Slashdot Mirror
Justice Department Appoints Former FBI Director Robert Mueller As Special Counsel For Russia Investigation (thehill.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: The Justice Department has appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russia's involvement in the U.S. election. Mueller, a former prosecutor who served a 12-year term at the helm of the bureau, has accepted the position, according to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. "In my capacity as acting attorney general I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for the matter," Rosenstein said in a statement. "My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command." UPDATE: President Trump has released a statement: "As I have stated many times, a thorough investigation will confirm what we already know -- there was no collusion between my campaign and any foreign entity. I look forward to this matter concluding quickly. In the meantime, I will never stop fighting for the people and the issues that matter most to the future of our country."
So
Much
Winning
We didn't know the extent of the Nixon atrocities until more than a year after the break in. It's quite likely lots of evidence exists, but is being used in an ongoing investigation and will not be disclosed publically anytime soon. If trump asked Comey to back of Flynn, and we know he admitted to firing Comey over Russia issues, that is likely enough on its own. Not to mention the overwhelming list that grows by the day. If we see Paul Ryan buckle, it's all over.
Trump is a stupid helpless infantile bastard. Stick a fork in him. He is DONE. What a goddam disappointment.
I don't believe there is any "Deep State" but if there is any this is evidence that it is composed primarily of people who care more about the rule of law than partisan politics. I for one welcome our globalist overlords.
You're misinformed:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Do you really need to have it explained why this in the stuff that matters category?
Sash! Don't point that out, people will realise Trump is sabotaging the investigation into himself!
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
All right, dammit. LINUXGUIWAREZ. Go back to sleep.
Uh, how do you think he determines if there's evidence of wrongdoing without any investigation?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Whatever the Democrats may be screaming, it's irrelevant to this. The Republicans control Congress. It's in their hands, and thus far every attempt they've made to support Trump has been thrown back in their face by his inability to keep his mouth shut. For chrissakes, the man is such an arrogant blowhard he was showing off to the fucking Russians in the Oval Office with a Russian journalist in the room. Whether he let slip any classified data or not, the fact is not only has he once again, within the space of a few days, made himself look like a big mouthed ass, he's now pissing off Israel, which means Israel and other allies, not to mention the State Department itself, are going to start holding crucial intelligence closer to their chests lest the Braggart-in-chief decide to show off to any other foreign powers.
Don't you see that it is Trump himself that is going to be forcing Republican lawmakers' hands? The opposing minority party always makes frequent demands for removals and impeachments and judicial proceedings. Christ, that's been the way Washington has worked since the day after George Washington walked off into the sunset. The difference here is that this is a man who seems bound and determined to make his supporters and allies look like idiots, and seems to want to hand his opponents, both Democrat AND Republican (because he has no lack of critics in the GOP) all the ammunition they could ever need.
At this point you even have some Democratic strategists hoping he doesn't get impeached and removed, because the longer he's in the White House, the worse the Republicans look.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
He was chosen as G.W.B.'s attorney general on 09/04/2001, so he has a hot week in office before the WTC fell.
Director Mueller, along with Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey, threatened to resign from office in March 2004 if the White House overruled a Department of Justice finding that domestic wiretapping without a court warrant was unconstitutional.
Obama kept him on for two years after he was elected, and Comey was not only his assistant, but his successor.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
It took over a year for the Watergate investigation to (almost) reach the House Floor. It strikes me that your demand for immediate answers is more of you intentionally moving the goal post.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So you will ignore what the CIA says quite explicitly in their report:
"Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression
of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these
activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort
compared to previous operations.
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US
presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,
denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess
Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We
have high confidence in these judgments."
From https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
If you are willing to put your head in the sand and ignore this by coming up with excuses like "it is being controlled by the liberals" or something of the same manner then you are unfit to argue politics.
even though there's no evidence that Russia had any influence in the way it turned out.
That's a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I don't respond to AC's.
multiple agency heads and senior legislators (from both parties) who have after months of investigations repeated that there is no evidence of any collusion.
That's a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I don't respond to AC's.
I'd also like to say that the CIA has directly and explicitly stated that they have high confidence that Russia had both intent and success with interfering in the election. Here is the excerpt:
"Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression
of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these
activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort
compared to previous operations.
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US
presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,
denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess
Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We
have high confidence in these judgments"
and here is the link to the report: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
If you can respond to this I'll be impressed
I would agree it was just Democrats shouting in the dark... if there didn't keep being problems. See here's the thing: The issue isn't with the e-mail leaks. That's not what is being talked about, it is if any of Trump's associates had illegal ties to the Russians and more importantly if Trump tried to cover it up.
Trump was told that Flynn was likely compromised and he shouldn't hire him. Had he not, well that story would end there. But he did hire him. He then pressured the FBI director to drop the investigation in to Flynn, and only fired Flynn when it leaked that he had this conflict of interest. He then implied the problem, and the reason he fired Flynn, was the leak not the compromise. Then he later fired the FBI director which his people claimed was related to the e-mails but he came out and said was because of the Russia investigation.
Guess what? That shit starts to look a lot like obstruction of justice. That's why this thing continues to have legs.
Oh an impeachment of a president? That's not "corrupt politicians" "overthrow[ing] of an elected President," it is constitutional, and is what is supposed to happen if the president breaks the law. Article one section 1 states that "The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment." Article two section four states "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
So ya, if it turns out he obstructed justice, which you'd need an investigation to determine (and that is what is going on), accepted bribes, or other illegal acts then the House would be within its constitutional power to impeach him and the Senate to try him. That's not some covert scheme to subvert the Constitution, it is written right in the original text.
Point of fact, I still don't know what's so terrible about what the Russians supposedly did..
Attempting to interfere with a US election, according to both the CIA and the FBI. Not only that, what's now being investigated are evidences of collusion with the Trump campaignâ - ostensibly, to hurt HRC.
I don't even live in the US and I knew that much for a while now.
At least one significant member of Trump's administration had to resign almost as soon as he was appointed because he was found to be working with the Russians, and he's being investigated. I'm not sure where you're getting it from that anyone independent at all in a position to know has suggested there's no links between the Trump campaign and Russia - if that were known, there wouldn't have been multiple FBI investigations to begin with.
And if there weren't multiple FBI investigations into Trump's team's connections with Russia, Comey would still have a job.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
My prediction is that, while Trump remains popular amongst people who voted for him, he will be safe from impeachment. Impeachment would likely turn these voters against the Republicans.
But once his base starts to turn away from supporting him, then impeachment becomes likely as Trump will be a liability to the Republicans instead of an asset.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Slashdot, news that matters for leftist echo chambers.
Per Order No. 3915-2017 (pdf), Mueller has been authorized to prosecute federal crimes, and given a fairly broad scope of investigation - any links between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and any matters arising from these investigations (such as obstruction of justice).
Forget power to investigate, this guy has powers to prosecute. He's going out loaded for bear.
It took over a year for the Watergate investigation to (almost) reach the House Floor.
That was with the president and his men already in power. Trump only just came into power, and many people who don't like him are breaking the law to reveal everything they can about his actions, phone conversations, and dinner menu.
It strikes me that your demand for immediate answers is more of you intentionally moving the goal post.
What goal post? There has never been anything revealed that showed anything but "future president and his future cabinet talk to people around the world".
Yes because the way to go about a serious investigation is to tell the American pubic EVERYTHING. The media never causes problems.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
...and who are all these interested non-geeks posting about it on Slashdot!!?!
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Misinformed or minimizing the reality, yes.
From the article:
"Mueller’s authority under Rosenstein’s appointment is broad. Mueller is empowered to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump,” as well as “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” He may also prosecute federal crimes uncovered in this investigation."
https://thinkprogress.org/two-...
So..."shoot the messenger" then.
Was the data released incorrect? Was it relevant? Then I don't give two shits who released it, I'm just happy they did. Hell, I wouldn't have even cared if Clinton won as long as the people voting for her knew what kind of scum they were voting for.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Waiting for evidence and being skeptical is intentionally moving the goal post?
Right... Meanwhile all journalistic integrity has gone out the window. Goldwater rule gone. Relying on unverifiable claims from anonymous sources too much. Too much personal opinion injected into news pieces. Narrative crafting is common.
Journalists understand you cannot interview someone you love or family members because your reporting would be biased nor honest because of your emotions. Someone you hate and have absolute contempt for? No problem, your emotions wont' get in the way of honest reporting...
This is both sides. You would be an idiot not to wait for actual verifiable evidence because there is no one that is reporting anything with any shred of integrity. I keep reading articles how the Russians hacked this or that and then a few paragraphs down; "we have no evidence the Russians are involved.".
Winning
And this is not going to make anybody forget about Seth Rich, murdered by the DNC for releasing the Podesta emails to Wiki leaks.
Notice leftists, democrats will kill their own to cover up their crimes. Don't put yourself in a position to become a target.
People like you make a case for there being no intelligent design.
At any rate, for the people too lazy to google, here is the link
Yet another lie.....
Yes. All is doom and gloom. Except nothing has changed. This has been Trump since he announced his candidacy. Every one knew he was a loud mouth blowhard. Why do you think the main stream Republicans hated him so much during the primaries and general election? He is still hated by a lot the GOP. #nevertrump.
If anything it gives those Republicans the ammunition they need in the midterms to convince their constituents that they don't like Trump and are trying to stop him when they can but they aren't as crazy as the screeching democrats blaming everything and anything on the Russians. Ryan can say, look we can keep Trump in check so don't vote us out. While Trump does what Trump does, piss off democrats and the world.
Unless there is actual evidence nothing is going to happen except a lot of bark. Midterms are approaching and the GOP wants to keep control of the Congress.
Ooh, look its some kind of extreme dumbfuck, parroting the fake news of Breitbart, you can smell the Trumplthinskins fear now.
Pizzagate
Bowling Green
That new US Prez sitcom is better than anything I've ever watched. At first I was skeptical because it looked like a cheap Spin City knockoff or a weak rehash of That's my Bush, and, well, basically it is, but they really manage to spice it up and get to new heights week after week.
Though I have to admit, it slowly starts to get a wee bit unrealistic.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Was the data released incorrect? Was it relevant?
It largely wasn't relevant...
Lots of the internal emails where people calling other people stupid or using in-elegant wording...
Besides most people don't know anything more than "emails and leaked" and assume that there must have been something... When it in fact there wasn't much.
Timing and smear, was effective, whether it was the deciding factor is hard to tell. But for foreign agents to secretly interfere with an election is not cool.
If a foreign state have information that they need to share with the American electorate, they should do so publicly.
he's admitted in absolutely no uncertain terms that he interfered with Comey's investigation. That's obstruction of justice. Full Stop. Am I missing something where that's _not_ an impeachable offense? Whatever happened to the rule of law? Even Hilary got an investigation (that concluded with no charges being filed, I might add). What do you think would've happened if Obama fired Comey during that investigation? What possible reason could there be _not_ to impeach him? I'm waiting...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
As long as we are living in fantasy land, I hope trump stays in till democrats take the senate and house in 2018. They impeach trump and pence, then put the democrat speaker in as president.
Not only that, what's now being investigated are evidences of collusion with the Trump campaignâ - ostensibly, to hurt HRC.
Other than the part where every investigating entity has said there actually IS NO EVIDENCE of collusion. I know, you know that, but it's more fun to continue the lie because that suits your politics better. But you're right, the willingness of people like you, and many people in the media, to repeat the lie you're telling is indeed a sign of problems in the country. Because the only reason you're doing it is to deflect from the reality of why the Democrats lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. Takes all the fun out being a Democrat, I know. But at least, as a purveyor of lying spin, you're keeping up with their new platform.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
What's the difference between what the Russians did and what Snowden did?
Both were trying to influence the electorate to change government policy. Both did it through illegal means. Both did it by effectively giving the electorate an eye into inner workings of politicians and government.
The biggest difference I see is Snowden had access and stole the information while the Russians relied on the incompetence of the DNC and Clinton's staff.
If there is evidence of collusion I will gladly accept that but as it stands now there is none. Incidentally, the leaks did show that Clinton was colluding with news outlets... why is that acceptable?
People like Trump very easily ask things without asking them. I mean, there were entire articles written about what he would suggest to the public without really suggesting it during his campaign. So this all means that it doesn't matter whether Comey said under oath that he wasn't asked to stop the investigation, he may have still felt like he was being asked to stop the investigation but cannot say definitely that he was outright asked. These are the hazy situations you get into with a person who is a known manipulator such as Trump.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Misinformed or minimizing the reality, yes.
From the article:
"Mueller’s authority under Rosenstein’s appointment is broad. Mueller is empowered to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump,
Give him a break! Why would you expect Russians to know about American law?
None for Obama or for George W. Bush, unless my memory is completely failing me. Is it?
it's meant that all our checks and balances have collapsed
No it doesn't. Just because "people that think like me" didn't win elections does not mean ALL checks and balances are gone. They are still being eroded away slowly with bipartisan support.
Did you say we lost ALL our checks and balances after 2008 when the Democrats controlled the Congress and Executive? No? Ok then, stop the hyperbole.
Liberals, be careful what you wish for. Mike Pence is everything that Trump is not: bright, articulate, a polished politician who will not have to hold a well-thumbed copy of Presidenting For Dummies in one hand while tweeting with the other. And also an evangelical Christian who is pro-life and hates every letter in your gender preference string.
You know (don't you?) that impeachment is an actual legal term with actual meaning that flows from the presentation of actual deeds that can be prosecuted in that venue. You seem to be thinking that impeachment is just something you do when you don't like somebody. That's not how it works. You can't impeach somebody because while they were a private citizen someone associated with their campaign had a gig making money from a foreign country didn't report it (never mind that that had exactly nothing to do with the election itself or the fantasy of "collusion"). You can't impeach somebody because he says that he hopes an investigation will wrap up soon, and takes exactly zero steps to in any way interfere with it. You can't impeach somebody for being the commander in chief and choosing to talk in broad terms about sensitive matters in a meeting with another country's foreign minister ... because being at the top of the food chain on that subject matter makes that that person's call, period. Impeachment isn't the equivalent of other countries' parliamentary votes of no confidence in, for example, a prime minister. So, predict away - it's meaningless without evidence of something that rises to that level, of which there is zero indication.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Where's his partner Scully?
By now, quite a bit ;)
FSB hits! FSB hits! Your democracy dies. Do you want your possessions identified?
Have you looked at the 2018 seats up for election? For the Senate,
23 democrats are up for election
8 Republicans.
The Democrats have A LOT to lose and A LOT of ground to make up.
"Julian Assange himself said the Russians didn't give him the emails"
MY SIDES!
Well if Julian said it it must be true right?
Yes, I remember all those bombshell announcements about Hillary's emails on the lead up to the election, all live streamed late at night (in the US). In the end, it was just another opportunity to watch some talking heads chat a while - and at the very end, Assange would briefly appear, pontificate about Wikileaks' mission, then auto-fellate himself.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
Which piece of evidence from that Wikipedia page do you think is the strongest? It seems mainly filled with unsupported statements from TLA agencies.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Bueller, Bueller, (you read that in Ben Stein's voice), won't find shit, he didn't find shit about US war crimes, he didn't find shit about Cheney's war profiteering, and he didn't find shit about the US engagement in torture--even after it was posted on the internet.
He is going to continue to cover the POTUS's ass and make sure that nothing is found.
And like the voting machine tampering in the 2016 election, he will make sure that any evidence that is found relating to the Cheeto is tainted to give reasonable doubt in case there is an impeachment.
Indeed. Even though Comey was the only one there to hear what Trump said, it's up to anonymous pundits on the Internet to interpret what it meant.
I don't trust the CIA.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Don't underestimate the number of gridlock voters.
Having those bastards at each other's throats is about the best we can do. Perhaps hand them all antipersonnel grenades, knowing their feeble old arms can't throw it far enough to be outside the kill radius...
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
because being at the top of the food chain on that subject matter makes that that person's call, period.
Dude is fucking tired of being President. He's never had his decrees questioned as Baron of a fiefdom for decades, and now he has to deal with the most hostile a press we've ever seen...
The deck is stacked against a gut who has another job opportunity as a 70 yr. old billionaire.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Let me give you some advice the next time you want to criticize Wikipedia. Go click on that link above to the Wiki article. Now, look at the text, notice how it has various numbers in brackets in superscript. You can hover over them and some text will pop up. That's called a "reference". Those "references" are where the claims in the article come from. If you click on one of those, or scroll allllll the way down to the bottom, you'll see the list of references for the article, all 283 of them. Those are what you need to attack the credibility of, because the Wikipedia article itself is really just a collection of claims given in those references. Just go ahead and start at #1 and work your way down, debunking each of those references. Make sure not to skip #4, which quotes a report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and National Intelligence Council:
We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
Make sure not to skip this one, either. You wouldn't want it to seem like you're cherry-picking.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Thank you for correcting that other bastard.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." -- Gerald Ford in 1970
By much the same metric, the National Enquirer could say that Donald Trump and Chelsea Clinton conceived a love baby and are running away to the Lesser Antilles to hide it away from prying eyes. Oh, and it is also half armadillo. There's no proof it didn't happen, so it must be true.
I mean seriously, there's a line of implausibility here.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Wait, I'm having trouble getting my narrative straight here. Is Trump an idiot buffoon, or is he a master manipulator capable of bewitching even someone as commanding as the head of the FBI?
I'd say the report from The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is pretty clear:
https://www.nytimes.com/intera...
I don't respond to AC's.
Which they did.
I'm gratified you see my point.
No, in fact, they did not. They used a catspaw. A surrogate. A stooge.
Even now, there are still people denying it.
But fine, get the Russians to admit they did it, publicly
You think someone needs to be intelligent to be a manipulator? If you're a manipulator it actually helps a lot if you're stupid enough to believe the things you say.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Well considering that the issue is whether Trump has said or done anything and he seems to contradict himself and his people daily, I don't know if we have to wait a year for an investigation.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Takes all the fun out being a Democrat
The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is which way the guns point when they form up a firing squad.
Republicans form up a circle and face outward, killing everybody.
Democrats form up a circle and face inward, shooting themselves.
In the end, everybody dies. Which is no fun at all.
So, as a Liberal (not necessarily a democrat) what do I stand for?
Equal protection under the law. No one is above it, no one doesn't have the protections it recognizes. This means if a cop breaks the law, the police force shouldn't pay their legal bills to get them off. That means if someone that is not a citizen is arrested, they have all the rights of everyone else.
Social safety net. No kid should starve because his parents are drug abusing bums. No one with a legitimate inability to work should starve.
Basic education.
Armed forces that don't spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined.
Fair taxation. No more Burger King or Apple sending their profits to another country to avoid paying US taxes. They made the profit here, pay the taxes here. We can talk about reforming tax rates after folks are paying their fair shot. No more billionaires that pay less tax in absolute terms than I do. (Some get millions of dollars back they never paid in.)
Regulation of monopolies such as telephone companies. No more sweetheart laws to protect their profits and eliminate competition. They don't want regulation? Fine. Eliminate their government monopoly and remove barriers to market entry by others. Free markets don't always work, but usually they are better than anything else.
Government keeping it's nose out of my crotch. What I do and with whom I do it is none of your business, nor what medical procedures I may want or drugs I wish to enjoy. (But not while driving, flying an aircraft, that sort of thing.)
How about if I have to have an ID to drive, cash a check, or vote, that I have to show an ID when I buy ammunition?
How about we get rid of Citizens United law and learn how is paying for our representatives?
That'll do for a start. Let's not talk about what we disagree with - let's find common ground and work together.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Your response to ScentCone's comments is both accurate and eloquent. And even as I squirm in disgust, I have to admit that your image of ScentCone as a cock holster's cock holster is compelling.
Chaucer would be proud of you for proving that a properly-delivered insult can still be funny, crude and metaphorically accurate!
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I'd genuinely like to know. What am I missing. I just don't see how this is _not_ obstruction of justice. You can argue that Comey lied, I suppose. But otherwise Trump told Comey to drop an investigation into one of his people. That's pretty much a textbook example of Obstruction of Justice AFAIK. Then again, IANAL so take that with a grain of salt. Bill the Clinton perjured himself and managed 8 years. But what he did was a _lot_ less serious. Lying about a side piece isn't remotely in the same boat as doing favors for a semi-hostile nation in exchange for money...
Again, am I missing something? Is there any way for this to end without impeachment? I suppose if the speaker is a Republican he can just decline to bring impeachment. That's his prerogative, but the last time that happened (Nixon) they were afraid of losing the House over it. Are they safe now? There's been a lot of Gerrymandering. Maybe they just don't care. But if that's true it's frightening. It means we're no longer a nation of laws, but of men...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
How is it "independence" if he reports to the Deputy Attorney General? This is not an independent prosecutor. There is no independence since the results will pass through the deputy attorney general and he reports to Trump. This is yet another ruse and when he is fired or told to suppress details or directed not to pursue certain leads or ask to regularly report to the deputy attorney general so he can brief the president on what to hide we'll be back at this same point in 6 months with everyone calling for an independent investigation that reports out to congress.
After spending hours each day studying the Trump nightmare, I now wonder if a real criminal conviction will put Trump in prison. It is hard to look into anything Trump has touched and not find serious criminal activity. The obstruction of justice charge alone is sufficient to demand a prison sentence as are his numerous violations of the Foreign Powers Corruption Act. But we all pretty much know that after being tossed out of office and fined there will be no prison time as the sick truth is that we never have equal justice for all. At this point numerous Trump properties have been placed in the names of family members. I suggest that all Trump's assets, including those transferred be seized and frozen so that the numerous crimes and injuries can be taken from those funds. Besides, if he spends the rest of his life in prison he won't need money anyway.
I bet the under on, "A special prosecutor is appointed to investigate Trump by day 120".
Now the big proposition bet is "Trump will rage quit by January 19, 2018".
The smart money is on the under.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Putin thought Hillary would win just like everyone else.
The National Enquirer said John Edwards had a love child. Were they correct?
And no a single gram of evidence to back up those ridiculous accusations. What else did we expect from Clinton appointees in the security agencies?
They broke the story about Jessie Jackson's love child. They ended John Edwards' political career by breaking the story of his affair with a campaign staffer. They broke the story about Tiger Woods' affairs, too. They were also the first to report on the divorces of both Mel Gibson and Billy Joel.
If they published a document purporting to be Trump's tax return, I wouldn't trust them. If they reported on what was said at a political meeting, I wouldn't believe them. But if they reported that Trump had a love child with Bad Boy's accountant, I'd believe it.
Pizzagate
Bowling Green
Inauguration crowd sizes.
And don't forget, "Nobody knew healthcare was so complicated."
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
You do realize that's why there's a special prosecutor... because there was enough evidence that something may have happened; not only enough, but enough for a REPUBLICAN who backed Trump to call for one. So... who's the fucking dipshit now, dipshit.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
I'm confused... are all you anonymous cowards Russian sleeper spies, or just bigoted neo-nazi fascist pieces of shit?
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Fighting for people that matter.
Got a billion dollars?
Then you matter and Trump is going to fight for you against those that don't.
The problem is... real news organizations have published a great deal of information about the Russian interference in the election.... stupid fucking fascist republicans just can't accept they've been lied too like little worthless bitches by their masters. If the average republican wasn't such a whiny little fascist bitch with their heads up their ass, they might not be so fond of living in their own little fantasy land.... but they are.
...among just way too many to post for you're stupid anti-intellectual brain dead ass.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
So... are you a fucking Russian spy... of a fucking neo-nazi fascist bitch?
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Yes, it's something to give us a nice warm fuzzy feeling while a screaming manchild is playing chicken with nukes.
Depends entirely on who the special prosecutor is and what he thinks about Trump's politics. It may be that he can remain unbiased and pursues the investigation to whatever conclusion. Or it could be a dog and pony show just to appease the public while they sit on the actual investigation for the next 4-8 years until Trump's gone from office (or worse, they falsify a conclusion and it goes away completely in the short term and the blows up into a disaster later when someone decides to re-checks fact.)
I don't know Robert Mueller's history or political associations, so I can only posit possibilities, but simply having him appointed in itself doesn't really say much given the circus that the current administration is constantly putting on. This could well be just another act.
Not while he is President - kind of a flaw in the system at the moment.
So all those weirdos who pretend to be colonials at political events rejoice - you've got yourself a King who is above the law - so that's a worse situation than the King that George Washington fought against. So long as enough Senators are on his side he's untouchable.
People with 6 month old accounts or Anonymous Coward = "this is nothing"
People with actual accounts who have been around for awhile = "we should at least look into this".
No, it's not, I've read that report several times. It doesn't give any convincing evidence to support its conclusions.
If you disagree, please point me to the paragraph or section you find most convincing.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
A special prosecutor could be appointed to investigate Santa's repeated acts of trespassing on private property. Doesn't mean shit.
The dipshit who's struggling with the concept of evidence, dipshit. Show us the evidence or you're an idiot antivaxxer/chem trailing/birther/truther/fluoride tool who devours any pile of bullshit that served up to him on a dixie plate.
A. I'm not a national security analyst, and neither are you.
B. It says that not all of the details are included for obvious, reasons.
C. At some point, you have to chose to trust somebody. I'm going to choose to trust an organization that communicates in complete sentences over a compulsive liar that does not.
I don't respond to AC's.
I keep reading articles how the Russians hacked this or that and then a few paragraphs down; "we have no evidence the Russians are involved.".
If you can't discern fact from fiction, then read primary sources and quit listening to biased news. Here is a link to the report released by the intelligence agencies:
https://www.dni.gov/files/docu...
Here's a spoiler:
We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
Enigma
Right! "Working with the Russians." Which isn't even vaguely related to "colluding with Russians to manipulate the election." I know, the truth isn't nearly as fun because it forces you to think about why the Democrats ACTUALLY lost so many legislative seats and governorships along with both houses of congress and the White House. But your instinct to deliberately mis-represent the very thing you're citing as some sort of evidence tells us all we need to know about what your real agenda is: deflection and distraction. OK, at least it's consistent with the way the Ds ran their entire election season into the ground and shows you still haven't grappled with the fact that continuing with that narrative isn't actually effective (except in turning even MORE Democrat voters away from the party).
I personally don't think that President Trump is directly or knowingly involved in collusion. I just think that he doesn't know how to be President and that he isn't putting in the effort to learn (i.e. not receiving daily intelligence briefings). This puts him on weak footing when it comes to the Russians.
You will admit, I hope, that the reason for Flyn being fired was because he lied about meetings with the Russians to the VP and others. If there wasn't anything to it other than friendly meetings, why did he lie? It's quite possible that people around President Trump were involved in some way. The most simplest way would be to have coordinated the release of the hacked DNC emails. But that's pure speculation. Hopefully we'll start getting some facts out of the investigations.
C. At some point, you have to chose to trust somebody. I'm going to choose to trust an organization that communicates in complete sentences over a compulsive liar that does not.
You don't have to trust either of them. Don't: the FBI has a long history of lying as does Trump.
The only thing that matters is evidence.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There was no lefty fervor for Clinton. She would have lost huge if her opponent had not been Trump. It is unfortunate that the Dems nominated someone so unacceptable to Republicans.
However, you guys nominated (fervently) a senile mobster who seems to think he's dictator and who doesn't understand, much less care about, fundamental principles of democratic government. Heck, he doesn't even understand more basic ideas, like state secrets.
Play Command HQ online
People in the cybersecurity community have expressed skepticism about Russia's involvement in the e-mail hacking of the DNC. The media, by and large, decided to ignore them and go with the narrative that Russia was involved, This article in Rolling Stones articulates very nicely both the lack of evidence and the media's reaction.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
I don't trust the CIA.
What do you trust then?
Evidence. I understand computer security well enough to evaluate it for myself.
BTW given how often the CIA has lied publicly, you'd have to be a moron to trust them. Or ignorant. One of those.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I've dealt with a master manipulator once. Narcissistic textbook example. I doubt it is something they have to think about at a rational level like you or I would have to do. They do it almost by instinct.
I remember there were times when we went into a meeting 'to really give him a piece of our mind' only to end up back outside after half an hour. and looking back, we'd see that not only did we end up agreeing with him that WE were untrustworthy scum, we also agreed to a bunch of other shit that we didn't think we'd ever do before going in.
It's not that he constantly thought how he could win the argument, he just kept bending everything back your way using your own words and emotions against you to the point where all your resolve was gone and you were competely mindfucked. Our sole luck was in that there were a couple of us with very strong bonds between us, helping us to come to our senses afterwards.
you'd have to be a moron to trust them
Oh, you don't need to worry about me. I wouldn't even trust myself to not trust myself.
[I trust] Evidence. I understand computer security well enough to evaluate it for myself.
Good for you, but what do you do if you can't access the evidence, because it's none of your business. In practical terms, if your bank issues a statement that they have been hacked and credit card details have been stolen, do you a) demand evidence of break-in, b) don't trust the bank and keep your card or c) don't trust the bank but change your card just in case?
Point of fact, I still don't know what's so terrible about what the Russians supposedly did..
Attempting to interfere with a US election, according to both the CIA and the FBI. Not only that, what's now being investigated are evidences of collusion with the Trump campaignà - ostensibly, to hurt HRC.
I don't know it would seem to me AIPAC is a foreign lobby that persistently attempts to "interfere" with US elections.
Does interference only count as "interference" when you bypass an access control?
Are actions that constitute interference somehow based on arbitrary value judgments made by politicians? Russia bad... Israel good? .. that sort of thing?
Does Israeli propaganda stink less than Russian propaganda?
You need to think this through more thoroughly. It's not a good idea to encourage countries to interfere in your elections, even if you like it this time and even if the propaganda means are only biased and not falsified.
Paid trolls, twitter bots, mass media interference, all these things are powerful tools in the modern online-oriented media landscape and seem to have the potential to even swing voter opinions. Even if you have no quirks with the influence this time, it could be disastrous according to your opinion next time. Also, don't forget that, as far as that is known publicly, the Russians never intended to get Trump elected but rather seem to intend to generally destabilize trust in democracy, heat up and polarize public opinion. They are seeking to divide Europe from the US and European countries from each other, because that would bring huge long-term geostrategical advantages, and maybe also in order to distract from their own internal lack of democratic values and human rights. For radical parties on the left and right, Russia attempts to position themselves as an alternative to the alleged "cultural hegemony and imperialism of the US". Other countries might try to influence elections with another agenda, who knows? It can't be in you and your country's interest to allow or even encourage that.
AFAIK, it was largely irrelevant. Russia attempted to do the same in the recent French elections: it doesn't matter if what you release is bullshit. If you do it close enough to an election it can tip public opinion.
Whatever the Democrats may be screaming, it's irrelevant to this. The Republicans control Congress. It's in their hands, and thus far every attempt they've made to support Trump has been thrown back in their face by his inability to keep his mouth shut. For chrissakes, the man is such an arrogant blowhard he was showing off to the fucking Russians in the Oval Office with a Russian journalist in the room. Whether he let slip any classified data or not, the fact is not only has he once again, within the space of a few days, made himself look like a big mouthed ass, he's now pissing off Israel, which means Israel and other allies, not to mention the State Department itself, are going to start holding crucial intelligence closer to their chests lest the Braggart-in-chief decide to show off to any other foreign powers.
My favorite part is Putin has a transcript of the entire meeting he wants to use to help clear trump. Obviously at least one of the visitors had a recording device going at all times.
Consider that Trump making a lot of noise is just smoke and mirrors. Trump will probably wind up impeached and the republicans are OK with that because their agenda is unhindered by the opposition that is so fixated on him.
Everything Trump does is now your mess, and you refuse to admit to any of it.
Yes, I admit the Supreme Court was saved from sliding into a swamp of activist liberal faux-legislating. I confess, he made that happen. You got me.
And I confess, you're right, it's totally his fault that illegal traffic across our porous southern border has dropped by over 70% in just three months. It's true. You've made me have to admit that.
And yes, you're right, people who didn't want Clinton in office are going to have to live with the fact that we're looking at policies that begin to push back against flagrant H1B visa abuse, the unthinkable friction on the economy from utterly pointless, redundant, poorly administered and capriciously enforced regulations brand new in the untold thousands every year. Yes, that horrible turn of events is something we'll have to cop to.
And you're definitely right, there's nothing for it but to admit that we're going to have to wear the fact that China is finally inching its way to actually taking some responsibility for North Korea's behavior, and being more receptive to dealing with their pet rabid dog.
And you've definitely busted me: I don't know how I can look at myself in the mirror with everyone's 401k plans and other personal investments regaining so much ground in the last three months. It's awful. I should be ashamed of not wanting Hillary Clinton back making her family rich selling access to third world dictators and having her aid forward classified information to her child-predator husband's home laptop to be printed out.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
it's meant that all our checks and balances have collapsed
No it doesn't. Just because "people that think like me" didn't win elections does not mean ALL checks and balances are gone. They are still being eroded away slowly with bipartisan support.
Did you say we lost ALL our checks and balances after 2008 when the Democrats controlled the Congress and Executive? No? Ok then, stop the hyperbole.
Actually he got less votes than Hillary... but still got in. That indicates a problem with the system. In the Westminster system parties that dont get 50.00001% of the vote dont get their seats.
Obama won the popular vote and the EC... Unless you have irrefutable evidence of foul play, the only hyperbole is yours.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Well that settles it then. Thanks for clearing it up.
And with a history like Trump's (even before he became president), the last thing you want is someone like Mueller digging through the closets where you keep all your skeletons.
~X~
1. How does this implicate Trump?
2. It has also been released that our intelligence community can hack and leave crumbs that implicate other parties. So the viability of the Russian argument goes out the window.
The bottom line truth is that most people are glad that the hypocrisies of the DNC and Hillary are out in the open, Russia or not.
That report is a summary of the consensus of the various intelligence agencies of the US. It doesn't back up its claims with evidence because (1) it's a summary, and (2) US intelligence agencies don't just share evidence in public, that puts lives in danger. It has not been "debunked", the only way to debunk it is to ask the CIA, FBI, etc, whether they disagree with it, and none have.
Could it be based on nothing? Possibly, but it's exceedingly unlikely. To believe it is based on nothing and entirely made up you'd have to assume that virtually every US intelligence agency has gone partisan and rogue. Even the FBI, which isn't exactly known for being sympathetic to liberal causes and the Democrats would, in your world, have to be entirely run by people who make shit up to damage the Republicans.
That's just not credible.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Actually he got less votes than Hillary... but still got i
Irrelevant. The E.C. is a good thing IMO. She lost a majority of popular votes in a majority of states. There is no such thing as a national vote.
That indicates a problem with the system
No it doesn't'. The point of the E.C. is to ensure the Executive has the interest of a majority of states. We are a union of states not a mob. The same idea for the Senate (equal representation of the states to give smaller states power) is the idea for the E.C. There is nothing wrong with balancing the interest and needs of different states. The constitution was ratified with the distinction of rural and urban states and compromised to each of their needs in the form of a bicameral congress (with both equal and proportional representation) and the E.C.
Just because Clinton won huge majorities in a few large states does not mean she should dictate to the other states. We are a union of states not a mob.
Unless you have irrefutable evidence of foul play
Likewise.
4. Never forget the Obama birth certificate crap. That was trying to destroy Obama, presumably to gain political advantage. As a side effect he weakened the ability of that government to get things done. Had their been truth to it, it would be fine, but the purpose was not truth. The purpose was basically A1 grade evil.
As a point of interest, Trump supporters who comment on Scott Adams blog just this week were still bitching about Obama's "fake" birth certificate. How is that even rational any more? Even Trump himself when pinned down about it after winning the primary admitted Obama was born in the USA. But even if this certificate was faked, then we need to deal with the following.
1) Ted Cruz was born in Canada to one US citizen parent. How is that different to Obama being born in Kenya to one US citizen parent? Cruz was allowed to run for president. So even if Obama was born in Kenya, how does that disqualify him from being president? And if somebody is then going to argue that his mother gave up her US citizenship they have to prove it by providing US government records that show it happened.
2) Hillary Clinton very badly wanted to win the Democratic Party nomination in 2008. If Obama was somehow lying about his birth or even worse Constitutionally unqualified to be president, why did she not exploit this? And if you are going to argue that she was a loyal solder, that's just crap. People are accusing her of cheating with the help of party leadership in the primaries last year but somehow dishonest Hillary wouldn't use that information in 2008 for her personal benefit? Yeah. Right.
3) Why did John McCain not use this information to argue in 2008 that his opponent, Obama, might not be qualitied?
4) Why did people in the Republican Party independent of McCain not use this information in 2008 or even 2012 to try to derail Obama's campaign? Why did Romney not use it in 2012 if it was true?
5) How do you explain the birth announcement in a local Hawaiian newspaper announcing Obama's birth? But I suppose if you want to argue that the certificate is faked it's no stretch to argue that this was faked too somehow.
"Actually he got less votes than Hillary" [irony] Not if you exclude all the "fraudulent" votes for Hillary Clinton! [/irony]
"In the Westminster system parties that dont get 50.00001% of the vote dont get their seats." - as a correction, if by "Westminster system" you mean something similar to the electoral system here in the United Kingdom, then, for example, in the 2010 General Election over half of the members of parliament were elected after receiving less than 50% of the vote in their constituency.
The National Enquirer said John Edwards had a love child. Were they correct?
Yes, an the love child speaks to the dead too!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Considering both the scope of the investigation and that beltway politics is as interconnected as a garter snake mating melee, this could hurt the Democrats as much as the Republicans!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Why pose this as an either-or?
No, I'm pretty sure that Trump can't pardon himself, and he's just about the only person that he can't pardon. He would have to step down from the Presidency to be pardoned, and then he's have to trust Pence (presumably his successor) to pardon him after he steps down. I think Trump is highly unlikely to step down, unless it really, really looks like he's going to do hard time.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
And Putin did rather more than endorse Trump.
I wonder, seriously, if Iran had endorsed Clinton and hacked the Republicans and revealed all their dirty laundry (and made routine business look like dirty laundry) if you'd be so complacent.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
1. How does this implicate Trump? 2. It has also been released that our intelligence community can hack and leave crumbs that implicate other parties. So the viability of the Russian argument goes out the window.
The bottom line truth is that most people are glad that the hypocrisies of the DNC and Hillary are out in the open, Russia or not.
Everything you wrote is irrelevant. The point was that Russia interfered in the 2016 American presidential election is stated as a fact by American intelligence groups. If you consider that to be unreliable, you should probably start explaining why you believe they have reason to deceive the American government and public about this.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
That's an argument by analogy.
When the 6-year-old neighbor boy says there are alligators in the basement and they are going to eat the whole neighborhood, do you laugh, or do you call the police just to be safe?
For an argument by analogy to work, you need to not only state the analogy, but also explain why the crucial pieces fit the current situation. Otherwise we can make up a million different analogies that all go different ways.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
President Pence will pardon the orange Hitler. Sad.
Ok, lets try this. A 12 y/o neighbour boy says his father “touches him in inappropriate places”. The father is a policeman. The same boy has previously claimed that it was Jonny that broke the glass, not him (as we know now, he lied then).
Besides, I just asked how you would react in the case of the bank hacking, not that that was a proof of any kind. Because from what I see you have unreasonable standards. If you say “For current affairs, I believe that BBC News Hour is mostly solid with facts, although the interviews tend to be one sided and they don't do long term follow up”, that is kind of reasonable, because you don't have time to talk to civilians in the Yemen war zones and at the same time fact check report on corruption of Ilham Aliyev.
To operate more or less normally, you just have to trust people without demanding raw evidence for every single statement. You said you don't trust CIA. Good. Now, who would you trust on these matters? I bet you would trust your own mother to tell you the truth, but your mother [probably] has no intel on Russian involvement in Elections. You might reasonably say, well noone I could trust knows. Well fine, but here is the thing — saying “I don't trust CIA” is pointless unless you give a more trustworthy source.
No, he wasn't. In fact, just two weeks ago UNDER OATH, Comey told you exactly that he was NOT asked to drop it, that nobody asked anybody to drop it, that no action was taken or requested to do so. You're choosing to (like the liberal press) take reports of part of one of his memos OUT OF CONTEXT so that you can report that HE was recording some sort of obstruction. If he thought there was such, why did he shrug his shoulders at the time and have nothing to say to DoJ about it? Right, because that was not his judgement the. And it STILL wasn't his judgement two weeks ago when the man himself explicitly shot down your spin on things. As did the current acting FBI director, who has ALSO said there was exactly zero requests from anybody to end any investigations of any kind.
All of which has nothing to do with Trump expressing his hope that it will be wrapped up soon. You know, just like Obama expressed his assertion that despite the ongoing investigation by the FBI into the (actually criminal) conduct of people at the IRS (you know, the sort of thing for which Lois Lerner pleaded the fifth, but which the Obama administration deliberately and for political reasons squashed), that there was nothing left to investigate, because he (the president) concluded BEFORE the FBI did, that there wasn't even a "smidgen" of wrongdoing there. Did you consider Obama's statement of a conclusion about that affair in advance of the FBI's completion of their investigation, to be obstruction? No? Why not? That's a far more decisive signal to his underlings investigating an actual crime than is Trump's expression of a wish that a fruitless, 10-month investigation that has produced zero evidence of foreign collusion would be wrapped up soon.
You're still pretending that expressing his hope that the investigation will be wrapped up soon is a crime. That's absurd on the face of it - especially if you're going to be intellectually honest and take that in the context of COMEY HIMSELF telling you, just the other day, that the president never asked him to stop any investigation. You do understand that, right? You are able to listen to Comey's words under oath and process them in the English language as meaning the very clear statement that he made on the subject? The same thing that the current acting director has also said? Or are you calling Comey a liar? If you ARE calling Comey a liar, why are you concluding that someone else's interpretation of a memo of his is proof of obstruction? Did he only become a liar LATER? On what date did you stop trusting Comey?
Never mind, I do understand. You're hoping nobody else noticed that Comey himself told you he wasn't asked to do the thing you say he was asked to do. The question is, why do you think nobody else can listen to what Comey said and understand his words? Really, be specific on that.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
We know this didn't happen because Trump would have blabbed about it on Twitter.
When people asked him to put up or shut up - he changed the topic. That's how you know there's no truth to the rumor he and Fox News spread.
Easy. It's because of the magic (R) beside the name that makes it all different and allowed. If you have anything else, like a (D) or such, it's really bad. But having an (R) means you have a free pass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
here is the thing — saying “I don't trust CIA” is pointless unless you give a more trustworthy source.
No, you're wrong. You can say, "I don't know."
Or in this case you can say, "The evidence we have is very thin."
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
What I don't understand is why Trump is worried about this investigation into Russia.
If you look at the facts, the investigation is whether or not Russia sought to influence the election, and that certainly seemed to be titled in favor of Trump. But that does not mean that Trump was involved in any way. It could simply mean that Putin didn't want Clinton to win. If that were true, it would tarnish Trump's win of course, but what's done is done. I really don't know what would happen, and it would surely be a disaster.
But the way Trump keeps saying that the investigation is into HIM, and that he never colluded with Russia, is disturbing. It all seems irrelevant to the question about if Russia tried to influence the election. He's making it about HIM, instead of about Russia. I find that strange. But I find a lot of what he says to be strange. His obsession with himself is quite nauseating - whether he's president or not.
So the press is evil, but let's have daily press briefings. (?!) I try to ignore it, but people at work keep putting it on the TV in the break room. I just get this sick sense that this is just an extension of the instant-gratification of today's media. I say let them do their investigation into Russia, and report on their findings. But instead, there is a constant barrage of micro-updates on things. So much so that it's really rather disheartening. I can't even read THIS site without hearing these kinds of updates. I read the BBC, but they even keep re-running the same story, with just a few little updates and a title change. Everyone has lost their damn minds.
It makes me just want to ignore it all.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Er, and why precisely would I believe the CIA?
--- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
If the TLAs came out with a report that a cloudless sky is blue, I might take them at their word. Maybe.
Each of these agencies have their own interests and agendas, and disseminating truth to the general public is not one of them. Taking this report at face value because at this point of time it is not clear what motive they would have for lying would be unwise. When James Clapper is going on the Sunday morning talk shows and shedding crocodile tears in concern for US institutions, that alone should be enough to make one suspect.
It largely wasn't relevant...
Except for the parts that were; the ones that showed us the skullduggery and what Democrat is really an euphemism for. If exposing the truth of our entrenched political factions can be considered a hostile act, then it says more about the integrity of our elections than it does anything else.
Paid trolls, twitter bots, mass media interference, all these things are powerful tools in the modern online-oriented media landscape and seem to have the potential to even swing voter opinions.
Oh, you mean like Correct the Record? Did the Russians send BLM to disrupt Sander's and Trumps political rallies, too?
The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is which way the guns point when they form up a firing squad.
If anything challenges the rinse-and-repeat cycle of red and blue team taking turns screwing us over to the benefit of the wealthiest elite, I think you'll quickly find those guns all pointing in the same direction.
There's plenty of evidence of business connections to Russia, and some of Trump's advisors/lackeys/whatever do have connections. There are things that appear to be cover-ups. There's plenty of reason to investigate.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
and that ones just getting started.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That fair, but do you trust Trump?
No. I question the sanity of anyone who does, his normal communication style is lying.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There's evidence that something might be going on, which is enough to justify an investigation. There isn't solid evidence available yet, but the investigation might find something.
The requirement for an investigation is very very low. The requirement for a search warrant is reason to believe the authorities will find something incriminating. The requirement for a conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Typically, there's an investigation. If it turns up probable cause, it can get warrants. Given warrants, it might come up with enough evidence to convict. There is no need for probable cause to start an investigation, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt to get a search warrant.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Trump has been living and vacationing at his properties, and they've been getting money from the Federal government. That's unconstitutional, and a violation of the Constitution counts as impeachment material.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In other words, you don't find the evidence available before the investigation to be convincing. No problem. We'll see what the investigation turns up.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Yes.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I keep seeing people bring up the 3/5ths compromise as if trying to make a point but it is obvious they haven't read the history and only see snippets that they don't like and their blind rage make moral judgments.
You do understand that the compromise was to limit the southern slave owning states power in the House and E.C., right? Believe if or not slavery was a contentious issue, even in 1787 and there were many people that sympathized with the slaves and wanted its abolishment. Hell, the British by 1783 began an anti-slavery movement, do you think colonists didn't share the same sentiment?
They were left with a choice, give the slave owners what they wanted, which would give the slaveholder interests increased representation in the House and Electoral College. Or compromise to limit their power in the fledgling nation. The 3/5ths compromise in effect gave southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes in the college than if slaves were counted equally.
You use that as an example of "racist history" but don't understand that it was there to oppose slavery. It was put in there by people that opposed slavery and you bemoan their name because you don't understand what they were trying to do.
Clinton wasn't elected. feelsgoodman. Working as intended. 10/10 would vote again.
No, you're wrong. You can say, "I don't know."
Indeed you can say that. I can say I don't know if I will die tomorrow but I behave as if I'm going to live for at least 15 more years. That is to say, I believe I will live extra 15 years. I'm trying to say that in practical terms you will either believe that Russia meddled, or that they didn't. It is evident that you believe they didn't, but what warrants this belief? If you say There is lack of hard evidence, therefore I don't believe it's true, then ask yourself if you have the same rigour in all other aspects of your life? Alas, I know absolutely nothing about you, so I have no examples, but if you have ever just assumed someone's motivation, you most likely believe things you have no evidence for.
Disclaimer: where I am from, Russian meddling in local politics is part of everyday life. Even in U.S. it has been the case in the past. Given this background, announcements from CIA seem less like revelations, but rather stating the obvious.
There's also a question of whether Trump himself talked to the Russian government, and now he is a puppet of Putin. tbh that seems unlikely to me.
If you say There is lack of hard evidence, therefore I don't believe it's true, then ask yourself if you have the same rigour in all other aspects of your life?
I try to, at least for things that are important.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Assange himself said it was a disgruntled person from within the DNC itself, which seems possible.
It seems weird that Assange would hint who the leaker was. Protecting sources and such. IIRC wikileaks policy has been to not collect info on who the source is. It is possible that it was a disgruntled DNC staff member, but phishing attack is a bit more credible.
There's also a question of whether Trump himself talked to the Russian government, and now he is a puppet of Putin. tbh that seems unlikely to me.
IIRC this particular investigation is over Trump team's collusion, not Trump himself.
it is possible that it was a disgruntled DNC staff member, but phishing attack is a bit more credible.
Americans are really good at leaking things when we feel our freedoms are threatened. We all distrust our government, and a lot of us would kill to protect our freedoms. Many members of the democratic party were upset at how Sanders got treated, so it wouldn't be surprising at all if one of them leaked.
That said, there were actually multiple hacks (at least three that I can think of without searching). So it's possible the Russian government did it, as well as internal leakers. The next couple years of stories should be entertaining.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
A special prosecutor could be appointed to investigate Santa's repeated acts of trespassing on private property. Doesn't mean shit.
No you unintelligent piece of shit, they can't. The republicans, no matter how much red in the face blustering stupidity they concocted during Obama's 8 years failed to come up with anything they could call a special prosecutor for. It takes something "special" for one to be called up, fucknut.
The dipshit who's struggling with the concept of evidence, dipshit. Show us the evidence or you're an idiot antivaxxer/chem trailing/birther/truther/fluoride tool who devours any pile of bullshit that served up to him on a dixie plate.
It's complete fucking idiots like you who are the problem in this country. There IS enough evidence that SOMETHING happened that a special prosecutor was called up, and by a REPUBLICAN controlled committee, none the less. Because you are too much of a complete fucking ignorant piece of shit to understand that means nothing other than you're a typical fox news graduate of being completely detached from reality. Pull your head out of your ass, you worthless piece of shit.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
His parents certainly won't forget him, nor the fact that your and your fellow assholes keep fictionalizing his death in a sad attempt to smear political opponents.
Yeah, I thought so.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It's so fun to watch an anonymous coward say they don't trust ME because they don't like the video tape of Comey, on May 3, saying under oat that he has seen zero attempts to influence or halt the investigation in question. I know, you're trying to wish away reality, which is why you go for the lazy, childish ad hominem instead of attempting to prove that ... what? The video of Comey testifying to the lack of any political interference is actually a clever Trump fabrication? Please! Keep it up with the unhinged reality-denying. It's exactly what cost the Dems hundreds and hundreds of legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, and the White House. More! Thanks.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So what you're saying is that you're suffering from a profound reading comprehension problem.
The Russians DID try to destabilize the US election season. Just like they ALWAYS have, and just like we've watched them do elsewhere since November. They, just like you and all of the media, assumed that Hillary Clinton was going to be president. They would be happier with her as such, and all the more so with her having to operate under the cloud of distrust that came from letting people see behind the curtain at the DNC and hear the sort of duplicity, contempt for their own voters, and just all around lying and cheating the Clinton camp and their lapdogs in the DNC happily embraced. Why? Because it helps with the chaos, which helps Russia.
You, on the other hand, are intellectually incapable (or too intellectually dishonest) of grasping that the lefty media delusional fantasy about the Trump campaign somehow colluding in the routine Russian election-rattling is just that: fantasy. Spin. A narrative about which everyone who's spent ten months looking into the notion has concluded is false. Obama's own people, and even leading Dem legislators have testified that there's no evidence of any collusion. But because you would LIKE there to be, you're going to stick with your juvenile fiction, and remain warm and fuzzy with it because slavishly cooperative Dem propagandists at CNN and MSNBC are willing to prop up your echo chamber for purely partisan reasons. Carry on! It's entertaining.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You mean 'complacent' about the content of the emails? Or about them being leaked? Because the democrats are noticeably silent about the content.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
making [their] family rich selling access to third world dictators
You mean like, to that guy in Turkey, Philippines, and Saudi Arabia? And Putin? (I kid! I kid! on that one)
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
He is beyond the reach of the courts so your long winded text about irrelevant legal issues does not apply. Legal issues sadly do not apply - just the advice of Congress and the will of the Senate.
Bitch Clinton was found guilty of everything.
Says no prosecutor anywhere.
Now, your butt-buddy Trump is ALSO not trying to prosecute her.
You know, that whole "No evidence of crime" thing that Starr had to live with also!
Get off the Alt-right diet. It's bad for your brain.