** Breaking News **
Dow is set to leap more than 200 points at the open after US-China trade war is placed 'on hold'.
** Film at Eleven **
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
** Breaking News **
Dow is set to leap more than 200 points at the open after US-China trade war is placed 'on hold'.
** Film at Eleven **
Caught a little bit of The Circus on Showtime last night.
Good lord those "journalists" have their heads so far up their asses they don't even know which way is up anymore.
Was funny seeing them actually stop by the Daily Caller. They were showing Trump's comments on MS-13 in real time as it was happening. One of the girls in the news room said, "I bet they take that out of context to make it sound like he called all immigrants animals," and called dibs on the story. Sure enough. The left is so predictable.
And Trump calls Don Lemon dumb because he's a racist, per Don Lemon. Not because he's a biased hack.
Good lord those "journalists" have their heads so far up their asses they don't even know which way is up anymore.
Was funny seeing them actually stop by the Daily Caller. They were showing Trump's comments on MS-13 in real time as it was happening. One of the girls in the news room said, "I bet they take that out of context to make it sound like he called all immigrants animals," and called dibs on the story. Sure enough. The left is so predictable.
And Trump calls Don Lemon dumb because he's a racist, per Don Lemon. Not because he's a biased hack.
no, stop the law that allows crazy kids to avoid prison and stay in the class room. Liberal ideology is the reason these shootings happen. They want it to happen so they can strip away our rights. Or just segregate based on ideology. you libs go your way, and conservatives go our way. We don't live under your laws and you don't live under ours.
Since there was a informant in the Trump campaign "supposedly" investigating Russian collusion, my question is then was there a informant also in the Clinton campaign also investigating possible Russian Collusion ? If the answer is no, why not?
I think the term Deep State misses the actual state of things. I think it's more accurately described as the Lib Dems Political Machine.
Can you imagine this: Trump answering Mueller's questions on live TV? What a show!!
Stopping Mueller:
"The final stopper may be the president himself, offering two hours of testimony, perhaps even televised live from the White House."
http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/388549-stopping-robert-mueller-to-protect-us-all
Stopping Mueller:
"The final stopper may be the president himself, offering two hours of testimony, perhaps even televised live from the White House."
http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/388549-stopping-robert-mueller-to-protect-us-all
@Mashburned
I replied to your kill whitey comment in that other thread with the clip of Chris Farley in black sheep on stage saying that line.
Both our messages were immediately deleted haha
I replied to your kill whitey comment in that other thread with the clip of Chris Farley in black sheep on stage saying that line.
Both our messages were immediately deleted haha
Today's White House press release for the press corp...
Can someone from the left list the democratic platform they are running on, because if using the following guide, I can't understand why anyone would vote for a dem..
1. Taxes....cut, and more cuts ahead, despite crypt keeper Pelosi's moans.
2. Illegal immigration...getting more and more under control.
3. Foreign policy....the best we have seen in our lifetime.
4. Isis....who?
5. Economy....keep it general, but it is the best we have seen in decades. Breaking it down into categories like investments, small business, etc....it is even better.
6. Unemployment....again, excellent in general, and even better for those groups that have suffered for the last 8+ years.
7. Defense....strongest in years.
And to think all of the above is thanks to one side of the aisle.
1. Taxes....cut, and more cuts ahead, despite crypt keeper Pelosi's moans.
2. Illegal immigration...getting more and more under control.
3. Foreign policy....the best we have seen in our lifetime.
4. Isis....who?
5. Economy....keep it general, but it is the best we have seen in decades. Breaking it down into categories like investments, small business, etc....it is even better.
6. Unemployment....again, excellent in general, and even better for those groups that have suffered for the last 8+ years.
7. Defense....strongest in years.
And to think all of the above is thanks to one side of the aisle.
Today's White House press release for the press corp...
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
Gotta love repeated and deliberate use of "animals" in the press release.
if I am not mistaken this is being done to piss off the commie media.
Gotta love repeated and deliberate use of "animals" in the press release.
He was in charge of it. Any fool knows this. If we had a decent news media in this country, they would be all over this, but they are too busy covering up for Obama.
The FBI Could Have Interviewed George Papadopoulos, But Opted To Spy On Him Instead
At some point over the ensuing month, the FBI seemingly decided to activate an FBI informant to make contact with Papadopoulos, who had joined the Trump team in March 2016. Stefan Halper, a Cambridge professor with longstanding CIA and MI6 ties, made contact with Papadopoulos on Sept. 2, 2016. They met in London later that month.
The decision to choose tactics resembling a John le Carré novel was made in lieu of a more direct alternative: contacting Papadopoulos to ask him what he knew about the Clinton emails.
The bureau did not interview Papadopoulos until Jan. 27, 2017, nearly six months after Crossfire Hurricane started.
At some point over the ensuing month, the FBI seemingly decided to activate an FBI informant to make contact with Papadopoulos, who had joined the Trump team in March 2016. Stefan Halper, a Cambridge professor with longstanding CIA and MI6 ties, made contact with Papadopoulos on Sept. 2, 2016. They met in London later that month.
The decision to choose tactics resembling a John le Carré novel was made in lieu of a more direct alternative: contacting Papadopoulos to ask him what he knew about the Clinton emails.
The bureau did not interview Papadopoulos until Jan. 27, 2017, nearly six months after Crossfire Hurricane started.
Several weeks ago Netflix hired Susan Rice, I cancelled my subscription. Now they have signed Barack and Michelle Obama to produce programming. Every person should cancel their Netflix, like I did.
HBO and Showtime are already liberal propaganda machines.
Just saw this. For all of Trump's exaggerations and bombast, I think he's absolutely right that this should be bigger than Watergate. The White House plants a spy inside the presidential campaign of the other party's nominee. The White House, itself - not some rogue guy in the CIA or FBI that would inevitably be played by Jon Voight if they ever made the movie. The President did this. And everyone knows that if that President was an R and the spy was planted in the D campaign, the world would simply end. My goodness, the mind reels at the mere thought. A National Emergency declared by the Times and CNN. Everything would shut down. Endless, breathless coverage, the end of the republic, etc. But since Obama did it, they don't even bring it up.
As I've said, media legacy died in 2017. We now only have tabloid media. And, by the way, this is exactly how you get more Trump.
It was a set up, they wanted to get him on lying to the FBI. So they have an informant interact with him, then 4 months later, one week into Trump's presidency they interview. If he doesn't answer the same verbatim, you've got an indictment. It wasn't about Papadopulous, it was about binding up Trump, keep him on the defensive in order to protect the prior admin, and intel community.
You keep saying this, but it's incorrect. The only thing that suggest he was warned is a single NBCNews story, and they're quoting 'anonymous sources', so there's no telling if it's fake news or not. Not to mention, even if true, they didn't warn him about specific, possible bad actors within his campaign, only that bad actors might try to infiltrate his campaign.
Now if you go back and look at Comey's Senate testimony, he was specifically asked if Trump was alerted to members of his campaign being investigated, particularly Manafort considering he was already being surveilled/investigated (since 2014) before ever joining Trump's campaign. Comey said he strongly considered it but ultimately decided against it.
Now compare that to the McCain situation in '07. He hired someone under FBI investigation to work on his campaign, the FBI reached out to him/his campaign and warned them immediately, letting them know to cut the guy loose or he could cause major trouble. Why didn't the FBI offer the Trump campaign that same courtesy, and reach out to Trump/his campaign, warning them of Manafort's possible troubles and the trouble he could cause the campaign? We both know the answer to that.
Comey, Brenner, and Clapper being frogmarched into a federal detention center would give me warm and fuzzy feelings. And although the latter two can't stay away from the media (desperately getting ahead of the IG's shitstorm report about to come out), you can't find Comey with a search warrant. Somebody told him to stfu
Not only that, but they chose to spy on him instead of just interviewing him and putting it all to rest, because they were using him as an excuse to spy on the campaign.
Did The Obama Administration Spy On Trump Using Flimsy Evidence? Let’s Find Out. After all, if the DOJ is incorruptible, there's nothing to worry about.
If the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation are, as we’ve been told incessantly over the past year, not merely patriots but consummate professionals incapable of being distracted by partisanship or petty Washington intrigues, why are Donald Trump’s antagonists freaking out over the fact that an inspector general will assess whether political motivation tainted an investigation into the president’s campaign? The American people should get a full accounting of what transpired during 2016. Isn’t that what we’ve been hearing since the election?
You believe Trump is corrupt. I get it. But surely anyone who alleges to be concerned about the sanctity of our institutions and rule of law would have some cursory curiosity about whether an investigation by the administration of one major party into the presidential campaign of another major party was grounded in direct evidence rather than fabulist rumor-mongering. Otherwise, any administration, including Trump’s, could initiate an investigation for whatever cooked-up superficial reason it wanted.
Then, when a constitutionally empowered oversight committee demanded information about that investigation, the DOJ could accuse it of “extortion” and stonewall for years.
I certainly don’t believe there’s a big conspiracy by the deep state. Rather it’s pretty obvious to me that leaders of our institutions aren’t above engaging in spying. John Brennan spied on the legislative branch and lied about it to the American people. James Clapper spied on the American people through a domestic surveillance program and lied about it to Congress. Although the Obama administration never tweeted nasty attacks on journalists, it did spy on and prosecute them. It’s completely plausible that those in the upper echelon of law enforcement saw Trump as a threat, then used wobbly evidence as the pretext to investigate his campaign. If not, it’ll be good to clear their names.
“FBI used informant to investigate Russia ties to campaign, not to spy, as Trump claims,” read a truly sillyNew York Times headline last week. You can call it whatever makes you happy, but in the real world the act of furtively gathering information about someone else is called “spying.”
The Washington Postreported, for instance, that the informant was surreptitiously seeking information by “seeking out and meeting three different Trump campaign officials.” The spy, according to the piece, had contacts with the CIA. This is unprecedented. Why shouldn’t we find out if the reasons that girded the investigation were sound?
Perhaps all of this will lead to nothing exciting. Perhaps the competing narratives that have sprung up around Trump and Russia will end far less dramatically than either of their champions hope. But when “rule of law” enthusiasts keep arguing the DOJ is “independent” of the president, then turn around and argue that a congressional oversight committee shouldn’t have the right to ask the executive branch for documents pertaining to their inquiry, one begins to suspect that perhaps some of the hyperbolic rhetoric we’ve been hearing over the past two years has been little more than partisanship.
Most of those arguing that Trump is attacking the “constitutional system,” by demanding the DOJ investigate its conduct, know well that he has full authority to do so. Many sat quietly for eight years of executive abuse. It’s not as if the president instructed the DOJ to stop following the law, after all. He had as much ammunition to ask for an investigation as Democrats had when asking for a special counsel.
Presidents ask the DOJ to do all kinds of things all the time. If the attorney general doesn’t like it, he can resign. If the folks running the DOJ or FBI don’t like it, they can quit. If Congress doesn’t like it, they can impeach the president. That’s the “constitutional system” every president, including Trump, functions under.
Is Trump pushing the issue for political reasons? Of course. If Mueller doesn’t come back with any evidence of collusion — and all the other indictments and criminality he’s found matter, of course, but they have nothing to do with the impetus for the investigation — it will be all the more important to figure out what the previous administration was up to. Precedent and history matter.
The New York Timesrecently ran a 4,000-word ostensible overview of the FBI’s Trump–Russia probe, which fed the impression that investigators were tougher on a hapless Hillary Clinton, whose accidental blunders and honest mistakes ruined her chances of election, but ignored Trump’s nefarious ties to a foreign power. The problem with this tale, as it stands now, is that there was an abundance of evidence suggesting that Clinton was engaged in criminal activity — sending numerous classified and top secret documents over unsecured servers, destroying evidence, etc.
Comey claimed he couldn’t prove intent. Now perhaps Mueller will bring the goods at some point. But to this point, there has not been any evidence to back up the hysteria that followed 2016. It’s completely reasonable to find out what prompted it.
If, as I’ve been assured by numerous smart people, the FBI and DOJ would never ever engage in such partisanship or recklessness — or maybe ineptitude — then a methodical accounting of events leading up to the special counsel investigation would help them.
If the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation are, as we’ve been told incessantly over the past year, not merely patriots but consummate professionals incapable of being distracted by partisanship or petty Washington intrigues, why are Donald Trump’s antagonists freaking out over the fact that an inspector general will assess whether political motivation tainted an investigation into the president’s campaign? The American people should get a full accounting of what transpired during 2016. Isn’t that what we’ve been hearing since the election?
You believe Trump is corrupt. I get it. But surely anyone who alleges to be concerned about the sanctity of our institutions and rule of law would have some cursory curiosity about whether an investigation by the administration of one major party into the presidential campaign of another major party was grounded in direct evidence rather than fabulist rumor-mongering. Otherwise, any administration, including Trump’s, could initiate an investigation for whatever cooked-up superficial reason it wanted.
Then, when a constitutionally empowered oversight committee demanded information about that investigation, the DOJ could accuse it of “extortion” and stonewall for years.
I certainly don’t believe there’s a big conspiracy by the deep state. Rather it’s pretty obvious to me that leaders of our institutions aren’t above engaging in spying. John Brennan spied on the legislative branch and lied about it to the American people. James Clapper spied on the American people through a domestic surveillance program and lied about it to Congress. Although the Obama administration never tweeted nasty attacks on journalists, it did spy on and prosecute them. It’s completely plausible that those in the upper echelon of law enforcement saw Trump as a threat, then used wobbly evidence as the pretext to investigate his campaign. If not, it’ll be good to clear their names.
“FBI used informant to investigate Russia ties to campaign, not to spy, as Trump claims,” read a truly sillyNew York Times headline last week. You can call it whatever makes you happy, but in the real world the act of furtively gathering information about someone else is called “spying.”
The Washington Postreported, for instance, that the informant was surreptitiously seeking information by “seeking out and meeting three different Trump campaign officials.” The spy, according to the piece, had contacts with the CIA. This is unprecedented. Why shouldn’t we find out if the reasons that girded the investigation were sound?
Perhaps all of this will lead to nothing exciting. Perhaps the competing narratives that have sprung up around Trump and Russia will end far less dramatically than either of their champions hope. But when “rule of law” enthusiasts keep arguing the DOJ is “independent” of the president, then turn around and argue that a congressional oversight committee shouldn’t have the right to ask the executive branch for documents pertaining to their inquiry, one begins to suspect that perhaps some of the hyperbolic rhetoric we’ve been hearing over the past two years has been little more than partisanship.
Most of those arguing that Trump is attacking the “constitutional system,” by demanding the DOJ investigate its conduct, know well that he has full authority to do so. Many sat quietly for eight years of executive abuse. It’s not as if the president instructed the DOJ to stop following the law, after all. He had as much ammunition to ask for an investigation as Democrats had when asking for a special counsel.
Presidents ask the DOJ to do all kinds of things all the time. If the attorney general doesn’t like it, he can resign. If the folks running the DOJ or FBI don’t like it, they can quit. If Congress doesn’t like it, they can impeach the president. That’s the “constitutional system” every president, including Trump, functions under.
Is Trump pushing the issue for political reasons? Of course. If Mueller doesn’t come back with any evidence of collusion — and all the other indictments and criminality he’s found matter, of course, but they have nothing to do with the impetus for the investigation — it will be all the more important to figure out what the previous administration was up to. Precedent and history matter.
The New York Timesrecently ran a 4,000-word ostensible overview of the FBI’s Trump–Russia probe, which fed the impression that investigators were tougher on a hapless Hillary Clinton, whose accidental blunders and honest mistakes ruined her chances of election, but ignored Trump’s nefarious ties to a foreign power. The problem with this tale, as it stands now, is that there was an abundance of evidence suggesting that Clinton was engaged in criminal activity — sending numerous classified and top secret documents over unsecured servers, destroying evidence, etc.
Comey claimed he couldn’t prove intent. Now perhaps Mueller will bring the goods at some point. But to this point, there has not been any evidence to back up the hysteria that followed 2016. It’s completely reasonable to find out what prompted it.
If, as I’ve been assured by numerous smart people, the FBI and DOJ would never ever engage in such partisanship or recklessness — or maybe ineptitude — then a methodical accounting of events leading up to the special counsel investigation would help them.
1. Yeah those tax cuts for the wealthy sure helped everyone, even though it's barely helped the poor one bit. Maybe 40 bucks extra. The CEO of companies admit their keeping the money, not investing in jobs. When they gut Medicaid, Medicare, and social security I hope you don't suffer from it. Also, I thought conservatives hated debt? Over 1 trillion alone because of these breaks. Typical bullshit from trump worshippers.
2. Obama had done made the immigration numbers in the negative, as in less people coming in than any president.
3. Yeah pulling out of the Iran deal because a black man signed it was brilliant. Let's celebrate the chickenhawks trying to get us in another middle eastern war. I'm not going again. YOU people that want it can go this time. Great job with north Korea as well. Brilliant to pull out of that deal right before we try to negotiate with north Korea. Trump is absolutely terrible as a deal maker. Then his dumbass NSA suggests to the Koreans to use the Libyan model. Brilliant. Foreign policy has been terrible at best but keep the blinders on.
4. Isis still exists and always will. But you can thank Obama policies for their defeat in Iraq and Syria.
5. Again Obama is the reason the economy is great but it's absolutely stupid to have massive tax breaks if the economy is strong. Let's get ready for another 2008 in the next few years. Why don't you get objective and look at the economy and u unemployment charts starting under Obama.
Defense? Strong how? I thought trump was gonna stop all the crime? He alone could fix it. Sure doesn't care about school shootings. It's disgusting that my fellow BBN members support cadet bone spurs. Cheer him on when he talks about an actual patriot in John McCain badly. Imagine how weak one must be too look at trump and see strength. I thought there was going to be a wall and Mexico paying for it? You guys are the most gullible people on earth. Got played by a used car salesman and like it. History will look back and shake it's head in shame for supporting this man. Your kids will ask what you were thinking. Bring it in November. It's going to be fun getting the house back. We also have the worst Senate in our history.
Having said all that we're all BBN fans and I wanted to jump into the political thread being a liberal with almost all UK fans being conservative. But some of you are delusional, and that's ok!
So much ignorance. The Iran deal was only bad because a black man signed it?? Smdh
Good God really? When someone opposes trump you accuse them of being the enemy. McCain has more integrity in his pinkie than trump has ever had. He actually served his country, he wasn't a bone spurs coward.
And to the initial post, liberals have always shown McCain respect. When has trump? Making fun of him being captured? It's disgusting. I never thought a UK fan would support tarnishing our veterans. I voted for McCain in 08.
End Robert Mueller's investigation: Michael Mukasey
It sounds harmless to suggest that the Mueller investigation be allowed more time to finish its work. But is it?
Let’s review some history.
Recall that the investigation was begun to learn whether the Trump campaign had gotten help unlawfully from Russia. Justice Department regulations permit appointment of a special counsel only if (i) there is reason to think that a federal crime has been committed, and (ii) investigating it would present a conflict of interest for the Justice Department or there is another overriding public reason to take the investigation outside DOJ.
Because Attorney General Jeff Sessions had worked on the Trump campaign, he recused himself from the matter, and so the deputy — Rod Rosenstein — took the decision to appoint a special counsel. The regulations require that such an appointment recite the facts justifying the conclusion that a federal crime was committed, and specify the crime. However, the initial appointment of Robert Mueller did neither, referring instead to a national security investigation that a special counsel has no authority to pursue.
Although Rosenstein apparently tried to correct his mistake in a new appointment memo, he has thus far refused to disclose, even to a federal judge, a complete copy of it. In other investigations supposedly implicating a president — Watergate and Whitewater come to mind — we were told what the crime was and what facts justified the investigation. Not here.
Nor have any of the charges filed in the Mueller investigation disclosed the Trump campaign’s criminal acceptance or solicitation of help from the Russians. The one indictment that relates to Russian criminality charges that the Russians hacked Democratic Party computers and committed other social media abuse, but says specifically that if the Trump campaign got the benefit of it, that was “unwitting” — i.e., without criminal intent.
Since then, although the White House has produced documents in the tens of thousands, the investigation has gotten further from anything suggesting Trump campaign criminality involving Russian influence, not closer. Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, however fascinating, have nothing to do with Russian campaign influence.
What’s the harm in letting it go on?
First, the law requires that a special counsel investigate a specified crime based on specified facts, not try to be the second coming of the Lone Ranger.
But further, the ongoing investigation saps the resources and attention of the Trump administration. If the administration cannot function, the burden of this constantly shifting investigation will give rise to a narrative that any failure was due to the Mueller diversion — that the Trump administration was stabbed in the back. That is potentially more damaging to our politics than any salaciousness that might be tossed up by Robert Mueller.
For both legal and political reasons, the end of this investigation is overdue.
It sounds harmless to suggest that the Mueller investigation be allowed more time to finish its work. But is it?
Let’s review some history.
Recall that the investigation was begun to learn whether the Trump campaign had gotten help unlawfully from Russia. Justice Department regulations permit appointment of a special counsel only if (i) there is reason to think that a federal crime has been committed, and (ii) investigating it would present a conflict of interest for the Justice Department or there is another overriding public reason to take the investigation outside DOJ.
Because Attorney General Jeff Sessions had worked on the Trump campaign, he recused himself from the matter, and so the deputy — Rod Rosenstein — took the decision to appoint a special counsel. The regulations require that such an appointment recite the facts justifying the conclusion that a federal crime was committed, and specify the crime. However, the initial appointment of Robert Mueller did neither, referring instead to a national security investigation that a special counsel has no authority to pursue.
Although Rosenstein apparently tried to correct his mistake in a new appointment memo, he has thus far refused to disclose, even to a federal judge, a complete copy of it. In other investigations supposedly implicating a president — Watergate and Whitewater come to mind — we were told what the crime was and what facts justified the investigation. Not here.
Nor have any of the charges filed in the Mueller investigation disclosed the Trump campaign’s criminal acceptance or solicitation of help from the Russians. The one indictment that relates to Russian criminality charges that the Russians hacked Democratic Party computers and committed other social media abuse, but says specifically that if the Trump campaign got the benefit of it, that was “unwitting” — i.e., without criminal intent.
Since then, although the White House has produced documents in the tens of thousands, the investigation has gotten further from anything suggesting Trump campaign criminality involving Russian influence, not closer. Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, however fascinating, have nothing to do with Russian campaign influence.
What’s the harm in letting it go on?
First, the law requires that a special counsel investigate a specified crime based on specified facts, not try to be the second coming of the Lone Ranger.
But further, the ongoing investigation saps the resources and attention of the Trump administration. If the administration cannot function, the burden of this constantly shifting investigation will give rise to a narrative that any failure was due to the Mueller diversion — that the Trump administration was stabbed in the back. That is potentially more damaging to our politics than any salaciousness that might be tossed up by Robert Mueller.
For both legal and political reasons, the end of this investigation is overdue.
Similar threads
