simply backing off because they don't feel like going after the person in question. Again, moving the question away from "Were the person's actions legal?" to "Does the prosecutor like/agree with the person?"
- Support for police officers, even when they summary execute people, never mind the Fifth Amendment. The mindset is "The cop shot him? He must have done something to deserve it."
- Their support or hatred of judges tends to have nothing at all to do with whether the judges' decision was legally correct, and everything to do with whether it agrees with their ideology. For example, backing Roy Moore and his 10 Commandments monument, but hating David Souter for his careful reading of judicial precedent in Planned Parenthood v Casey.
- Armed resistance against lawful authority. This particular strain of conservative thought started no later than 1993 during the Waco TX Branch Davidian standoff, and continues today with the Bundy family receiving all kinds of support for actions ranging from threatening law enforcement with lethal force to breaking and entering.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Friday May 12 2017, @05:24PM (10 children)
WTF? The point of jury nullification is to allow the jury the power to refuse to convict because they disagree with the law, not because they like the defendant. If you don't like jury nullification, then you need to get rid of juries altogether; almost every other nation on the planet has. Asking laypeople to decide the facts of a case makes no sense at all; they're the least qualified of anyone. Worse, many times judges will throw out jury verdicts if they don't like them, so again what's the point of a jury? The only thing juries are good for really is to have a kangaroo court where someone gets convicted based on completely emotional testimony rather than actual facts. (So jury nullification seems like a good idea in theory, but in practice it pretty much never happens, and instead innocent people get convicted because they're black and the prosecutor is looking for an easy win. Jury nullification would be a good "safety valve" if juries were composed of intelligent people, but they're not because the attorneys make sure to throw those people out.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @05:39PM (2 children)
Jury nullification has value, but not within the rhetorical framework of "law and order." [google.com]
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday May 13 2017, @01:34AM (1 child)
Jury nullification is a revolutionary act. It also almost _never_ happens. If it did start happening a lot, that would be the time stash some food for coming difficulties.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 13 2017, @05:28AM
Well, to go all lawyerey on you - it seems appropriate!
> If it did start happening for a lot of laws, that would be the time stash some food for coming difficulties
FTFY. If it started happening a lot for one law that would be no big concern. It would signify a broad social consensus. Eg. if juries started tossing weed convictions? Sure, whatever, who is surprised and who cares maaaaaaan.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday May 12 2017, @05:59PM (5 children)
So let's say, for the sake of argument, that a juror disagreed in theory with the law being used to charge somebody with a crime. But they also hate the defendant's guts for reasons which have nothing to do with the evidence of the crime presented in the courtroom (e.g. the defendant is a neo-Nazi and the juror is Jewish). Do you seriously think that juror is likely to nullify on that case?
And furthermore, one of the most prominent instances where jury nullification happened on a regular basis was in those rare cases where lynchings of black people ever made it into court. As in, those prosecutors that didn't exercise their discretion and simply not charge anybody for the lynching (which was fairly common) could present in court photographs taken at the time of the crime showing the defendants at the scene lynching the victim, and the jury would acquit in less than 5 minutes. In other words, the jury was nullifying not because they disagreed with the existence of laws against murder, but because they decided that this particular murder was just fine and dandy.
Also, thank you for proving my point: The way rule of law is supposed to work is that it's not supposed to matter whether jurors agree with it when deciding cases. The right way of dealing with a law you disagree with is to get your legislative representatives to change it, or for the defendant to convince a judge it's unconstitutional, not to let go the defendants who happen to get a juror who opposes a particular law.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday May 12 2017, @06:16PM (4 children)
So let's say, for the sake of argument, that a juror disagreed in theory with the law being used to charge somebody with a crime. But they also hate the defendant's guts for reasons which have nothing to do with the evidence of the crime presented in the courtroom (e.g. the defendant is a neo-Nazi and the juror is Jewish). Do you seriously think that juror is likely to nullify on that case?
Obviously, it's not a perfect system, but that's why (in theory) there are 12 jurors, not one. So one juror that hates the defendant's guts might rule guilty even though they disagree with that law, but maybe one of the other 11 will refuse. Jury decisions have to be unanimous so a hung jury will result, and a new trial will be required. And again, it isn't a perfect system; the whole reason for nullification is because the government is broken and allowed a bad law to pass (or for a situation to occur where it'd be a travesty of justice for someone to be convicted under the law because it's an exceptional case, or the law is too broad, etc.). So the alternative is to just not have nullification and have no chance at all for the defendant to escape punishment, rather than a small chance.
And furthermore, one of the most prominent instances where jury nullification happened on a regular basis was in those rare cases where lynchings of black people ever made it into court. ... In other words, the jury was nullifying not because they disagreed with the existence of laws against murder, but because they decided that this particular murder was just fine and dandy.
Yep, you're now showing why juries in general are a bad idea. It's just like democratic government: it seems like a good idea in theory, but in practice it just doesn't work out, as proven by the recent Presidential election. Democratic republican forms of government only work when you have a well-educated citizenry; same most likely goes for juries. But we have uneducated morons for citizens, and our juries are even worse because they're intentionally selected to be the most idiotic and emotionally-driven members of society. There's a reason that European nations got rid of juries ages ago.
The right way of dealing with a law you disagree with is to get your legislative representatives to change it
Sounds good in theory, but doesn't work in practice. Are you a lobbyist for an organization with millions or billions of dollars in assets and able to make generous campaign contributions to get your voice heard by a congressperson? No? Then you're not going to get your legislative representative to even listen to you, much less work hard to change the law.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday May 12 2017, @07:50PM (3 children)
Jury decisions have to be unanimous
Well, no, not always.
In state courts, whether a jury needs to be unanimous depends on the state and the type of trial. For criminal trials, [most states require] the jury to produce a unanimous verdict [, but for] civil trials, almost one-third of states only require a majority for a verdict. Some states require a majority if the money at issue in the trial is below a certain amount, and a unanimous verdict all other times.
- Findlaw [findlaw.com]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday May 12 2017, @08:02PM (2 children)
Well, we're talking about jury nullification here, which is something that's only a real factor with criminal trials.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday May 12 2017, @10:44PM
Yeah that's why I thought someone (even if not you personally) might want to know that not all states require all the jurors to agree.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday May 13 2017, @02:05AM
Jury nullification can happen in civil trials, though it's usually discussed in relationship to criminal penalties. Nevertheless, there are legal standards for liability, negligence, etc. that apply to civil actions. It's possible for a jury to believe that a defendant is actually liable, etc. according to the technical legal standard but decide in favor of the defendant nonetheless because they believe the legal standard is unfair in the present case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @07:10PM
WTF? The point of jury nullification is to allow the jury the power to refuse to convict because they disagree with the law, not because they like the defendant.
Yeah, right. I've got two words for you on that:
Oh. Jay.
As in O.J.
I don't think the jury felt the law against murder was the problem, or that O.J. was innocent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @09:28PM
1.) I'm a Democrat, and there are plenty of circumstances where I'm sympathetic to nullification. If a statuette is written extremely broadly, or carries a mandatory minimum sentence that a juror simply can't countenance, should we really judge that person? Why have a jury, instead of a computer, if not add human judgement and intelligence?
2.) Prosecutorial discretion may suck, but the alternative is horrifying - especially given the aforementioned overbroad laws and mandatory minimums.
3.) Agreed on the uncritical support for police violence. It's deeply telling.
4.) To be honest, me and my fellow liberals do this all the time. I actually think there's an argument to be made for undoing Marbury v Madison and ending the co-equality of the Judiciary. If Congress could actually pass all/almost all the laws they want, we might find Congress forced to take more responsibility.
5.) The conservative reaction to reports about escalating right-wing extremism after Obama was elected is a great example here.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Saturday May 13 2017, @01:27AM (2 children)
Well, Thexalon, I love you dearly, but who does believe in the rule of law? You can't seriously mean the Democratic Party does. They're perfectly fine with the American government torturing people, which is both a crime under American law as well as international jurisprudence. They're perfectly fine with holding people indefinitely without trial. They're perfectly fine with not prosecuting Wall Street banks that have committed crime after white collar crime, brazenly, and have even been okey dokey with then handing them more giant piles of money and apologizing to them for their bruised feelings. All those things and far, far more have nothing to do with a respect for the rule of law.
Don't read what I'm saying as a defense of the Republican Party, because I'm not. What I am saying is the whole damn thing is rotten to the core. There are no good guys. At least, there are no good guys in Washington. If there are any good guys in the whole story they're here among us hoi poloi, somewhere.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday May 13 2017, @03:41PM (1 child)
I specifically didn't say a word about Democrats, because I think both of the big political parties distract from their very real problems by arguing "Look, the other guys are worse!"
As for the Democrats, my impression is that they don't believe in the rule of law for the wealthy and powerful, but do tend to believe in it for the "little people" (meaning everybody else). There isn't the same kind of "might makes right" thinking, more "right makes might" thinking (neither of which is really accurate).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Monday May 15 2017, @01:52PM
Politics in the UK, and I suspect many other countries where I don't speak the language enough to understand, is exactly the same. The Tories won power (senior/on-top in a coalition) from Labour by repeatedly blaming Labour for the global financial crash, all helpfully repeated and amplified by our terrible tabloid press, and people believed it. Look at that and tell me democracy is functioning adequately; when "it was like that when I got here" and "voting for them gives you cooties" are the larger part of all political argument then we clearly have a failure of democratic engagement and the democratic process.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday May 13 2017, @01:45AM (1 child)
He was totally right when he said, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."
Yes... And?... So now what? The way things look, he'll win 2020 with no problems. I mean, nobody is going to look past the damn democrats, and we all know what they're worth..
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 13 2017, @05:55AM
The Democrats were too dumbassed to see this coming given the states Bernie won, and I don't see any reason to believe they won't be dumbassed and fuck it up again in 2020.
At least I'm back to regularly voting Libertarian in 2018, if I continue to vote at all. I've always felt I had some kind of duty to vote, but my 3 choices are vote my conscience which will be a Libertarian or a Green and will never win even a state legislature seat in my jurisdiction; vote for a bunch of regressive, authoritarian, immature assholes who mistake voting the pulpit's choice for religion; or vote for an utterly inept political party that is completely out of touch. That really does make even just going a mile down the road and spending 15 minutes tops doing my "civil duty" seem like an utter waste of time. The opportunity cost of voting is too high; I could simply stare at my ceiling for a half hour and that would be time better spent.
I wish I could just ask the D team, "A reality TV star is president and turning the governance of an audacious attempt at government by the people, for the people and the most powerful nation on Earth into a reality TV show. How could you have let this happen? What were you thinking? Do you realize how bad this is?"
"...You couldn't get enough of The Candidate, this fall's hottest new reality show! Now meet The President! New episodes airing nonstop in a reality near you! You won't believe what The President does on day 300! Stay tuned for more! Not like you can tune anything else in~... aaaahahahaAAAAHAHAHA!" (Read this in Mr. Popo's voice from Dragon Ball Z Abridged.)
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday May 12 2017, @03:04PM (1 child)
He wasn't fired, he resigned. I saw it on Fox News.
#Fake News!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @04:17PM
He wasn't fired, he resigned. I saw it on Fox News.
Fox actually did report that, but they corrected themselves within about a minute. [snopes.com] You can't really blame them for getting the details fuzzy on a breaking story as long as they correct it once they get better info.
What you can blame them for is the way they've been carrying water for turmp in their reporting. Since republicans are basically locked into Fox and Fox alone [washingtonpost.com] if Fox decides to de-emphasize something then most republicans simply won't hear about it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by butthurt on Friday May 12 2017, @03:06PM (8 children)
The liberal media are saying that Mr. Sessions recused himself from the investigation of possible connections between the Russian government and the Donald Trump campaign. They're saying that Mr. Sessions nonetheless recommended that Mr. Comey, who was leading that investigation, be sacked.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-kamala-harris-jeff-sessions-resign-20170511-htmlstory.html [sandiegouniontribune.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/11/jeff-sessions-is-in-deep-trouble-and-heres-why/ [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/sessions-break-recusal-vow-helping-fire-comey/ [pbs.org]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-james-comey_us_591318d5e4b05e1ca2038fec [huffingtonpost.com]
Is Mr. Sessions participating in the selection of a new director for the FBI? The ultra-liberal Washington Times says he is:
Mr. Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein have already met with four candidates, each of whom has a long history at the bureau, according to department officials.
-- http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/10/interviews-interim-fbi-boss-already-underway/ [washingtontimes.com]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 12 2017, @03:12PM (7 children)
The liberal media are saying that Mr. Sessions recused himself from the investigation...
I don't know if you're being sarcastic with the liberal media bit but this is a direct quote from Mr. Sessions himself: “I have now decided to recuse myself from any existing or future investigations of any matter relating in any way to the campaigns for president of the United States.”
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @03:19PM (5 children)
What's the point of have usernames and posting history if people aren't going to judge what you say in the context of what you've previously said?
Yes, he was being sarcastic.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Friday May 12 2017, @05:04PM (4 children)
Frankly that's a silly reason to make an account. You don't get full post history without subscriptions. It's just an account that gives you a fancy uid and name and way to shill your site. As well as a nifty scratchpad/journal.
and no given stuff like this [newyorker.com] and what I have to do every single time I see any political article whatsoever in terms of research workload, no one should be expected to determine butthurt's sarcasm from his post history. That's silly. And hardly representative of the person. I mean, what I post half the time when I feel like venting? Sometimes I don't even keep a consistent grammar level. Sometimes it's a direct political attack because flag carrying losers bother me. Even though I may have no actual issue with the politics in themselves or the person.
By the way, I nonetheless recommend subscribing. Full history is a mildly useful feature. The gold star is the real killer feature.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @05:10PM
I didn't say search-able history.
People have memories. When you post under a username you develop a reputation based on history as people experienced it with each new post.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @05:20PM (2 children)
> and no given stuff like this [newyorker.com] and what I have to do every single time I see any political article whatsoever in terms of research workload,
You didn't notice the "humor" in the URL?
Or the word "satire" at the top of the page?
I will admit though that Borowitz is really good at synthesizing widely-known facts into satire such that his articles do sound believable.
But maybe that's a testament about how reality has become so absurb.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Friday May 12 2017, @10:33PM (1 child)
I'm not sure if you're actually expecting me to answer that since the second part of your post seems to imply you know exactly what the point was.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15 2017, @10:39PM
Seems obvious you understood what his point was too since you decided to make a passive-aggressive defensive post in response.
(Score: 2) by number6x on Friday May 12 2017, @06:01PM
So we can conclude that Jeff sessions must part of the liberal media!
:)
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 12 2017, @03:07PM (15 children)
him. Any wagers how long this guy lasts?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @04:39PM (14 children)
Which guy? The next AG? The next head of FBI? The President? I'm predicting that we will see some rapid churn in all three of these before the dust settles. We need more popcorn. Lots more popcorn.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday May 12 2017, @05:33PM (11 children)
But is the current Vice-President any better? It's not clear that he's as impeachable, and even for Trump that's going to be a major effort, with Republicans in charge of both the House and the Senate.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bob_super on Friday May 12 2017, @05:54PM (4 children)
The Republicans are waiting for the perfect mistake from Trump to impeach him.
They love that he brought the WH and Congress to them, but can't stand him. Pence/Sessions is their predictable hardline wet dream.
But he is too popular with his base, and could be a major threat to the party as an independent (himself, or one of his family members, supported by a new news network with all the fired Fox guys).
They need him to do something so crazy even his supporters will turn against him, so they can pounce, present Pence as the One True Conservative Savior, and keep all those people under the R brand.
Should only take a few more months at this rate, but it has to be early enough to not be used by the D guys in the next election.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @08:56PM
I think the Pence/Ryan combo of morality and economics is exactly what the people wanted when they voted for Trump /sarc
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @10:52PM (2 children)
> or one of his family members,
I fully expect ivanka to try to pull a marine le pen if she get's an opportunity.
And because she is a hottie the republicans will absolutely love her, 10x more than they loved palin.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 13 2017, @05:33AM
> And because she is a hottie
Wow, those goggles. I could really use a few pairs of those, for the next party I go to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 13 2017, @03:51PM
Kushner could then finally get a real job as First Husband rather than all the trivial bullshit he has now. Are there any more family members available for hire?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 12 2017, @06:13PM (2 children)
The VP is probably more stable than the current president. But, few of us are going to like his politics. The liberal left will DAMN SURE not like any of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @08:59PM
Not sure the pussy-grabbin' right will like it much either.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday May 13 2017, @12:25AM
The liberal left will DAMN SURE not like any of it.
I'm pretty hardcore but just about anything would be preferable to the shitshow we're in right now...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @06:30PM (2 children)
Did I say anything about better? I specifically predicted quite a bit of "churn" and I'm standing by that prediction.
At some point Trump will make such an egregious fuck up that even the Republicans will decide that they like their odds better by cutting him loose. I would have thought that we had hit that milestone at least a few times now but we are apparently not there yet.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday May 13 2017, @01:42AM (1 child)
I think it would have to be a very special set of circumstances for that move to be anything but Pyrrhic. Americans truly hate Congress. Its approval ratings have been in the single digits for a long time--if they crack into the teens they're doing great. So the only thing that keeps the whole system from flying apart is the Presidency. There was once a country that was greater than the Presidency, that would reckon such a thing to be a reaffirmation of the primacy of democracy over men, but America is not that country anymore.
Consider the Clinton impeachment. Even though they had him dead to rights, it was a long, drawn-out affair because you don't just press a switch, and presto! the President's gone. The process did a lot of damage to the Republicans and backfired on them politically.
Impeachment is also not a question of law or violating the Constitution, as it ought to be, because both W. Bush and Obama deserved impeachment for their actions.
Trump would have to do something irredeemable in front of God, the universe, and everyone in broad daylight like killing and eating a baby. Else, the Republican party would shatter in a million pieces as it alienated its base by impeaching him.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15 2017, @05:50PM
Well, I seriously doubt even that action would destroy his support. He would still be the Republican leader, the Democrats would still be an evil worth opposing by any means necessary, Congressional Republicans would still be too fragmented to do anything without him, and at the end of the day, the authoritarian followers will remain loyal to him for as long as he keeps making excuses. There's a reason the non-denial denial is a thing, after all. And besides, that baby-eating thing was fake news anyway.
The only way to beat Trump is actually another Trump-like figure. It doesn't have to be the same set of politics, but it does have to be fear-based. And the fear needs to be targeted at Trump. The only way to take Trump's support away is to yell and scream and raise fear of what he will do until the authoritarian followers see you as the only person that can fix everything. Once that base of support switches to the new alpha dog, the Republican politicians will have to choose (again) to support the guy that is messiah to 50% of their own voters.
I think anti-semites could actually do it; I don't believe in the so-called New World Order of Jewish domination through our financial systems, but Trump's business dealings and connections sure as hell look like it. It would have to be a gifted speaker, though. Somebody who knows no fear.
Basically, the only way to get rid of Trump is cloning Hitler. God help us all.
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Friday May 12 2017, @07:20PM (1 child)
We need more popcorn. Lots more popcorn.
I think we may also need some bullet-proof vests. A bunker would be nice as well...it's going to get a bit "shooty" before it gets better.
If it gets better at all.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Saturday May 13 2017, @01:47AM
I would say draw close to your neighbors and community. Humans strengthen each other. I suspect those communities that do that will have a much better chance of survival than individuals hiding in bunkers will.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday May 12 2017, @03:21PM (8 children)
How do we know what Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe says about FBI employees actually is true? or how true it is?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @03:41PM
How do we know what Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe says about FBI employees actually is true?
Because of all the other reporting, even before the McCabe's statement, that said the same thing.
F.B.I. agents were enraged by the firing and worried openly that Mr. Trump would appoint a White House ally to lead them. Mr. Comey was widely liked in the F.B.I., even by those who criticized his handling of the Clinton investigation. Agents regarded him as a good manager and an independent director.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/james-comey-fired-fbi.html [nytimes.com]
Donald Trump’s firing of the FBI director, James Comey, has left FBI agents shocked, angry and humiliated, with some former agents worried that the president has fundamentally compromised the bureau’s prized political neutrality.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/10/fbi-agents-james-comey-trump-firing-response [theguardian.com]
‘His support within the rank and file of the FBI is overwhelming.’
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/comey-firing-fbi-trump-238247 [politico.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @03:57PM (6 children)
There is ample evidence that Trump lies but there is no evidence McCabe does.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Friday May 12 2017, @04:20PM (5 children)
MCabe is under investigation: http://www.businessinsider.com/andrew-mccabe-fbi-director-under-investigation-2017-5 [businessinsider.com]
Let us not forget that his HRC ties netted his wife half a million in donations and he played some part in the email whitewash.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 12 2017, @05:29PM (3 children)
Ah, the Clinton deflection. She lost, get over it.
From your article:
Among the points of inquiry was whether McCabe should have recused himself from the case because of his family's political ties.
Before McCabe was promoted to deputy FBI director, his wife, Jill, took money from Clinton ally and Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe's political action committee while running for state Senate.
The Washington Post reported that McCabe alerted a department ethics official at the time of the donation.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Saturday May 13 2017, @01:42AM (2 children)
This is not a deflection. If there is going to be any real threat to Trump or Pence, whichever is in office by 2020 and you probably better hope it's the orange one, the Democrats have dump Clintonism. But they aren't -- in some weird death wish they keep hanging on to Clinton and RussiaRussiaRussia thinking that's going to make their turds glisten in 2020. People are fed up with this lot -- Republicans and Democrats alike. That is why Trump won. He promised to be different -- he's a liar to be sure -- but HRC literally promised status quo.
So you lot need to hear how badly Clinton sucks -- hourly even -- until you get it through your thick heads. Seriously -- she lost to fucking Trump and her whole flock of toadies will make that happen again if you don't eject and shun her for life.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday May 13 2017, @01:58AM (1 child)
Yeah, I would agree with that. The DNC selected another Clinton toady as its Chair. Pushing the Russia conspiracy is so much easier than alienating the donor class they rely on to fund their lavish Beltway lifestyle.
I liked Bernie. I wasn't gaga about him, because he didn't repudiate the NSA's spying, but I liked him OK. Had he been the nominee he would have had coattails that would have helped him in Congress. And it's possible that he might have been able to pass meaningful legislation in spite of Republican opposition because of his long experience in Congress. Hillary, though, was so obviously corrupt and coronated that it killed the Democratic party all the way down the ticket. I know I didn't vote for a single damn Democrat last fall, not even for dog catcher, to signal my disgust with them. I tore up my democratic voter registration, spat on it, and sent it back to the Democratic Party, even.
But he won't play again. He's too old. And there's nobody else on the bench because the DNC has completely killed its farm system to consolidate power for its sitting octogenarians.
Me, I hope the American Pirate Party finds its legs because I would far rather vote for that platform than any of the 50-year old reheated dogshit the DNC and RNC keep peddling.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15 2017, @10:41PM
oh look, the two biggest clinton haters agree that clinton is horrible.
Public mutual masturbation for the gross out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @05:48PM
Still no evidence that he lied about it.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 12 2017, @04:10PM (22 children)
Even when he does the right thing, it seems to be for the wrong reasons, then he can't even remember his reasons.
Comey SHOULD have been sacked. Usurping the authority of the AG was more than enough reason to be fired. But, WTF did Trump fire him? His reasons made decent sense, the first time around. But, the more Trump talks, the more foolish he sounds.
HEY TRUMP!! STFU ALREADY!! I can accept that we elected the Court Fool, but, FFS, it isn't necessary that you keep reminding us.
Meanwhile, the more mistakes you make when you open your mouth, the more ammunition you give the other party.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @04:24PM (6 children)
> Usurp
You keep using that word, I do not think It means what you think It means.
The AG requested Comey's recommendation.
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, conceding that her airport meeting with former President Bill Clinton this week had cast a shadow over the federal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s personal email account, said Friday that she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director made about whether to bring charges in the case.
Ms. Lynch said she had decided this spring to defer to the recommendations of her staff and the F.B.I. because her status as a political appointee sitting in judgment on a politically charged case would raise questions of a conflict of interest. But the meeting with Mr. Clinton, she acknowledged, had deepened those questions, and she said she now felt compelled to explain publicly her reasoning to try to put the concerns to rest.
“People have a whole host of reasons to have questions about how we in government do our business,” Ms. Lynch said at an Aspen Institute conference in Colorado. “My meeting on the plane with former President Clinton could give them another reason to have questions and concerns.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html [nytimes.com]
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 12 2017, @06:05PM (5 children)
That didn't give Comey blanket authority to flap his gums to the media every other week on that and other issues. Historically, getting information out of the FBI is like pulling teeth - from a chicken. They don't give information away. But, there was Comey, running his mouth constantly, to any reporter who would listen.
Comey was usurping the authority of the AG's office. The AG's office makes announcements. But, neither the AG's office, nor the FBI, is supposed to have diarrhea of the mouth over political issues.
Usurp. I used the word correctly. Maybe you need to examine that word yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @06:41PM
you are just pure id aren't you?
princess foot-stamping snowflake id
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @07:48PM
That didn't give Comey blanket authority to flap his gums to the media every other week on that and other issues.
Actual examples of Comey talking to the media?
None.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @07:48PM (1 child)
Your smugness and low iq were demonstrated nicely by your post. Thanks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 13 2017, @12:39AM
We need to be patient with Runaway, because, . . . ah, fuck it! He's just an idiot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 13 2017, @11:48AM
Heh welcome to the other side runaway, looks like you pissed off the shills. I agree, never has the FBI been so prominent in the news. I still feel like its all one big game, but I should stop underestimating human stupidity...
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday May 12 2017, @04:24PM (14 children)
Meanwhile, the more
mistakes you make whenyou open your mouth, the more ammunition you give the other party.FTFY.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday May 12 2017, @06:01PM (13 children)
He is dangerously contagious too. Witness the "Nobody dies because they don't have access to healthcare" size 20 foot-in-mouth guy...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-congressman-nobody-dies-because-they-dont-have-access-to-health-care/ [cbsnews.com]
The next campaign will sadly be a best-of of videos of Republicans making outrageous statements to try to support Trump and his policies.
I'd rather see the other guys present new ideas and platforms, but we know how elections work...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @06:26PM (12 children)
FWIW, that line is actually republican orthodoxy going back to before Obama. But it is really just a semantic trick.
What he meant is that hospitals are required to treat anyone having a medical emergency regardless of ability to pay.
And that's totally true. But they aren't required to cure them, just stabilize them so they won't die immediately.
Any long term problems like cancer, diabetes, etc that you don't typically go to an emergency room for are not covered.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday May 12 2017, @06:34PM (11 children)
And everyone knows it to be an expensive lie ... regular and preventative healthcare saves both money and lives. Even Insurance companies agree.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Friday May 12 2017, @09:30PM (10 children)
regular and preventative healthcare saves both money and lives. Even Insurance companies agree.
Which is why those insurance companies routinely don't pay for it. Here's a news flash. If you pay someone to find expensive, billable problems, they will find those problems. There are a few sorts of preventative care that has a pretty good track record, like immunizations and prenatal care. That's the care with the highest payoff - a full human life, if you prevent some rather common and preventable sorts of diseases and illnesses. For the rest, I think the insurance companies have a pretty good idea of what it's really worth. Thus, I don't buy the claim that this sort of care saves money.
Then we go to the alleged saving of lives. There is no indication that such health care will save your life. It will allow you to live a bit longer and a bit healthier which we have decided is worth a significant amount. But you will die of something in rather short order no matter how much modern regular and preventative health care is shoveled at you.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday May 12 2017, @09:53PM (7 children)
Catching a cancer at stage 1 is a lot cheaper than at stage 3, and you don't catch it at stage 1 if you're not looking.
BUT
Why would I pay to help you catch your cancer now, when there's a pretty good chance you're gonna change employers before it turns into a stage 3? I can pocket your premiums now, and let your expense be someone else's problem...
Employer-driven healthcare, and the rate at which people do change jobs in the XXIst century, make the case for preventative care harder in a competitive market.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 12 2017, @10:06PM (6 children)
Catching a cancer at stage 1 is a lot cheaper than at stage 3, and you don't catch it at stage 1 if you're not looking.
So what? There are two contrary factors here. First, you have the opportunity to "catch" many other illnesses than just the stage 3 cancer. Those cost money to treat as well. And second, you'll still die of something, it'll just cost more than before to get to that point.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday May 12 2017, @10:21PM (5 children)
Treating diseases you might not have noticed will typically be outpatient, a.k.a. cheap. And you're back to work paying premiums fast.
Treating heavy stuff is exponentially more expensive, and you may not work for a while.
Dead people pay no premiums (their replacement does, but that carries administrative costs).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 13 2017, @11:58AM (4 children)
Treating diseases you might not have noticed will typically be outpatient, a.k.a. cheap. And you're back to work paying premiums fast. Treating heavy stuff is exponentially more expensive, and you may not work for a while.
You ignore both the cost of such testing and its risks. For example, what would be the point of a mammogram (which involves exposure to x rays as does some of the follow on testing for false positives) of young women, if the testing eventually causes more breast cancer cases than it finds?
(Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Monday May 15 2017, @02:08PM (3 children)
Mammograms use ultrasound AFAIK; x-ray wouldn't be as useful and MR is a little pointless given that ultrasound works perfectly well, is safer (than both x-ray and MR, the latter of which can be dangerous in the case of unknown embedded ferrous metal), requires less training to use (than both) and is a lot more cost-effective. That said, there are arguments against blanket testing sections of the public for breast/prostate cancer. I won't bore you with the details but the role of over-diagnosis/over-treatment is important. For conditions like abdominal aortic aneurysm it's a different ballgame, though.
Ultimately the earlier you catch anything that requires ongoing care (e.g. hypertension, cancer (radio/chemotherapy courses, ongoing surveillance diagnostics)), the better the outcome for the patient and the cheaper it is to treat.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 16 2017, @02:06AM (2 children)
Mammograms use ultrasound AFAIK
From here [cancer.gov]:
A mammogram is an x-ray picture of the breast.
Mammograms can be used to check for breast cancer in women who have no signs or symptoms of the disease. This type of mammogram is called a screening mammogram. Screening mammograms usually involve two or more x-ray pictures, or images, of each breast. The x-ray images often make it possible to detect tumors that cannot be felt. Screening mammograms can also find microcalcifications (tiny deposits of calcium) that sometimes indicate the presence of breast cancer.
There's also the matter of the 13% false positive rate in the population of women mentioned.
Ultimately the earlier you catch anything that requires ongoing care (e.g. hypertension, cancer (radio/chemotherapy courses, ongoing surveillance diagnostics)), the better the outcome for the patient and the cheaper it is to treat.
Not if the patient would die before the issue requires ongoing care!
(Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Thursday May 18 2017, @08:42PM (1 child)
You live and learn. Thinking about it, I know what the machines look like that perform those tests and they *can't* be ultrasound; in my defence, I'm clerical not medical! But yes, false positive is definitely one of the risks, along with over-diagnosis.
In general, letting people die because it's expensive to treat them is probably not good for the long-term economic health of the country. You could make the modest proposal that retirees should be left to succumb to whatever it is they've developed as they're no longer producing anything to benefit the economy, but that's unlikely to gain much traction.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 19 2017, @04:37AM
In general, letting people die because it's expensive to treat them is probably not good for the long-term economic health of the country.
What sort of economic health is a permanently bankrupt country going to have again? I'd have to say that you have it exactly opposite. We don't have endless resources to throw at health care.
You could make the modest proposal that retirees should be left to succumb to whatever it is they've developed as they're no longer producing anything to benefit the economy, but that's unlikely to gain much traction.
No matter how much we spend on health care, there comes a point where the above "modest proposal" happens.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday May 13 2017, @12:40AM (1 child)
There is no indication that such health care will save your life. It will allow you to live a bit longer [...]
You're saying that nobody dies due to lack of access to medical care, because medical care, at best, can allow a patient to live longer. It does not confer immortality, so it does not save lives. Next time I hear of someone's life being saved, I shall challenge the speaker: check back in 9000 years, because that person will probably be dead, along with you and me.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 13 2017, @11:52AM
You're saying that nobody dies due to lack of access to medical care, because medical care, at best, can allow a patient to live longer. It does not confer immortality, so it does not save lives. Next time I hear of someone's life being saved, I shall challenge the speaker: check back in 9000 years, because that person will probably be dead, along with you and me.
It's worth noting here that there are certain types of preventative care that may actually shorten peoples' lives. For example, mammograms [cnn.com] in women under the age of 40.
The study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, looked at 117,738 women younger than age 40 with no family history of breast cancer. Women between ages 35 and 39 underwent the highest number of mammograms, yet for every 10,000 women screened in this age group, 1,266 would be called back for additional tests and imaging and 16 cancers would be found. That number more than doubles to 43 cancers detected per 10,000 women ages 45-49, and continues to increase with age.
So 10,000 women between 35 and 39 exposed to X rays annually, almost 13% were called back for additional tests and imaging (more x rays), and only 16 cancers found. Meanwhile those mammograms and any other x ray exposure would in turn contribute to the risk of developing breast cancer at a later age and we also have some risk from medical mistakes (chance of infections and injuries from any needles used in these tests). How many women's lives and how much cost justifies saving 16 lives per 10,000 women?
This isn't merely hypothetical risk since the story states that 30% of US women in their 30s undergo such tests. We're seeing a huge cost with moderate risk for little benefit and it affects a huge number of women. Should insurance be paying for this?
This is my point. There has been this huge, unwarranted assumption that "regular and preventative" health care works, much less that it works well enough to justify insurance companies paying for it in order to save on payout costs. I've already allowed that there are situations where this is true. But we see here the contrary. We have a fairly young group and a common, often lethal ailment, breast cancer - which normally would be an ideal situation for preventative care, yet we still don't have enough benefit to justify the risks inflicted on the patient or the cost that would be (and probably often is) shifted to an insurer.
As to the observation that everyone dies in a rather short period of time, it's a demonstration that current health care only has so much value. It can only extend our lives a fairly short amount. So no matter how much wealth we burn on preventative care, we're only going to get at best a fixed amount of benefit. Preventative care has diminishing returns past certain basics and it doesn't take long to get to the point where you're killing more people than you are saving due to the risks of the tests you are performing versus their slight benefit.