Wtf do they care? Hillary is actually going to run again isn’t she?
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Trump helps end a 60+ year long war and denuclearize a country who’s leader was crazy enough to use a nuke: Yes... but is it moral to make peace with Kim?
Obama bends over for Iran and helps accelerate their nuke program: BEST DEAL EVERZ!11!! GRATE JOB OBAMA!1!
I despise these people.
oof, Salon steps up
SalonVerified account@Salon
Has Donald Trump made the world less safe for Jews?
Do they just pull 3 words out of hat and make a headline?
Salon: Less, safe, and Jews. That’s an easy one! On it boss!
It's racist, neocon, white nationalist, etc. to want immigrants to come here legally; so say the left.
Think about how incredible it is that such an accusation is acceptable and is echoed by the msm.
Think about how incredible it is that such an accusation is acceptable and is echoed by the msm.
I was just talking to a friend yesterday about how insane things have gotten. When I was in high school I went to a school that was near 50/50 white and black. I remember no one used to care when the context of what you said was to be funny or exaggerate a stereotype. Hell, we made what would now be considered Uber racist jokes to each other and laughed.
That was only 15 years ago. How the hell did we get where we are now so fast? To the point to where you’re racist for wanting a person to follow the law.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
I wonder when the media will realize that most of America has tuned them out.
The FBI Is in Crisis. It's Worse Than You Think
But as much as the bureau’s roughly 14,000 special agents might like to tune out the news, internal and external reports have found lapses throughout the agency, and longtime observers, looking past the partisan haze, see a troubling picture: something really is wrong at the FBI.
The Justice Department’s Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, will soon release a much-anticipated assessment of Democratic and Republican charges that officials at the FBI interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign. That year-long probe, sources familiar with it tell TIME, is expected to come down particularly hard on former FBI director James Comey, who is currently on a high-profile book tour.
In the course of two dozen interviews for this story, agents and others expressed concern that the tumult is threatening the cooperation of informants, local and state police officials, and allies overseas. Even those who lived through past crises say the current one is more damaging. “We’ve seen ups and downs, but I’ve never seen anything like this,” says Robert Anderson, a senior official at the FBI who retired in 2015.
The FBI’s crisis of credibility appears to have seeped into the jury room. The number of convictions in FBI-led investigations has declined in each of the last five years, dropping nearly 11% over that period, according to a TIME analysis of data obtained from the Justice Department by researchers at Syracuse University. “We’ve already seen where the bad guys and witnesses look at those FBI credentials, and it might not carry the same weight anymore,” says O’Connor.
Indeed, public support for the FBI has plunged. A PBS NewsHour survey in April showed a 10-point drop–from 71% to 61%–in the prior two months among Americans who thought the FBI was “just trying to do its job” and an 8-point jump–from 23% to 31%–among those who thought it was “biased against the Trump Administration.”
Some question whether the FBI has gotten too big and has been asked to do too many things. After 9/11, then FBI director Robert Mueller, who is now the special counsel leading the Russia probe, made massive new investments in counterterrorism and intelligence.
Many of the bureau’s woes developed on Comey’s 3½-year watch. They extend beyond the most visible controversies, like the Clinton email and Russia investigations, to his costly confrontation with Apple over unlocking an iPhone used by one of the terrorists in the San Bernardino, Calif., shooting in 2015, and beyond. Critics say Comey’s penchant for high-profile moral fights has, ironically, undermined the bureau’s reputation.
The bureau’s current director, Christopher Wray, recently said his first priority is to “try to bring a sense of calm and stability back to the bureau.” But the FBI is facing one of the greatest tests of its 110 years. In the coming months, it must fix a litany of internal problems, fend off outside attacks on its trustworthiness and pursue investigations touching on a sitting President, at the same time a growing number of Americans are asking themselves: Can we trust the FBI?
But as much as the bureau’s roughly 14,000 special agents might like to tune out the news, internal and external reports have found lapses throughout the agency, and longtime observers, looking past the partisan haze, see a troubling picture: something really is wrong at the FBI.
The Justice Department’s Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, will soon release a much-anticipated assessment of Democratic and Republican charges that officials at the FBI interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign. That year-long probe, sources familiar with it tell TIME, is expected to come down particularly hard on former FBI director James Comey, who is currently on a high-profile book tour.
In the course of two dozen interviews for this story, agents and others expressed concern that the tumult is threatening the cooperation of informants, local and state police officials, and allies overseas. Even those who lived through past crises say the current one is more damaging. “We’ve seen ups and downs, but I’ve never seen anything like this,” says Robert Anderson, a senior official at the FBI who retired in 2015.
The FBI’s crisis of credibility appears to have seeped into the jury room. The number of convictions in FBI-led investigations has declined in each of the last five years, dropping nearly 11% over that period, according to a TIME analysis of data obtained from the Justice Department by researchers at Syracuse University. “We’ve already seen where the bad guys and witnesses look at those FBI credentials, and it might not carry the same weight anymore,” says O’Connor.
Indeed, public support for the FBI has plunged. A PBS NewsHour survey in April showed a 10-point drop–from 71% to 61%–in the prior two months among Americans who thought the FBI was “just trying to do its job” and an 8-point jump–from 23% to 31%–among those who thought it was “biased against the Trump Administration.”
Some question whether the FBI has gotten too big and has been asked to do too many things. After 9/11, then FBI director Robert Mueller, who is now the special counsel leading the Russia probe, made massive new investments in counterterrorism and intelligence.
Many of the bureau’s woes developed on Comey’s 3½-year watch. They extend beyond the most visible controversies, like the Clinton email and Russia investigations, to his costly confrontation with Apple over unlocking an iPhone used by one of the terrorists in the San Bernardino, Calif., shooting in 2015, and beyond. Critics say Comey’s penchant for high-profile moral fights has, ironically, undermined the bureau’s reputation.
The bureau’s current director, Christopher Wray, recently said his first priority is to “try to bring a sense of calm and stability back to the bureau.” But the FBI is facing one of the greatest tests of its 110 years. In the coming months, it must fix a litany of internal problems, fend off outside attacks on its trustworthiness and pursue investigations touching on a sitting President, at the same time a growing number of Americans are asking themselves: Can we trust the FBI?
Social media and the internet imo. It sped up social learning to speeds never before seen. That's why Dems put their hooks in that early so they could steer that ship.
Mueller's many conflicts of interest paint a suspect portrait
As the special counsel investigation surrounding President Trump goes on, we still don't know what evidence Robert Mueller and his team have amassed behind closed doors. It's entirely possible they have built a strong case that Trump illegally conspired with Russian President Putin, which Trump's critics have long claimed but which Trump denies.
If the New York Times list of questions that Mueller wants to ask Trump is accurate, however, it's hard not to notice that Mueller is treading in waters in which he - the special counsel - may have at least three serious conflicts of interest.
The first area has to do with Mueller's reported inquires into Trump's alleged desire to terminate Mueller himself as special counsel, as well as Trump's firing of Mueller's longtime friend and colleague, former FBI director James Comey.
That brings us to a second area of possible conflicts of interest. Mueller's institutional ties would seem to be relevant in a case whose counterpoints rest largely on the institution's own alleged misbehavior. By that I mean some in the intelligence community and the Department of Justice allegedly conspired to "get Trump," promulgated and leaked questionable "intelligence" that turned out to be political opposition research, and exploited the government's most intrusive surveillance authority to spy on Americans who were tied to Trump during the presidential campaign. Mueller was an integral part of this very "community" for the better part of three decades.
A third possible conflict of interest involves the case's entanglements with two of the people instrumental in Mueller's appointment as special counsel. Though we didn't know it at the time, it was his old friend Comey who secretly leaked - or gave - information to the New York Times to spur the appointment. And Mueller's actual appointment was made by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who we now know signed his name to at least one of the controversial wiretaps against a Trump campaign associate. To make matters more complex, Rosenstein is the one who provided President Trump a strongly worded memo supporting the decision to fire Comey - an act for which Mueller also apparently is investigating Trump.
If Trump illegally colluded with Russia, these three perceived conflicts might seem to be little more than footnotes to what would be one of the biggest stories of our time. But if there turns out to be scant evidence that Trump broke the law, then a fair legal mind would have to turn his attention to those who might have conspired to make it seem as though he did. Can Mueller be counted on, if necessary, to look in an uncomfortable direction toward friends, colleagues and those who are responsible for his own appointment?
But the perception of a single conflict of interest can be considered serious enough to trigger a lawyer's responsibility to recuse or excuse himself. One could argue that Mueller's perceived conflicts are equal to if not more direct than those that led Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from any Russia probes. Mueller's failure to publicly address his own conflicts in the case as he continues work may provide the biggest question mark on his ability to remain impartial.
In "Rethinking Prosecutors' Conflicts of Interest," the authors state that issues invariably arise over a prosecutor's "failure of disinterestedness." Mueller may be a fair, aggressive prosecutor. Yet, to some, it would appear that he is most interested, indeed.
As the special counsel investigation surrounding President Trump goes on, we still don't know what evidence Robert Mueller and his team have amassed behind closed doors. It's entirely possible they have built a strong case that Trump illegally conspired with Russian President Putin, which Trump's critics have long claimed but which Trump denies.
If the New York Times list of questions that Mueller wants to ask Trump is accurate, however, it's hard not to notice that Mueller is treading in waters in which he - the special counsel - may have at least three serious conflicts of interest.
The first area has to do with Mueller's reported inquires into Trump's alleged desire to terminate Mueller himself as special counsel, as well as Trump's firing of Mueller's longtime friend and colleague, former FBI director James Comey.
That brings us to a second area of possible conflicts of interest. Mueller's institutional ties would seem to be relevant in a case whose counterpoints rest largely on the institution's own alleged misbehavior. By that I mean some in the intelligence community and the Department of Justice allegedly conspired to "get Trump," promulgated and leaked questionable "intelligence" that turned out to be political opposition research, and exploited the government's most intrusive surveillance authority to spy on Americans who were tied to Trump during the presidential campaign. Mueller was an integral part of this very "community" for the better part of three decades.
A third possible conflict of interest involves the case's entanglements with two of the people instrumental in Mueller's appointment as special counsel. Though we didn't know it at the time, it was his old friend Comey who secretly leaked - or gave - information to the New York Times to spur the appointment. And Mueller's actual appointment was made by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who we now know signed his name to at least one of the controversial wiretaps against a Trump campaign associate. To make matters more complex, Rosenstein is the one who provided President Trump a strongly worded memo supporting the decision to fire Comey - an act for which Mueller also apparently is investigating Trump.
If Trump illegally colluded with Russia, these three perceived conflicts might seem to be little more than footnotes to what would be one of the biggest stories of our time. But if there turns out to be scant evidence that Trump broke the law, then a fair legal mind would have to turn his attention to those who might have conspired to make it seem as though he did. Can Mueller be counted on, if necessary, to look in an uncomfortable direction toward friends, colleagues and those who are responsible for his own appointment?
But the perception of a single conflict of interest can be considered serious enough to trigger a lawyer's responsibility to recuse or excuse himself. One could argue that Mueller's perceived conflicts are equal to if not more direct than those that led Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from any Russia probes. Mueller's failure to publicly address his own conflicts in the case as he continues work may provide the biggest question mark on his ability to remain impartial.
In "Rethinking Prosecutors' Conflicts of Interest," the authors state that issues invariably arise over a prosecutor's "failure of disinterestedness." Mueller may be a fair, aggressive prosecutor. Yet, to some, it would appear that he is most interested, indeed.
Why the Justice Department Is Defiant
Until this week, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and fellow institutionalists at the department had fought Congress’s demands for information with the tools of banal bureaucracy—resist, delay, ignore, negotiate. But Mr. Rosenstein took things to a new level on Tuesday, accusing House Republicans of “threats,” extortion and wanting to “rummage” through department documents.
Mr. Rosenstein isn’t worried about rummaging. That’s a diversion from the department’s opposite concern: that it is being asked to comply with very specific—potentially very revealing—demands. Two House sources confirm for me that the Justice Department was recently delivered first a classified House Intelligence Committee letter and then a subpoena (which arrived Monday) demanding documents related to a new line of inquiry about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Trump investigation. The deadline for complying with the subpoena was Thursday afternoon, and the Justice Department flouted it. As the White House is undoubtedly monitoring any new congressional demands for information, it is likely that President Trump’s tweet Wednesday ripping the department for not turning over documents was in part a reference to this latest demand.
Republicans also demand the FBI drop any objections to declassifying a section of the recently issued House Intelligence Committee report that deals with a briefing former FBI Director James Comey provided about former national security adviser Mike Flynn. House Republicans say Mr. Comey told them his own agents did not believe Mr. Flynn lied to them. On his book tour, Mr. Comey has said that isn’t true. Someone isn’t being honest. Is the FBI more interested in protecting the reputations of two former directors (the other being Mr. Mueller, who dragged Mr. Flynn into court on lying grounds) than in telling the public the truth?
It’s hard to have any faith in the necessity of the more than 300 redactions in the House Intel report, most of which the Republican committee members insist are bogus and should be removed. On every occasion that Justice or the FBI has claimed material must be withheld for the sake of national security or continuing investigations, it has later come out that the only thing at stake were those institutions’ reputations. Think the Comey memos, which showed the former director had little basis for claiming obstruction. Or Sen. Chuck Grassley’s criminal referral of dossier author Christopher Steele, the FBI’s so-called reliable source, whom we now know it had to fire for talking to the press and possibly lying.
The Justice Department is laying all this at the feet of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which technically oversees redactions. But ODNI consults with the agency that “owns” the material, and the FBI is clearly doing the blocking. Again, many pieces of the House Intel report that are being hidden happen to relate to FBI conduct during the 2016 election.
The increasingly poisonous interaction between Congress and the Justice Department also stems from a growing list of questions Republicans have about leading Justice Department officials’ roles in the events Congress seeks to investigate. Mr. Rosenstein’s name was on at least one of the applications for a warrant on Carter Page to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Dana Boente’s name is on another, and he’s now serving as the FBI’s general counsel.
We can’t know the precise motivations behind the Justice Department’s and FBI’s refusal to make key information public. But whether it is out of real concern over declassification or a desire to protect the institutions from embarrassment, the current leadership is about 20 steps behind this narrative. Mr. Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe —they have already shattered the FBI’s reputation and public trust. There is nothing to be gained from pretending this is business as usual, or attempting to stem continued fallout by hiding further details.
This week’s events—including more flat-out subpoena defiance—put a luminous spotlight on Speaker Paul Ryan. The credibility of the House’s oversight authority is at stake. Mr. Ryan’s committee chairmen have done remarkable work exposing FBI behavior, and they deserve backup. The quickest way to get Justice and FBI to comply with these legitimate requests is for Mr. Ryan to state strongly and publicly that he has zero qualms about proceeding down the road of contempt or impeachment if House demands are not met. This is the people’s government, not the Justice Department’s.
Until this week, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and fellow institutionalists at the department had fought Congress’s demands for information with the tools of banal bureaucracy—resist, delay, ignore, negotiate. But Mr. Rosenstein took things to a new level on Tuesday, accusing House Republicans of “threats,” extortion and wanting to “rummage” through department documents.
Mr. Rosenstein isn’t worried about rummaging. That’s a diversion from the department’s opposite concern: that it is being asked to comply with very specific—potentially very revealing—demands. Two House sources confirm for me that the Justice Department was recently delivered first a classified House Intelligence Committee letter and then a subpoena (which arrived Monday) demanding documents related to a new line of inquiry about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Trump investigation. The deadline for complying with the subpoena was Thursday afternoon, and the Justice Department flouted it. As the White House is undoubtedly monitoring any new congressional demands for information, it is likely that President Trump’s tweet Wednesday ripping the department for not turning over documents was in part a reference to this latest demand.
Republicans also demand the FBI drop any objections to declassifying a section of the recently issued House Intelligence Committee report that deals with a briefing former FBI Director James Comey provided about former national security adviser Mike Flynn. House Republicans say Mr. Comey told them his own agents did not believe Mr. Flynn lied to them. On his book tour, Mr. Comey has said that isn’t true. Someone isn’t being honest. Is the FBI more interested in protecting the reputations of two former directors (the other being Mr. Mueller, who dragged Mr. Flynn into court on lying grounds) than in telling the public the truth?
It’s hard to have any faith in the necessity of the more than 300 redactions in the House Intel report, most of which the Republican committee members insist are bogus and should be removed. On every occasion that Justice or the FBI has claimed material must be withheld for the sake of national security or continuing investigations, it has later come out that the only thing at stake were those institutions’ reputations. Think the Comey memos, which showed the former director had little basis for claiming obstruction. Or Sen. Chuck Grassley’s criminal referral of dossier author Christopher Steele, the FBI’s so-called reliable source, whom we now know it had to fire for talking to the press and possibly lying.
The Justice Department is laying all this at the feet of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which technically oversees redactions. But ODNI consults with the agency that “owns” the material, and the FBI is clearly doing the blocking. Again, many pieces of the House Intel report that are being hidden happen to relate to FBI conduct during the 2016 election.
The increasingly poisonous interaction between Congress and the Justice Department also stems from a growing list of questions Republicans have about leading Justice Department officials’ roles in the events Congress seeks to investigate. Mr. Rosenstein’s name was on at least one of the applications for a warrant on Carter Page to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Dana Boente’s name is on another, and he’s now serving as the FBI’s general counsel.
We can’t know the precise motivations behind the Justice Department’s and FBI’s refusal to make key information public. But whether it is out of real concern over declassification or a desire to protect the institutions from embarrassment, the current leadership is about 20 steps behind this narrative. Mr. Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe —they have already shattered the FBI’s reputation and public trust. There is nothing to be gained from pretending this is business as usual, or attempting to stem continued fallout by hiding further details.
This week’s events—including more flat-out subpoena defiance—put a luminous spotlight on Speaker Paul Ryan. The credibility of the House’s oversight authority is at stake. Mr. Ryan’s committee chairmen have done remarkable work exposing FBI behavior, and they deserve backup. The quickest way to get Justice and FBI to comply with these legitimate requests is for Mr. Ryan to state strongly and publicly that he has zero qualms about proceeding down the road of contempt or impeachment if House demands are not met. This is the people’s government, not the Justice Department’s.
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1546817
I learned posing with people equals you are super close to them from Trump haters. I can only assume Bill banged these porn stars after this photo.
Because younger folks don't know racism, we didn't grow up with it, it literally doesn't exist until somebody instills racism in you...that is what the media and others have done so well.
Hell, it seems like an entire generation of privileged white folks are ashamed of being white and want/demand actions are taken to give more people of color stuff to even out the numbers...which is literally racist!
ie: Centre College just had a big student "sit in" where they took over admin offices and demanded something be done about racism. At Centre fn College! One of the most prestigious private colleges around here is apparently racist af? When and how did this happen? Idk what has happened, but apparently it's so racist that students are demanding action now.
There is not a more insane publication than Salon. If someone has ever written for or worked for that group, that's an automatic indication of that person being insane. Salon is like the asylum for the most insane leftists.
Totally agree.
Obama and his leftist nuts have instilled racism and a victim complex in so many people.
Through media and school and politics, they repeatedly say that white people are evil oppressors and anything they have achieved is due to racism and that all minorities are victims and at a disadvantage. Nearly every kid in the black community is told they are a victim, nothing is their fault, everyone is out to get them. The left repeatedly tries to categorize people based on race and gender or whatever group they can and then has the audacity to try and pit others as racist.
White kids especially, are brought up and beaten over the head with this guilt complex and that they need to be a savior for minorities and prove they're not "racist." They are so desperate to virtue signal. What's most bizarre is that they think it's not racist to treat minorities like helpless little victims or pets but they think it's racist that conservatives believe that you judge someone by their character and should be held responsible and be accountable just like anyone else. How is that racist?
It's all by design though. Liberal media is only interested in running one narrative-White people are bad, everyone else are victims. That's why you'll get 24/7 outrage over two black loiterers being arrested at Starbucks but same media doesn't give a crap to cover the "knockout game" or that interracial violence and rape is overwhelmingly black on white. You'd never know whites are killed more by cops due to media coverage either.
3,2,1
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1546817
I learned posing with people equals you are super close to them from Trump haters. I can only assume Bill banged these porn stars after this photo.
The answer is no, you cannot trust the FBI. Every agency has been politicized by the left. They had the IRS targeting conservatives. They have the FBI as an extension of the DNC.
Read it again. Read the entire timeline of North Korean nuclear tests. They supposedly detonated some kind of nuclear DEVICE in 2006. Only one. That is not having "nuclear weapons". But notice how things escalated after 2009.
It doesn't matter if they built a small nuclear bomb if they had no way to deliver it. Their missile systems advanced under the watchful eye of O'bama to the point they could actually blow up a nuke somewhere besides their own soil. That is when the real threat was realized.
Why didn't you quote Snopes?
Really? Wth? I live in Danville. I wasn’t aware of this. You’re right though. That makes a lot of sense. These kids don’t know racism and liberals are changing actual racism to convincing them that everything is racist.
The left has always been the masters of racism. Now whites are the ones they hate the most and they use minorities to get in power and to keep them enslaved in the Dem Party by telling them whites are to blame for everything and how they’re not getting a fair shot.
Show me a conservative who wants race injected in any lesson plan and then compare it to what the left teaches every effing day.
WKYT "news".
I think this has happened to some degree at every University...i know it's happened at UK and Berea. UK was way ahead of the curve and has been trying to even up the color gap for a while now.
You seem to have forgotten the last administration. All you have to do is plead ignorance BEFORE you get in front of a federal judge and then you never have to.
lmao...here's an article about the sit in. I mean....students are fed up and tired of racism, yet not one example is given.
https://www.wtvq.com/2018/05/02/centre-college-students-sit-demand-campus-inclusive/
“If they can do it in 1950 with Dr. King, we can do it here at Centre College in 2018,” Taylor Morris said.
https://www.wtvq.com/2018/05/02/centre-college-students-sit-demand-campus-inclusive/
“If they can do it in 1950 with Dr. King, we can do it here at Centre College in 2018,” Taylor Morris said.
Look, dumbass, she had phones destroyed that contained government business from the time she was sos. The phones were government property. The phones were destroyed AFTER they were subpoenaed.
No, there was nothing normal about destroying those phones except for the fact that it's normal for a criminal to try and cover their tracks.
also gross negligence does not have "intent" in the statute. That's the very defining characteristic of the law is the one they used to NOT indict her. you didn't MEAN to? When has that ever been an excuse for breaking the law?
This person says as multiple colleges are starting to segregate again lol. They probably don’t even know what Dr. King was fighting for. Probably think he was fighting for cultural appropriation and affirmative action.
No doubt....and guess who just hired their nutjob former editor, Joan Walsh: CNN
