The Washington Post reports FBI’s investigation of Trump included a counterintelligence inquiry:
The FBI investigation into President Trump that was opened almost immediately after he fired then-Director James B. Comey also included a counterintelligence component to determine if the president was seeking to help Russia, and if so, why, according to people familiar with the matter.
The decision by then-acting FBI director Andrew McCabe to open an investigation of a sitting president was a momentous step, but it came after Trump had cited the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election in his decision to fire Comey, these people said.
The counterintelligence component of the Trump investigation was first reported by the New York Times.
Late Saturday night, Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Trump in an interview if he is or ever was working for Russia. Trump responded, "I think it’s the most insulting thing I’ve ever been asked." Referring to the New York Times story, he went on, "I think it’s the most insulting article I’ve ever had written."
See also The Guardian.
(Score: 3, Informative) by legont on Sunday January 13 2019, @06:09PM (12 children)
Is helping Russia a deed worth FBI's investigation? I need to know as I do help Russia; guilty as charged.
"The US president helped Russia". Is it accution? Insult? Politically correct statement? Where are we here?
A few months back I submitted a US military pool (rejected by our editors): "Number of the US troops who belive a major war is likely in 2019 is up 9 times"
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2018/10/16/why-todays-troops-fear-a-new-war-is-coming-soon/ [militarytimes.com]
Are we really that close to the war?
Or, perhaps, it is liberal brain washing hysteria?
Which one is better? (I take hysteria)
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @06:19PM (7 children)
yes, military is filled by liberals with their hysterias....
Do you read the shit you write?
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Sunday January 13 2019, @07:12PM (1 child)
His point is not that the military is liberal, but that they have been subjected to 'liberal brainwashing'
He is knocking on the sensationalist media Chicken Littling for two years straight.
I'm not ruling it out as a factor, but it depends strongly on when the surveys were taken. It can be expected that there will be significant up or down swings in sentiment proximate to events that indicate heightening or lessening of tensions.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:35PM
Yes M.A.S.S.A
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @07:20PM (4 children)
Do YOU read before you write? Since reading comprehension is beyond your skillset, I will explain. The OP was stating that the military is being brainwashed BY the liberal hysteria, not that they are the source of it.
Liberals seem to believe that the entire country, particularly the lowlife conservative variety, is easily brainwashed by a few Facebook ads, why wouldn't the 24 months of CNN's and NBC's constant drumbeat of impending war with whoever is the target of the day? I lost track. Is it North Korea, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the EU, or Mordor this week? I've been expecting martial law since January 2017. Wasn't that the narrative of November 2016?
The sky has been falling for two years now. I'm surprised my roof is still intact.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Sunday January 13 2019, @07:24PM
That's...a little spooky.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Monday January 14 2019, @12:17AM (1 child)
I've been expecting martial law since Nixon, but this guy wearing the red nose in the white house is doing a good job of selling it. And if he goes nuts, we might need it until the next scheduled election, when we will vote in another corrupt asshole. I mean, really, who else is there to blame for all this bullshit besides the people who sign off on it every other November?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:38AM
What a wonderful narrative you keep pushing, why you gas lighting bro?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @03:32PM
I've been expecting a military coup.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @06:19PM (2 children)
Liberalism is just an American version of Bolshevism.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @06:51PM (1 child)
lol no. American liberalism is Menshevism.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Monday January 14 2019, @01:47AM
The basic platform sounds pretty close, you could make an argument we are faced with a cruel choice between the greater and lesser Menshevic parties.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday January 14 2019, @12:16PM
> Is helping Russia a deed worth FBI's investigation? Are we really that close to the war? Or, perhaps, it is liberal brain washing hysteria?
Good questions. It seems that the increased belligerence from Russia. Invasion of Crimea and Ukraine. Remember Ukraine is really, really close to EU and colluding with NATO. Georgia is also moving closer to NATO.
Citation:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_37750.htm [nato.int]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%E2%80%93NATO_relations [wikipedia.org]
Russia is *waging ongoing wars* against NATO-friendly countries, though not signatories of the treaty.
Russia has also threatened/acted against NATO signatories: Russia has murdered people in NATO treaty signatory countries - I am specifically referring to the Skripal case in UK; Russia has flown military aircraft near NATO airspace (but as far as I can tell not in NATO airspace); Russia has been allegedly responsible for several cyber-attacks on NATO treaty signatories (but evidence is easier to dismiss here). The evidence is weaker here.
On the balance of the evidence above, I think that there is a reasonable and real prospect of escalation to full scale war.
Another approach would be to analyze in whose interest a war would be. If it can be shown that both sides (NATO and Russia) have a reasonable expectation of gaining from a war, then it will probably happen.
(Score: 5, Informative) by SpockLogic on Sunday January 13 2019, @06:44PM (4 children)
What he didn't say was "No". He didn't deny it, did he.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Sunday January 13 2019, @08:05PM (1 child)
That puts me in mind of Milo Bloom interviewing Senator Lucias Bedfellow regarding the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa [blogger.com]:
Milo bloom: Hello Senator. I'm working on my first news story and I like you to confirm something...did you say, quote "I paid them 50 grand to sink Hoffa in the Potomac?"
Senator Bedfellow: What!?
Milo: Then you don't deny ever saying that?
Sen. Bedfellow: Yes!
Milo: Then you admit confirming not denying you ever said that?
Sen. Bedfellow:No! I mean Yes! What!
Milo: I'll put "Maybe."
Follow-up [blogger.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:08PM
Um, no. Not even a nice try ... more like trying too hard.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:50PM (1 child)
We don’t know what he said. All we got was two sentences from a news source that likely truncated anything further or previous to those sentences that didn’t fit their narrative.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:09PM
Actually we do know. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4HcpGGwxeE [youtube.com] - Full interview. He never actually says "no", just says it is insulting and goes on a tirade about the New York Times, changing the subject.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sulla on Sunday January 13 2019, @07:14PM (14 children)
We keep bouncing between either Trump being a Russian agent or Trump being a petulant child who listens to nobody but himself. How can he take orders from the Russians if he refuses to listen to anybody but himself? Unless Trump is in fact Putin in a mask, or Putin is Trump in a mask? Or maybe Netanyahu has both Trump and Putin masks and is pulling all the strings.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @07:27PM (3 children)
That last one is closer to the truth than you might realize.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:03PM (2 children)
Get with the plot: a lizard, wearing a Netinyahu mask, is pulling all the strings.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday January 14 2019, @06:43PM (1 child)
Oh, this is some new "Sci-Fi" show from the SyFy Channel?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by DeVilla on Tuesday January 15 2019, @07:03PM
I was thinking People Of Earth, but maybe SyFy has something too?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:24PM (8 children)
Neither necessarily needs to be true.
It's entirely possible that the Russians took action to discredit Hillary Clinton without any direct coordination with the Trump campaign.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson makes this argument in her book Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President What We Don't, Can't, and Do Know [oup.com].
If you're not a reader, you can see the author present her arguments [c-span.org].
The primary argument she makes is that the targeting of voters discrediting Clinton/glorifying Trump by Russian trolls didn't require any active cooperation/coordination with the Trump campaign. She points out that media coverage of the campaigns could have given them more than enough information to target specific groups in support of Trump.
It's an interesting read. I recommend it.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:02PM (4 children)
Have read similar takes, and this is what seems like happened to me. The Russians appeared to want to cause general chaos to weaken the US. Russia would have tried to cause chaos regardless, but them targeting a person like Hillary is not surprising. I imagine they would have (maybe did) go just as hard on Jeb, Kasich, (enter neocon here).
Am kind of annoyed that a lot of the memes that the media has claimed over the past couple of years were made and distributed by Russians/Russian bots were actually made by 4chan/pol/ who supported Trump for the lulz at first and then later in revenge at the MediaMatters/CorrectTheRecord people spamming the site. The images made and distributed by legit Russians on facebook were garbage. Bad english, etc.
Had low energy Jeb! Revealed just how autistic he was earlier in the elction it would have been a much different meme war.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Spamalope on Monday January 14 2019, @02:52AM (3 children)
Hell, Russia could have trolled best by framing both sides for colluding with them. If they pulled that off, they'd make both side look like patsies or idiots. If it only worked on one side, then they make the attempts to frame the other seem to be an op by the US candidate they framed so they're framed twice. What's not to like?
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Monday January 14 2019, @04:00AM (1 child)
I can't recall the timeframe, but I thought six or so months ago I read an article from CNN about how there was propaganda put out by the Russians in support of both sides, just there had been more support for Trump. Had Trump lost nobody would have cared about the pro-Trump Russian propaganda but people would have been real concerned about the pro-Hillary Russian propaganda. When I read the article it seemed to me Russia was hedging their bets.
Throughout this whole ordeal I have not questioned whether Russia is being a bad actor, I have just questioned whether or not it is something worth dying for. I think foreign bad actors are going to be expected. We are, atm, the world superpower. Everybody everywhere is spying on us and trying to influence us as much as they can. Influence by Russia is generally not accepted, yet influence by the Chinese and Israelies is currently seen as generally okay. Its not like we haven't bought soviet premiers in the past, and given the close ties we have had with Putin off and on it would not be surprising if we had some influence on his rise to power in the first place.
For me the whole thing falls into the "don't let it happen again" thing. I would prefer do that by improving our own defenses rather than being offensive about it.
I would also like to propose that it might not have been Russia, or at least partially not Russia. What did Russia have to gain from US chaos? I mean they do appear to like to be general asshats to us, as we do do them. The country right now that benefits most from both a disorganized US and negative US-Russia relation is China. The Chinese were the party that most likely hacked Hillary's server as around the time her server had been compromised the Chinese off-ed all US agents in their country. The bad US-Russian relations have pushed Russia closer to China as over the past decade Russia has been trying to be considered part of Europe instead of Asia. It caused damage to the Russian-Indian relationship where they were building a joint strike fighter and developing new long range missiles.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @11:43AM
Both Clinton and Trump had ties to both Russia and to each other.
So why would it be that hard to believe that both parties could have been working with Russia, even while pretending Russia was an antogonist? We have LLNL working with Russian scientists *IN RUSSIA* on synthesizing new elements. So it's not like America isn't pretty cozy with Russia when it benefits us on any particular level.
Back to the original point: Trump is more or less a RINO to begin with, having been cozy with Clinton and others as a Democrat up until 5-10 years ago. Having not been a lifelong republican, it seems odd that so many lifelong Republicans treat him like the conservative messiah, even ones who during the election hated on him for not being conservative enough.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @03:38PM
Trump doesn't need help to look like an idiot.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Monday January 14 2019, @12:28AM
The primary argument she makes is that the targeting of voters discrediting Clinton/glorifying Trump by Russian trolls didn't require any active cooperation/coordination with the Trump campaign.
That's right. It only requires that idiots believe everything they read on Facebook. Makes the job pretty easy. The DNC wins either way. After the bullshit of Obama's first two years, everybody's running back to the democrats because of the Trump Circus. Makes me wonder if he's doing it on purpose. He always was a democrat, and he's still very good friends with the Clintons. He owes a lot to them.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday January 14 2019, @06:38PM (1 child)
discrediting Clinton/glorifying Trump by Russian trolls didn't require any active cooperation/coordination with the Trump campaign.
Well, it didn't REQUIRE coordination, but it turns out they went ahead and coordinated anyway. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday January 14 2019, @07:09PM
That's an interesting point, and you may well be correct, but I don't have enough actual facts to satisfy me that it is. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that *I* lack the evidence to conclusively say you are correct.
I would point out that long before the 2016 election, folks over at Crowdstrike identified DNS traffic from the Trump Organization querying addresses of servers at Alfa Bank and vice versa [slate.com]. The article posits that the traffic patterns appear to be a secretive communications channel between those organizations. I found that quite interesting when I read about it back in 2016.
But as the saying goes, there's what you know and what you can prove.
Shy of someone breaking Omerta [wikipedia.org] about this, we'll likely never know the full story.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Interesting) by http on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:49PM
Assume Trump was smart enough to dissociate himself from Epstein after his plea bargain, and looked for a new source. Russian oligarchs provide, but with covert video surveillance. It's their own hotel, after all, and Trump is not that clever After a couple years, playback the tapes, and Trump does your bidding forever after.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @08:03PM (21 children)
The Trump/Russia blather is beyond ridiculous. If Democrats think rekindling the cold war and the threat of atomic winter is a rational response to some ineffectual Facebook ads or the standard practice of trying to dig up dirt on an opponent, they're the most dangerous entity in existence.
I'm a liberal who did not vote for Trump.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Sulla on Sunday January 13 2019, @08:13PM (7 children)
What i find most annoying in all of this is that fourth estate has plenty of work to do in actually revealing the truth, but is so wrapped up in TDS that they are unable to comprehend anything else. Trump is overstepping his bounds on a bunch of stuff he should be hit for, but if the media could get over the TDS and try to give him some credit on trying to end some conflicts we might be able to get something done for once.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:15PM
the Press is less about truth. It is now clicks, retweets, likes and comments on comments. That is how news is monetized these days, since it is no longer subsidized by traditional advertisement revenue.
The press used to mock the likes of the National Enquirer and the people who gravitate to that pap, but the news media now is much like the National Enquirer now than 30 yrs ago.
Ww as a apecies seem to like our salicious gossip and insinuations more than real news.
Funny tho how the most prestigious news award in the US sprung from the yellow journalism wars between Hearst & Pilitzer. So maybe its a cyclic thing.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:16PM
Ummm, that's "TPS" reports, and, like, could you have them done by Friday? Hmm?
Yours,
Lundberg.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:20PM (4 children)
What I find annoying is they will not stop and admit they picked and propped up a crap candidate that LOST to Donald Trump. Who by their definition is 'a stupid orange man'. The same fourth estate propped him up as a tiger of a candidate. Then turned on him ran with the BS of 'russia'. It was *them* who propped him up not russia. They were trying to stack the deck against the republicans then picked an unlikable person as their horse. Now they are trying to blame everyone but themselves for the bullshit crazy storm of their creation. They pretty much let the previous president coast on the shitstorm in syria. So why should I expect more. I dont. I gave up in 2000 expecting anything but lies, half truths, and opinions presented as facts.
Instead of getting rid of the real loud mouth loonies and trying to look sane. They are from my PoV doubling down on it. There is *real* things to be reporting on than this BS we are being fed. They take every opportunity to make it about him. They make the 'birther' shit look tame (what a coincidence that was concocted by the same people).
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:37PM (1 child)
I thought this was your talking point for 2017, now that we know Trump worked with Russia to win the election your deflections and projections are pretty pathetic.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @01:13AM
Huh?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:43PM (1 child)
Besides covering him at all, I don't think the press was ever supporting Trump. To a man, their coverage was negatively biased. Until he started winning primaries, many papers were putting coverage of his campaign in their news of the weird pages.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:04PM
Thats simply not true, CNN and MSNBC are up to 2% coverage Trump and sometimes Fox even gets to 40%. Stop being so biased.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:14PM (3 children)
The Democrats are just carrying water for the media. They are profoundly aware that the media is very resourceful at being kingmakers. Look at how well they anointed Ocasio-Cortez despite the obvious shortcomings in her logic, comprehension and abilities. Every time I hear her on TV, I wonder if she was chosen with a "special" election. Personally, I think the media is so anti-Trump simply because they are still angry that Trump made them all look so thoroughly foolish on Election Day. It is all about the butthurt.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @01:06AM (2 children)
I think it runs the other way -- I think the media kowtows to the Dems. Nothing else could explain the tsunami of negativity toward Trump who has basically done what all the other recent presidents have done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:15AM
Well, Trump is (as a person) an asshole who takes every opportunity to insult others and stick a finger into their eye.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @10:49PM
Naah. I had it right. The Democrats have shifted their position too many times to line up with whatever the media is crowing about at the time for it to be the other way around. Which is it today? MeToo? Border wall? Separating families? Comey is Satan? Comey is the Savior? Avenatti for President 2020? Democrats are masters of Twister (TM).
They're still hurting for looking like such clueless idiots on Election Night. Pride goeth before a fall. And they fell hard.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:20PM (7 children)
Conservative here that did vote for Trump and I regret it every day. When Giulani came in and the charges against Cohen, Manafort, and Flynn started coming out that was the turning point for me. Trump has done a few good things, but the constant lies and broken promises have soured everything and it seems quite possible he is a criminal.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:39PM (1 child)
Not American here, but by your statement you seem to think outside of Trump the politicians don't constantly lie and break promise... that's a magical wonderland you live in - where do I sign up?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:45PM
Trump removed the attempt at making his lies even plausible.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Sulla on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:12PM (2 children)
Good job posting something almost verbadum that David Brock's ShareBlue people are paid to post multiple times a day on /pol/. You knew what you were voting against in the last election, and his crimes, especially if true and Russia is our biggest enemy, is less bad than Hillary faciliating selling them our Uranium supply to that same enemy. That and you know for a fact that every single "broken promise" has been because of neocon republicrats. Its the Democans stopping him from withdrawing troops faster, its the Republicrats stopping the wall, the Democans who tried to block trade reform, the Republicrats raising rates to undermine the trade war, its the Democans trying to torpedo the NK negotiations, and its the Republicrats trying to drag us into a new cold war. Not to mention the Israelies who flew a bombing run on christmas day against a target in the Syrian capital and used a civilian plane as cover.
.02 cents deposited into your account you god damned paid shill
We were offered the bushel of arrows in one hand and the olive branch in the other, we chose the olive branch hoping that regardless of all of the possible faults that it might stay an olive branch. If we gotta go to war with Russia for being evil, then fine, lets all die in one last glorious war, but ill try everything I can to achieve peace first.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Informative) by Pslytely Psycho on Monday January 14 2019, @04:09AM (1 child)
So how does one vote in nine, without veto power, to sell a Canadian firm, at a time when there were no U.S. sanctions on Russia, that resulted in no ore being exported to Russia, result in "Hillary facilitating selling them our Uranium supply?"
Y'all are obsessed.
Man the next James Bond movie ought to Star Hillary as the Evil Genius of the day.
For thirty years the Republicans have ran her through hearing after hearing, looking for anything. And only came up with hubby's blow job.
This leaves us with only three possibilities.
A. She is the greatest criminal mastermind of all time and should be remembered as the absolute queen of the criminal underworld worldwide.
B. Republicans are idiots who can't find a worthwhile prosecutable crime (not to be confused with no crime at all, just nothing worthy of a congressional tribunal) with the help of the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the rest of the alphabet.
C. She is not actually guilty of anything heinous. Nearly every politician is guilty of something, but few of them warrant the resources to bring to trial. And if you go after something small, you expose all of DC and beyond to prosecution...of course that actually sounds like a great idea..
The election, sigh, it was the Creamsicle Charlatan vs the Pantsuited Enabler. Something more fitting WWE than our ballot box.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday January 14 2019, @06:41PM
Oh, y'know, the same way a single anonymous source claiming Clinton wanted to drone Assange is indisputable fact.
But, Manafort's felony conviction in a court of law isn't sufficient to prove he did anything wrong.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 14 2019, @12:55AM (1 child)
Well...better late than never I suppose, but for the love of little green onions on pumpernickel, what was it that made you think things would turn out any other way?!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:10AM
Sorry but I was trolling the OP because any time I see someone say "I am _____ and I did _______" I just can't believe them. I just paraphrased one of the Trumpgret posts I've seen around.
Sulla was somewhat right, just no money changing hands, only counter-trolling. There are those that are able to admit mistakes and those that aren't. The answer to your question is very simple, they thought Trump would be better for the US than Clinton. Since pretty much all politicians lie and break promises they didn't worry too much about Trump's lies and assumed they were only to throw off the liberal "enemy".
Some people are capable of seeing the dumpster fire that has been Trump's presidency but others are so wrapped up in it that they can't admit it was a mistake.
Tangent - maybe the internet will improve humanity in a totally unexpected way, people will just assume everything is bullshit and critical thinking will rise simply out of necessity to ascertain reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:06PM
Or you're a bot, russian operative, or american traitor paid to make it look like russia didn't do anything bad. Being an AC we really wouldn't be able to tell now would we.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @08:14PM (19 children)
These people need to stand trial, really they do. Their behavior (ranging from making up evidence, to classifying embarrassing facts, to selectively pursuing investigations for political reasons) is beyond disgusting, but what do you expect from career government officials.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @08:59PM (16 children)
Trump isn't a career government official, he's just a snake oil opportunist. But you're right, his behavior is beyond disgusting and he needs to stand trial.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Sulla on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:23PM (9 children)
So we know that using the FBI to investigate your political opponents isn't illegal. Using the IRS to punish your opponents isn't illegal. Getting hacked by the Chinese because your security sucks, and leading to the death of all of the CIA agents in China when you are in control isn't illegal. Telling Russia that you will have more ability to give them what you want after you win an election isn't illegal. Starting wars overseas isn't treason or impeachable. Continuing and expanding unjustified foreign wars is neither of the two. Direct incompetance in ignoring military advisers leading to what happened in Benghazi is neither of the two. Running unregistered guns into Mexico isn't a problem. Doing a giant bailout for your buddies in the insurance and banking industries is a-ok. Selling weapons to human rights violaters (vietnam) isn't a problem.
What has Trump done that we haven't already desided is okay? Now if you are going to throw all of our living presidents into the same cell at the same time, followed by former secrtaries of of state and defence. Lump in all of our AGs and the majority of our senators and congressmen. Ill agree to that.
But "Orange man bad, all his people bad" is a farce if you won't all lock them ALL up.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:55PM (1 child)
We've got to start somewhere, so I say we start with the alligator closest to the boat. It just so happens that an orange alligator is hard to miss.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:20PM
The closest aligator to you is one of the weakest, almost all of its teeth are gone and its appears more interested in the other aligators than it does of you. The answer is not to make the other aligators stronger by taking out the one that is the biggest threat to them but the weakest to you.
Where was Trump when the Republicans and Democrats passed 2012 NDAA? Where was Trump when they went to war in Iraq or Afghanistan? Where was Trump when they bailed out the insurance companies but raised your rates?
Trump is the least threatening of the thousands of aligators out there right now, an unless you do it all at once you wont get passed that first one. But thats because in reality you don't want to. You are okay as long as you only get eaten by a blue one.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @01:14AM
That's awesome. Wish I could you another +1
I was annoyed back when Obama ended up running GWB's third and fourth terms and the media was essentially silent, and compare that to now where Trump is definitely no worse than his predecessors and the negativity aimed at him is relentless -- I wouldn't trust the media to tell me if it was raining while I'm standing outside in the rain at this point.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Pslytely Psycho on Monday January 14 2019, @05:02AM (5 children)
"But "Orange man bad, all his people bad" is a farce if you won't all lock them ALL up."
True enough.
But he is a confusing person. Impulsive is not a good trait in a leader. He's a strange combination of Conservative and Liberal. He seems uninterested in promoting his wins (Illegal immigration is down from 2000-2001 over 80% and is lower than the Deporter in Chiefs was) very strong economy, lasting bull market, though it is a bit volatile at the moment. Obsessed with a monument to himself (a fools errand, like last time most of the money will be spent on court cases on the Texas border over Eminent Domain. There are still 85 active cases a decade later) and a weird fascination for dictators. Upending agreements for no good reason (at least the Iran deal gave us access and a voice) Re-negotiating would of made more sense, and isn't that his self-proclaimed specialty? He has done good things, but seems unable to control stabbing himself in the back with policies and proclamations that undermine those very things.
I'm still waiting on that wonderful, amazing healthcare overhaul. At least a written proposal? It was supposed to be a few weeks away two years ago.
He is very poor at political negotiations. I mean where is anyone supposed to go when no compromise is the stance he takes? At one point he was offered the entire 25bn for his wall in exchange for DACA. He turned it down. Seriously that would of gotten him his monument and the fucking Latino vote that the Republican party needs. He turned down a double win in exchange for chaos.
Popcorn stocks are up!
Firing up a bowl, popping some corn and enjoying the circus.
Personally, I hope the Mueller report doesn't find a clear, undeniable impeachable offense. I want him to finish his term.
Trump is incompetent, but Pence is the Christian Taliban through and through. Now those people scare me.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:12AM (2 children)
A double win? And another batch of illegals gets amnesty and has an express ticket to citizenship? We've gone on that treadmill for 30+ years already. How about we get the funding for the wall, and we don't reward illegal acts?
I don't know if he is poor at political negotiations. He negotiates from a position of strength, same as he probably did in his company when he was stiffing his contractors. Look at how quickly NAFTA was reorganized to America's demands. Look at how quickly our European satellites knuckled under on Iran when America threatened reprisals. The free world can't crawl far enough up America's rear end.
This aggressiveness doesn't bode well for the US if someday the tables happen to be turned, but I guess Trump thinks that risk is minimal, since we're making America great again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:50PM
Yeah, how dare those toddlers break the law!
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Tuesday January 15 2019, @03:18AM
Regan granted amnesty to 2.7 million illegal immigrants.
Trump could learn a lot from history.
Of course, that means reading something longer than a tweet without pictures.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:55AM (1 child)
At one point he was offered the entire 25bn for his wall in exchange for DACA. He turned it down.
The exact opposite of this is true, Trump offered it to the DNC, who turned it down. It was all very public.
Stop listening to fake news (that includes schumer). You people live in your own false reality. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/trump-back-pathway-citizenship-1-8-million-dreamers-n841156 [nbcnews.com]
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Tuesday January 15 2019, @03:12AM
Fair enough, I was slightly mistaken, (good enough for hypocrite Sara S. good enough for me).
"Democratic leaders rallied behind a bipartisan plan that would also give 1.8 million Dreamers a chance for citizenship. But while it would provide the $25 billion Trump wants for his wall, it would dole it out over 10 years and lacks most of the limits Trump is seeking on legal immigration."
"Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Trump has "stood in the way of every single proposal that has had a chance of becoming law." He added, "The American people will blame President Trump and no one else for the failure to protect Dreamers."
Same equivalence. He still refused it because limiting legal immigration is more important to him. He still turned down a double win for his misplaced ideals.
Still makes him a shitty negotiator.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:40PM (5 children)
I didn't mention Trump, I mentioned the corrupt intelligence agencies which I am sure you would have agreed with only a few years ago before it became more important for you to be "against Trump" because you are easily manipulated.
However, Trump is winning isn't he? You can't stop thinking about him, can you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:52PM (4 children)
Hmm ... perhaps you may want to scroll up a bit. TFA is about Trump, as is every thread for TFA. If I posted something that wasn't related to TFA it would be off topic. So, no, he isn't winning (and neither are you).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:08PM (3 children)
And who submitted this article?
You did. It wasn't me, because I've figured out not to pay attention to the washington post.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @02:22AM (2 children)
That's your best response? Some AC submitted TFA and you think it must be me? Survey says ... "Sorry!" you're as wrong about this as you are about everything else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:59AM (1 child)
Its obvious youll fall asleep thinking about how mad you are at trump tonight... then tomorrow wake up and support endless wars and shady intellegence agencies just because they appear anti-Trump. What more is to be said?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @10:38AM
"I say you think about Trump!" If this is your best trolling, maybe you should get some rest and try again tomorrow.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:54PM (1 child)
What exactly do you think those Congressional committees are for if not to provide oversight of intelligence agencies? Your post is stupid, certainly there are some corrupt government officials but the majority are decent people doing their jobs.
Yes we need to bring charges against the corrupt, but it will have to start with the politicians who make the policy and oversee the organizations. Trump's words and actions have been the worst we've ever seen and he is in the running for worst president ever. Even Nixon had some redeeming qualities, so the worst so far goes either to Bush Jr. or Trump.
You "deep state" conspiracy nuts need to get your heads on right. Sure there is corruption that needs to be rooted out, but let us start with the blatantly obvious corruption of Trump, then move on to the GOP and DNC. Once we have politicians actually looking out for the general public then we can fix government policy.
If you don't agree with my statements then you get filed away as "yet another internet shill trying to derail the conversation into a popular talking point".
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @12:56AM
Deep state "conspiracy"? Look up the degree of plotting that Henry Paulsen had to undertake to take over Freddie/Fannie Mac in 2008. George Bush (president at the time, supposedly the most powerful person in the executive branch) didn't think it would even be possible.
Like many things, the "Deep state" is nothing new. Trump is just managing to get awareness of all this into the heads of even the most dull and stubborn of us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_takeover_of_Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac [wikipedia.org]
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/05/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-are-uncle-sams-cash-cows-a-decade-after-crash.html [cnbc.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @08:17PM (12 children)
I really wish I could filter every single claim that comes from an anonymous source before I even see it. They turn out to be misleading or even totally made up about 80% of the time, forcing me to believe the opposite of whatever the news says by default. Anyone know how to make a firefox addon that does this?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:05PM (10 children)
These are unnamed sources (e.g., someone within the government in a position to know, but doesn't want to comment on the record) as opposed to a anonymous source, who could be anyone sending hot tips into TMZ.
If an unnamed source misleads a journalist the journalist will never trust them again (and will tell all their journalist colleagues). Just because the public doesn't know the identity of the source yet, that doesn't mean the journalist doesn't know who the source is (and usually their editor and/or publisher know as well).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:36PM (8 children)
Then the journalist should keep track of their record in trusting anon sources and show us how reliable they are. There is no need to reveal any more info than is already in the leak, just to go back and check them against what eventually happened or was revealed.
Until then, I'm assuming its a scam (which has worked out quite well for me so far). Anyway, the average consumer of this stuff will just go on believing for no reason at all apparently, so thats never going to happen.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:00PM (5 children)
How do you know journalists don't keep track of the reliability of sources? Their editors and publishers certainly keep track of the accuracy of each journalist's stories (and the number of times they get sued). It would be detrimental to a journalist's career to get things wrong on a regular basis (or get something really big wrong just once).
I think you are confusing "I have never see it" with "it doesn't exist".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:11PM (4 children)
I'm sure they do, and the track record is atrocious. If it wasn't they would brag about it to their readership.
It's "graded" on a scale. The goal is to not stick out with too good ("they must be presstituting") or too poor ("there wasnt even a rumor to begin with") of a record relative to your peers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @02:24AM (3 children)
I'm grading your posts an a scale ... and even then they get an "F".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:38AM (2 children)
Just like the priest who wanted to give me an F for not believing in his God, your F for not believing (what is indistinguishable to me from) random crap a Washington post journalist heard shows I am on the right track.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @10:43AM (1 child)
Go spend some time reading the liberal bastion called The Wall Street Journal. You'll still get an F, but at least it will take your mind off your obsession with WaPo.
BTW, your reference to religion is telling. Many Trump sycophants equate their support to religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:11PM
Wall street journal is the same.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Monday January 14 2019, @04:10AM (1 child)
If a journalist were to publish a history of "this anon source gave me this list of stories, of this level of reliability", then I am certain that anyone working in that area could identify who the leak was merely from the intersection of people who knew about each story.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:34AM
They don't need to that, only keep track of their own record in choosing which rumor to listen to. No additional information need be released.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 14 2019, @03:47AM
Unless, of course, the journalist gets something back in exchanging for spreading lies, such as an easy story and access/connections.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:19PM
**citation needed**
[Look out! One is behind you!]
And, no, you do not wish that, and even if you did, you couldn't know before you saw it that it was anonymously, free-range, gluten-free sourced.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:06PM (1 child)
He has to play a most dangerous balancing act in trying to run the country the way he feels is right, while all the established interests are aligned against him. From the "fourth estate", who have abandoned any semblance of news reporting, and now subsist on unfounded opinion pieces for prolefeed, to the security apparatus à la Jim "Am I moving against Hillary? Or Trump?" Comey or Peter "We'll prevent that!" Sztrok.
Looking back, I think Obama may have had reformatory intentions of his own, but he capitulated quickly to the System.
If we value our democracy, we need to start thinking for ourselves again, rather than taking anything all these people say on faith, just because we happen to be in the same "tribe".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @11:56AM
Either cash out, like I am, or start looking at the surgical strikes necessary to carve out the cancer. There is so much cancer and so many senescent citizens that I do not believe it can truly be saved anymore.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @02:11PM (2 children)
Their ties to Britain, foreign billionaires, and especially Qatar have been trickling out on 8chan and the qanon boards. They treated America like a fire sale, planted hundreds of foreign operatives throughout the country in exchange for campaign contributions and investments in companies that would donate to the Democrats, fired counterintelligence workers to let the foreign spy rings protect them, and rewrote the school books to require adherence to their beliefs and create a modern-day Hitler Youth that is intolerant of dissent. It is probably no coincidence that they were all chosen by Citibank and that Comey was on the board of HSBC. No one wants to do anything about it because the evidence implicates the Catholic Church and an international network of Jewish bankers in a global kidnapping and child prostitution ring that they use to blackmail people who they then prop up as national leaders, and no one wants the bad press that would come from going after them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @03:50PM
Lost your meds again?
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Monday January 14 2019, @05:53PM
Biden's ties to Ukraine were also interesting. His son was on the board of a large petroleum company in the Ukraine around the time the US was ramping up its activity in the area. When Biden's son died of cancer, the US stopped having an active role in the country.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam