Slashdot Mirror
Bannon Loses National Security Council Role in Trump Shakeup (bloomberg.com)
Top presidential strategist Steve Bannon has been booted from the National Security Council amid a reshuffling of the key panel, Bloomberg reports Wednesday morning. President Donald Trump reorganized the council, removing Bannon and downgrading the role of his homeland security adviser, Tom Bossert, the report added, citing multiple sources. From the report: Bannon, the former executive chairman of Breitbart News, was elevated to the National Security Council's principals committee at the beginning of Trump's presidency. The move drew criticism from some members of Congress and Washington's foreign policy establishment. A White House official said that Bannon was placed on the committee in part to monitor Trump's first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and never attended a meeting. He's no longer needed with McMaster in charge of the council, the official said. Trump fired Flynn on Feb. 13 for not disclosing to the president or to Vice President Mike Pence the extent of his conversations with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, before Trump's inauguration.
siphoned off? That's the question we should be asking, along with why someone like him would be allowed anywhere near a national security post.
But how come no story on Susan Rice having unmasked multiple people in the Trump camp. It should be noted that she stated "she didn't do it, and had no knowledge of it." And of course that was proven untrue. And now we're seeing the claims making the rounds of "It wasn't political" but why wasn't the FBI involved then? Why did she do something that was outside of the preview of her job(advise the President and consume intelligence summaries)? Why does this appear to have been a case of her setting a new precedent(the unmasking). Why were they unmasked by her, when all 3 letter agencies could do this on their own if they're conducting an investigation.
And of course, why are so many of the media silent on this. When they were all over other major events similar to this and licking their chops like a dog seeing a steak. Well you can all have fun now.
Name a media outlet that was silent on the Susan Rice story. I'll wait...
Unmasking is rare in her job, but not unprecedented. She most likely didn't know that she was unmasking Trump associates until she actually asked for them to be unmasked. Unmasking isn't something she can do without asking permission from the relevant intelligence agency.
The whole "Susan Rice story" is largely a concoction, an attempt at distraction from the fact that there is growing evidence of significant ties between Trump and Putin. It's almost like a Nixon supporter saying "Clearly Deep Throat broke the law, so Nixon should get off!"
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I think your right, its ultimately a positive thing to see Bannon removed.
However, the fact that Trump only trusts his family is a huge problem. It might "work" in a private family company; but it is fundamentally at odds with how government should be.
IMO There should be laws in place to prevent such nepotism -- because the bond of family is a counter force to transparency and integrity with respect to their obligation to represent the public interest etc.
Hell, many corporations for example have policies prohibiting too much nepotism -- preventing direct reports from being family members, etc. Because it's well documented that loyalty and favortism within the family bond frequently is at odds with their obligations corporate interests.
Trump running the whitehouse like a family business... will ultimately only serves trum; not the public interest.
The released emails from the Clinton campaign illustrated behavior that many voters can objectionable, and the only response I've ever heard was to accuse the alleged hackers who stole the data and released it.
ie: shoot the messenger.
Amusingly, your Nixon example is actually more relevant when applied to the whole Clinton email thing.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
How much private citizen data has he already
Not as much as Susan Rice.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I just searched CNN.com for "susan rice" and there is -zero- mention of the accusations against her in the first page of the search results. If I click over to the "Stories" tab, the first result is her denying any spying allegations involving the Brits. I'd love to have a non-conservative opinion on this, and their silence speaks volumes.
Fake news is news that is not true, not news you don't like.
No, this is like saying "Deep Throat gave us clues about Nixon, and thus he should be impeached". Rice clearly broke the lie, lied about it, and has implicated most of the previous Administration in breaking privacy laws. But I guess that doesn't matter to you because Trump.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You want to try that again? I'm sure her word for it, is just as true as when she claimed Benghazi was because of a youtube video. And it came out via wikileaks that this was a deliberate obfuscation of the event.
Om, nomnomnom...
American voters have wanted a King and a ruling dynasty for the longest time.
There's a worship of political families, and just having the right name increases your odds dramatically of getting votes for election to the same position held by someone of a previous generation of your family. It's not just increased access to connections and vertical knowledge transmission, people want the bloodline. And that's external... within the system, those bloodlines have similar supportive effects.
I'm pretty sure it's basic primate psychology at work. We just really, really want to be ruled by a divinely selected bloodine no matter how stupid that idea has repeatedly been shown to be.
Indeed, underlying all of this is the fact that the Obama Administration and the three letter agencies were doing their job. If Trump and his proxies didn't want to be outed playing footsie with the Russians, then, well, they shouldn't have been playing footsie with the Russians. This all comes down to the fact that Trump's minions, like Flynn, are not only of dubious loyalty to US interests, but are astonishingly stupid people. Who in their right mind would think that you could communicate with the fucking Russian fucking ambassador and not have someone in the US intelligence community not know about it? For fuck's sake, the Russian ambassador has probably been constantly and consistently spied on since the Second World War.
The stupidity of Trump's team, the arrogance coupled with ignorance, is just profound. It's stunning to think that such a group could ever achieve such high office, and the fact that Nixon was likely felled by someone in a three letter agency ought to have been a pretty goddamned good education. But one gets the impression that this band of thieves are almost proudly ignorant of how things work, and truly seemed to believe themselves to be untouchable.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That's not ignoring the story, that's educating its readers as to why it is not a story. Which it's not, no laws broken, nothing really out of the ordinary even. It, the right that is trying to misstate the facts and make it a story. It is literally FAKE NEWS.
Oh, that's the story now. But a few weeks ago, it was "We dint do nuttin!" And now it's "B-b-b-but it was legal!" Rice lied then. Wanna bet she's lying now?
And it's so nice of you in your blind fucking partisanship to admit that the Obama administration using the national security bureaucracy to spy on political opponents is "nothing really out of the ordinary even". Really?!?! Well, you said it.
Generally having a role removed from your list of duties is seen as a demotion, and the timing of this, after Ivanka's official installation in the White House, is highly suggestive that the rumored power struggle between Bannon and the Kushners has resolved itself in the Kushners' favor. Also note that there have been rumors that Bannon and Priebus weren't getting along all that well either. I don't expect Bannon to work for that much longer at the White House.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Hillary Clinton was barely tolerated by half of the Democrat voters. That's why Hillary lost. Trump was a barely tolerated candidate among Republicans, but not quite weak enough to be defeated by Hillary Clinton. For example, take a look at her first-amendment positions and you'll see someone who is way to the right of center.
I'm not sure how you're defining the left/right divide, but at this time in history pro-first-amendment is very much a right-wing position and very much not a left-wing position. The left is doing more against free speech every year right now than the right has done in all of history.
When you have a choice between a Republican running as a Democrat and a Libertarian running as a Republican, is it any surprise that the latter wins?
Uh, are you calling Trump a Libertarian?
LOL.
That ringing sound you keep hearing? It's the cluephone. Might want to answer it.
Do you have ESP?
Joke's on you. I'm a registered Republican. (used to be Libertarian but switched when Ron Paul was in the primaries)
As for SJWs, treating people fairly is not really garbage, and has nothing to do with maxism. Most people who are upset by SJWs are upset because they've been called out on their bullshit. That most SJWs are women and are mostly targeting men has a lot to do with the vitriol that is spewed about SJWs. A lot of guys are just too old fashioned to want to here criticism from a woman. I don't care what gender someone is, as long as the criticism is valid and constructive. Usual response to SJWs is: I don't like what you're saying, so I'll mock you to take that power away from you. But that funny thing is you can't win that way (well at least *I* find it funny)
Democrats like Obama and both Clintons are very right leaning. They are no Howard Dean, Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders. Not that a 1 dimensional scale for measuring political views is a good metric, it lacks nuance. For example, I'm a Republican and believe in small decentralized government and in supporting small business owners, but I'm against the death penalty. Does that make me a liberal? Probably not.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Dangerous? If you think that bringing in Muslim radicals keeps us safe. If you think Mexican drug gangs and people coming across the border to steal jobs from Americans keeps you safe.
Uh, are you calling Trump a Libertarian?
LOL.
He's apparently a corporatocrat, which makes him just as much of a libertarian as most of the people who call themselves libertarian. Don't like it? Separate yourself from that label to escape the association with all the crypto-corporatocrats hiding among you. Sometimes a label is too tainted and has to be discarded.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Sir, I think you mean ineffective Twitter-mouth.
I predict there will be an avalanche.
Trump's approval rating drops by the day. He has accomplished nothing of significance. He has deliberately made many enemies. He has filled the swamp with banksters and oil executives. Alienates allies. White house staff fighting each other. Ethics violations. Failed travel ban, twice. Failed health care destruction, twice. Voices in his own party are disagreeing with him. Trump-Russia collusion investigation.
The avalanche. Once his base realizes that they won't get what they wanted, they will flee in droves.
Trump's low approval is starting to reflect on the Republican party's approval. This may come back to bite. Bigly.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Hillary was a Republican running as a democrat? Huh? Not even close.
Hillary was *all* democrat, lock stock and barrel.. She just hit the general election knowing that radical leftist doesn't win elections so she tried to run as far right as her liberal democratic base would allow w/o howling about it.
You remember the discussions about abortion and the Heller ruling at the last debate? She had no choice but to shore up her base and took the radical liberal leftist positions on these issues at that point because she knew they were not going to show up and vote if she didn't. She's most decidedly a democrat, running as a democrat, unless you think she's just a liar who was going with what she thought was the prevailing winds...
Now if you want to argue Trump was a democrat running as a republican you might have more of a case. He wasn't bound by traditional republican views on social issues, at least during the campaign (and one would argue isn't even now). However, I think he's really what he appeared to be and marketed himself as, which turns out to be a non-politically correct position which is derived from what he thinks is common sense. It's this "common sense" thing that got him elected in the face of the Access Hollywood tapes, being out spent and being the underdog the whole time.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
As for SJWs, treating people fairly is not really garbage, and has nothing to do with maxism.
Fairness is equal opportunity and equality before the law, not special treatment based on assumptions of oppression, in turn based on attributes they say don't matter anyway (eg race, sex etc). Most of these SJWs are professional victims who have destroyed the credibility of those who actually have had their rights abused with the use of bad statistics, fear mongering, and fallacious shaming language.
A lot of guys are just too old fashioned to want to here criticism from a woman.
Typical SJW hypocrisy. You demonize such generalizations from men while targeting them with the same kinds of generalizations. Take your 'oppression=power+privilege' neo-marxist garbage elsewhere.
Usual response to SJWs is: I don't like what you're saying, so I'll mock you to take that power away from you. But that funny thing is you can't win that way (well at least *I* find it funny)
Mocking someone does not take power of truth away from them. SJWs are mocked because they do not speak the truth except when it benefits their self-interests.
Democrats like Obama and both Clintons are very right leaning. They are no Howard Dean, Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders.
Hillary may be to the right these guys, but she sure isn't for equality of any sort, except maybe the oppressive 'equal outcome' of societies run on marxism that happen to put people like her on top of the pile.
Joke's on you. I'm a registered Republican. (used to be Libertarian but switched when Ron Paul was in the primaries)
So you're one of those fake 'progressive libertarians.' This is what happened to the term 'liberal.' You're just more of the same really. If you were truly for small government you would not buy into the idea of class warfare that today's social justice requires as a basis. Regardless of what you claim to be, such ideas most definitely have a basis in marxism (eg: "we have nothing to lose but our chains").
But how come no story on Susan Rice having unmasked multiple people in the Trump camp
Probably because no one cares about that.
Seriously, we have possible sarin gas attacks in Syria, problems in N Korea, and we're talking about Susan Rice who is gone and no longer has power, and really didn't do that much bad to begin with. Time to move on.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There's a lot of noise about the likes of Flynn being outed, but strangely little outrage about what they were doing, at least from Republicans.
There isn't much talk about "what they were doing" because there wasn't much going on at all and that takes all the fun out of the story for the Democrats. There's a reason that even Obama's DNI said that despite having access to everything, he say no evidence of anything out of bounds. There's no there there. All the hype is just the ongoing Democrat theater designed to find some way, any way, to distract from their horrible choice of candidate and idiotic conduct during the election. And the fact that under Obama they lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governoships, both houses of congress, and now the White House and the Supreme Court. The whole ZOMG RUSSIANS! meme is getting downright hilarious. Meanwhile we have every indication that people in actual power at the time of the election and leading up to it were using intelligence resources for political research.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Well when you host your own website you can decide what can and cant be posted.
In the mean time, I'll keep reading slashdot and continue to be not surprised about news articles related to major players in major online political movements and how they are fairing in their current role in real world politics.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.