By Michelle Goldberg at Slate.
I love the way the messaging turns on a dime.
One minute it's ridiculous to think that the Obama administration was doing surveillance on the Trump campaign. The next minute the Obama administration was doing the right thing if it did surveillance on the Trump campaign.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
676 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 676 Newer› Newest»Chuck said...
Brando: I have addressed a number of Comments pages (but no private emails) to Althouse, on the subject of her declining-quality commenters.
That is always how the left responds when they lose an argument. She isn't going to ban us for you or ruin her comment section for you.
She never responds.
Do you ever step back and just re-read your own posts and try to figure out the other persons point of view? You should. I still do this with some of your posts. Sometimes you almost seem like an actual republican. But you are reflexive on certain subjects. You always come out against Trump even when he is right.
I do believe you could be a NR kind of "republican." The ones that want republicans to lose.
"Oh, come on. With the right-wing media, it is all about Obama somehow spying on Trump. Drudge, Fox News, Breitbart, Limbaugh/Hannity/Ingraham/Savage/Levin, and on and on and on. Oh; and the Althouse blog."
I sure hope Althouse doesn't get mad at you because you lumped her in with all those right wing sites and speakers. IIRC she doesn't like being seen as having a right wing site.
But it really is stunning: the Democrat party and the left wants the US government to have a Gestapo. How some people can defend that is beyond me, but I've yet to see any Democrat partisan in this thread (including Chuck) criticize turning America into a leftist police state.
Chuck certainly has his faults. I don't know all of them because I usually skip his comments, but I don't think he is pushing the Stasi memo. I do think you are correct, although perhaps a bit over the top. The left is so sure it is correct and we are evil that the temptation is always there. A troll on Powerline this morning posted. Harish Singh
People who deny climate change and man's influence have officially become a threat to humanity. They must be exterminated
So, it is there. So far, it is subconscious mostly.
Achilles, I get that you despise those two media organs but I was asking about whether they actually endorsed Hillary. For NR at least (which is a conservative media organ) that would in fact be big news.
"So, naturally, our Neutral Observer places (a) and (b) at the same place on the "what is true" spectrum."
I'm not neutral, Drago. On this issue I think something fishy is going on, but like you I don't know exactly what. Unlike you, I'd like to find out.
You'd think the praise and approval Chuck gets from resident lefties like ARM and Inga would lead to a little soul searching on his part. If Inga started saying nice things about me, I'd know it was time to get my head examined.
Laslo's analysis is spot on - and brilliant.
"And now, once again, it's clear that I and others have disappointed Brando, and obama, and the dems. Again."
It's okay, Drago, I believe you're redeemable!
Inga said...
"Oh, come on. With the right-wing media, it is all about Obama somehow spying on Trump. Drudge, Fox News, Breitbart, Limbaugh/Hannity/Ingraham/Savage/Levin, and on and on and on. Oh; and the Althouse blog."
I sure hope Althouse doesn't get mad at you because you lumped her in with all those right wing sites and speakers. IIRC she doesn't like being seen as having a right wing site.
So it is Right Wing now to not want the federal government to act like a police state that attacks political opponents of Barrack Obama?
Inga just made the Right a lot bigger than she meant to.
Chuck, I don't doubt you're a Republican or a conservative--clearly the alt righters here want to redefine those terms to mean big state strongman BS and so they're trying to get a rise out of you. But there are still decent commenters here on every side of the issue, just have to weed them out from the trolls.
exiledonmainstreet said...
You'd think the praise and approval Chuck gets from resident lefties like ARM and Inga would lead to a little soul searching on his part.
Some of you might just want to step back and think about whether Inga and ARM or -- this is a good one -- garage mahal ever thought that I was on the Democratic/left side of politics. I think they'd laugh.
A little soul searching might do you some good.
"If Inga started saying nice things about me, I'd know it was time to get my head examined."
I'm not saying anything nice about you, but yes, it's time.
Stab Trump in the back as a Republican, Chuck, and good luck winning another election.
Chuck,
His style; his stupidity; his ugliness; his illiteracy; his recklessness.
Trump may possibly be stupid and/or reckless, but his style is his own, he is certainly not illiterate, and calling him out for "ugliness" is probably a hate crime by now. He looks to me no worse than Joe Biden. I realize that you would probably have preferred a comelier Hillary, but, really, are looks the makings of a President? (Don't remind me of Trump's remark on Fiorina. I've saved you the trouble.)
Chuck, I have no problem believing you are part of the Republican party that has morphed into the Democrat party.
It's pretty simple: the Democrat party has become the socialist party, the left wing of the Democrat party is now out and out Communist, and the GOPe is now the old Democrat party. Trump's faction is split between conservatives who have no where else to do and libertarians and other assorted ilk.
The GOPe and everyone else on the left thinks that if you like Trump, you are racist/sexist/etc. They deny the very existence of conservatism. Like you, Chuck. Only crazy racists could possibly agree with Trump.
But there's zero difference between your attacks on Trump and someone from the Daily Kos, there really isn't. You sound identical.
I was a Cruz guy. I wish Cruz was president. But he's not. So unlike you, I went with the Republican candidate, Trump. You claim to have voted for Trump too, but your passion, your heart, your every comment is steeped with loathing, hatred, and fear of Trump. You have gone full FDR: The enemy of my enemy (Hitler!) is my friend (Stalin!). In your zeal to attack your perceived Hitler, you have allied with the actual Stalin.
And yet you cannot identify anything that Trump has done to be labeled Hitler. He defeated Jeb and Rubio, yes. He defeated my candidate too. He then defeated Saint Hillary, she of the holy pantsuit and Clinton slush foundation. An unforgivable sin, it appears, for you.
Trump may well be Patton--crude, rude, arrogant, sometimes a little bit harsh to the sensitive feelz of some people. But he's OUR Patton laying waste to our enemies. Why shed a tear over them? They certainly intend to put us all in the camps.
Why do whine and bellyache over a defeat for the left? They need to be driven into the sea, lamenting and wailing as they lose. The left is the fountain of almost all evil in the world; and the evil they are not behind they are allied with.
So stop defending the moneychangers in the temple, Chuck, and celebrate them being driven out--even if by whip.
--Vance
Brando said...
Achilles, I get that you despise those two media organs but I was asking about whether they actually endorsed Hillary. For NR at least (which is a conservative media organ) that would in fact be big news.
How is it that when republicans get power the government still grows and the "conservative" think tanks in DC come up with things like Romneycare and Medicare part B? And these same "conservative" think tanks come up with garbage like we need to pass amnesty or the republican party is forever doomed? NR and AEI get their money from the same people that fund the rest of DC. All of their answers revolve around DC and more power for DC.
Two competing theories:
1. The GOP and the conservative DC media/think tanks are steadfastly conservative and always do their best to push a conservative agenda. They always fight as hard as democrats fight to push their agenda.
2. The GOP and the DC "conservative" media/think tanks are a false flag meant to trick voters in the United States into thinking they are voting for a party that wants a small federal government.
You honestly tell me which theory has more supporting evidence.
Chuck has committed a cardinal sin in Trumpland, similar to the Milwaukee right wing radio talker Charlie Sykes. He never jumped on the Trump Train. Sykes is a man of principle, it take s a lot of courage to remain a principled person in Trumpland.
"And with the White House, the House, the Senate and most statehouses, I am not too worried about a Democrat-run police state."
I have news for you, Chuck - if you have a massive bureaucratic state filled with unelected lifers who are Democrats because the Democratic Party is the party of government and those workers benefit from the expansion of government, it doesn't matter who is in the WH, the House , the Senate and most statehouses if those pols do nothing to arrest the power of the state. That is the real -the only reason, really - the bureaucrats hate him so much. It's not because of his vulgarity, his hair, his grammar or any of the other things that send you into such a frenzy. It's because he threatens their power.
The DC area is among the wealthiest in the country - home to those bureaucrats who have grown very fat and comfortable leeching off the rest of the nation. You really think they will sit still and allow Trump to take power away from them?
Matthew Sablan:
"Also, if they were keeping tabs on Trump's ties to Russia -- where are the leaks about Clinton's ties to foreign governments? She's taken millions from some. Why are there no unmasked intercepts with spreadsheets of data compiled about her and the Clinton Global Initiative?"
This is an excellent question, and if the oversight committee can assure me that there are equally as many Clinton staff unmaskings, then I might let the matter rest for all the leaks themselves to the media which are still illegal. However, that no one, even hard-core Democrats, have pointed to such things suggests to me that only Trump and/or Republicans were targeted and unmasked this way.
"Some of you might just want to step back and think about whether Inga and ARM or -- this is a good one -- garage mahal ever thought that I was on the Democratic/left side of politics. I think they'd laugh."
No, they think you're one of the good GOP lapdogs. You know your place.
As for NR and WSJ endorsing Hillary. I don't think they explicitly endorsed her, but they did both ask people to not vote Trump. So a distinction without a difference. After all, any vote not for Trump was a vote for Hillary.
Kind of like my hometown paper ran an editorial saying not to vote Trump, then after the backlash ran a "correction" noting that they had once attacked Bill Clinton, 20 years ago, so how could anyone accuse them of being Pro Hillary?
It's one of those kind of things.
--Vance
Chuck said..."But no, Althouse; to the extent that you think this is some weird new re-twisting of positions to suit Trump critics, you haven't been paying attention and certainly not to my position."
There are an awful lot of us who have stopped paying attention to your position.
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
Chuck,
"His style; his stupidity; his ugliness; his illiteracy; his recklessness."
Trump may possibly be stupid and/or reckless, but his style is his own, he is certainly not illiterate, and calling him out for "ugliness" is probably a hate crime by now. He looks to me no worse than Joe Biden. I realize that you would probably have preferred a comelier Hillary, but, really, are looks the makings of a President? (Don't remind me of Trump's remark on Fiorina. I've saved you the trouble.)
I didn't mean any physical ugliness with Trump; although he really is turning into a kind of a corpulent orange Jabba the Hutt. I meant Trump's personal, moral ugliness. He's an ugly person; the kind of person you'd never want as a business partner or any other kind of partner.
And no, I didn't and I wouldn't prefer any sort of "Hillary." I could have voted for Hillary; I voted a straight Republican ticket.
I am curioius; after I have written a thousand times on this blog that I voted for Trump, what sort of ignorance does it take, to say that I must have preferred someone else? I would have preferred A-N-Y Republican candidate to Trump. But "Hillary" does not follow. It did not follow for the vast majority of my fellow Trump-hating Republicans. We held our noses and voted for Trump. And if more (casually Republican) white voters had done that in 2008 and 2012, your evil Obama-monster might have spent less time mucking up the federal government.
Chuck is from the Washington Generals wing of the Republican Party.
Witness Inga's praise of Sykes, who so embarrassed himself during the campaign that there was nothing left for him to do but resign once Trump won, ala Bill Kristol.
That's a good Republican in Inga's eyes. It's OK to squawk on the radio for years about the dangers of PC and Big Government as long as you don't actually support someone who might actually upset the apple cart.
Achilles, are those the only two theories? Or is it also possible that the "conservative" media you describe is actually a wide range of differing groups? Can you really lump Fox, Breitbart, National Review and WSJ in the same category? And considering that fragmentation is it no wonder they don't achieve universally conservative goals when they can't even agree what universally conservative goals are?
And the much simpler answer for why government seems to just keep growing no matter how long Republicans are in power? Because even Republican voters blanch at meaningful cuts. Look what happens when you even mention touching Social Security--it went nowhere ten years ago, and now you won't hear many Republican politicians (certainly not the ones in leadership) seriously suggest doing that.
So if you want to rail at someone, start at the grass roots.
Lovable losers playing for scraps.
"As for NR and WSJ endorsing Hillary. I don't think they explicitly endorsed her, but they did both ask people to not vote Trump. So a distinction without a difference. After all, any vote not for Trump was a vote for Hillary."
Vance, this is at least a straight answer. I was wondering if I'd missed some major news.
How is it that when republicans get power the government still grows and the "conservative" think tanks in DC come up with things like Romneycare and Medicare part B?
I think you mean Part D, which I was opposed to as I thought it gave too much to big Pharma but it has reduced drug costs. The theory, which I agree with, is that Medicare was devised before all the radical progress in pharmacology. In 1965, there were not many drugs that were really effective. I've written two books about it. Since then, drugs have gotten a lot more effective. It was time to increase the Medicare access to them.
Romneycare was a Heritage study that was eventually dropped by the foundation as policy. It was based on the theory of "the free rider" who abused the ER by showing up injured and requiring care under EMTALA as well as humanity. I think the "Free Rider" theory was shown to be exaggerated. God know I took care of lots of free riders but most were illegals. Nobody before Obama thought illegals would be covered by any US health care plan.
Some of the pressure on free riders came from the "managed care" lobby which was trying to negotiate cheap contracts with hospitals.
Chuck said...
Brando: I have addressed a number of Comments pages (but no private emails) to Althouse, on the subject of her declining-quality commenters.
There is one action completely within chuck's control which would immediately increase the level of commenters at Althouse: he could stop commenting.
Since he chooses not to do that one must presume his actual goals are different from his stated goals.
The MSM/Democrat Party/Left is like John B. McLemore's mental state: the Narrative cannot collapse, it just continually recycles. Its literally mantra--the more reality fails to conform, the more compulsively they rehash the Narrative, with minor modifications as the barest acknowledgment that the last version of Narrative is no longer operative.
Unlike John B., though, the vast majority of these True Believers have no contact with Americans who see otherwise.
Can you really lump Fox, Breitbart, National Review and WSJ in the same category?
No, Fox is shifting left as the Murdoch sons seek the approval of left wing cocktail party hostesses.
National Review went off the reservation like chuck has but is coming back now. Read VD Hanson's essay today.
WSJ is pro-open borders but is otherwise pretty much big business as an editorial policy. The front page swings pretty left.
Breitbart has been expanding in other countries and, if it can keep Bannon's focus, might replace AP.
Achilles said... [hush][hide comment]
How is it that when republicans get power the government still grows and the "conservative" think tanks in DC come up with things like Romneycare and Medicare part B?
At one time people thought compromise with Democrats was possible, hence Medicare D and NCLB. You have to think they learned a valuable lesson that Dems respond to compromise with increased vitriol and lies.
Look, the solution is simple: get government out of the loop. Some big charities are far, far more efficient.
We should have a tax plan like so: flat 30% tax on all income. Only one deduction: you get a 200% deduction for every dollar you donate to a charity that specializes in elderly care or child care, that kind of thing. So a 2 dollar deduction for every dollar you donate to one of these charities, up to a 20% total tax deduction.
That's a killer deal for the taxpayers. And so everyone would donate 10% of their income. 10% of the GNP is an astonishing amount of money; and in the hands of a good charity would probably be able to replicate Social Security, etc. Oh yes: the other part of this. In order for anyone to receive help from these charities, they have to relinquish their rights to social security, medicare/medicaid, etc.
You can play with the percentages some, but this incentivizes everyone to donate money to groups that are actually motivated to use it and not waste it. Government gets out of the social welfare business for the most part. And the relinquishment of all social security, etc is a voluntary choice by those who do so, so we aren't ripping them off.
--Vance
Chuck said... [hush][hide comment]
No, Hoodlum.
In the matter of Russian surveillance, I presume that our guys need no "pretext." I hope and expect and presume that we are surveilling all of their agents, every chance we get.
What I'd expect now is that any Trump official or former campaign staffer who had contacts with Russians under surveillance would divulge every last detail of every single thing they talked about, to the Senate Intelligence Committee and the FBI.
4/4/17, 10:42 AM
Sorry but that makes no sense. If they were surveilled then what is there to come clean about? "We have the tapes." If the FBI and SIC need to know, they know where to go. What is needed is exposure of who was surveilled, for how long, and why. If it was the Russians that were to point there should be little to no coverage of Trump and Co. when they were NOT on the phone with Russians, agreed? So let us see all that was covered. Don't need the details of the interactions just who was on the line for the interactions. If there are any calls collected that did not include Russians, heads need to roll, agreed?
Inga: "Chuck has committed a cardinal sin in Trumpland, similar to the Milwaukee right wing radio talker Charlie Sykes. He never jumped on the Trump Train."
tsk tsk
Chuck is not going to appreciate your mischaracterization. He is a stickler for that for sort of thing. Your tender defense of Chuck is again noted. You are kindred spirits indeed.
tim in vermont said...
Chuck is from the Washington Generals wing of the Republican Party.
Given that our "Washington Generals" have won the House, the Senate and 33 governorships, plus "Trifecta" status in 24 states, you ought to worry about the Harlem Globetrotters.
And that was all without Trump. The Trump election saw the Republicans lose votes in the Senate, and a several seats in the House.
The strong Republican governorships in the most purple states -- Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa, Illinois, New Mexico, Maine and Vermont -- were basically all won by Republicans who distanced themselves from Trump. Scott Walker(?!) is ironically perhaps the most pro-Trump of any of those governors.
We Republicans aren't losing. We're winning; if only Trump doesn't fuck it up.
"At one time people thought compromise with Democrats was possible, hence Medicare D and NCLB. You have to think they learned a valuable lesson that Dems respond to compromise with increased vitriol and lies."
It's more than that though--notice even with a more recent entitlement (ACA) the GOP could not straight up repeal it. I imagine it'd be even harder to repeal the prescription drug Medicare benefit now. It's not just "hey let's do this to please Democrats so they're nice to us"; that ship sailed two administrations ago (if it ever really was afloat!). The problem is GOP voters--they don't want their stuff taken away any more than Dems do; they love the idea that they're for small government but when it comes time to give up stuff they get cold feet. And their elected officials only want one thing--to get re-elected. And so here we are.
Todd: "Sorry but that makes no sense. If they were surveilled then what is there to come clean about?"
Actually, from the Dem/"lifelong republican" perspective, it makes perfect sense.
What the dems/"lifelong republicans" want is to spend months interviewing every single Trump associate, relative, campaign personnel, transition team, grade school chums, university chums, etc while ignoring EVERY OTHER THING.
Ask the Trumpees questions over and over and over again until one of them gets a date or hour estimate wrong from years ago.
Voila! Collusion confirmed! (that was the exact formula for getting Scooter Libby in the fake "Where in the World is the "Outer" of Valerie Plame" game the dems played).
We all knew if the first 15 minutes it was Powell's boy Armitage at State, but hey, that wasn't going to satisfy the political needs of the dems.
"You are kindred spirits indeed."
We have little in common, besides thinking that one's principles are worth keeping. I'd say the same for ARM and a few other commenters here.
And if you don't split the coalition by joining the Democrats in destroying him while excusing their abuse of the power of the state, Chuck.
Brando said...And to suggest that all of this might be reason for a thorough outside investigation to find out exactly what's going on here? Well clearly you're not on the Team, so back to the gulag for you, Comrade!
You know, Brando, that's exactly how I felt about the IRS scandal during the Obama administration--about the IRS' gross misuse of its power in service of punishing Tea Party and non-Left aligned groups.
Thinking back, it doesn't seem like much came of that "thorough outside investigation," huh? Hell, Koskinen still gets a fucking paycheck from the IRS!
But this time's different, I guess.
"We have little in common, besides thinking that one's principles are worth keeping."
Spit my coffee on that one.
Inga: "We have little in common, besides thinking that one's principles are worth keeping."
"principles"
LOL
Looks like "just the facts"-Inga has pushed "don't need no fancy facts to make accusations"-Inga back into the basement.
Just wait until she gets back out!
We Republicans aren't losing. We're winning; if only Trump doesn't fuck it up.
4/4/17, 12:20 PM
And what is the purpose of winning, if the government keeps expanding?
I don't give a good goddamn if the GOP wins or not, if their only job is to drive the car off the cliff at 50 mph instead of at 85 mph.
What is needed is exposure of who was surveilled, for how long, and why. If it was the Russians that were to point there should be little to no coverage of Trump and Co. when they were NOT on the phone with Russians, agreed? So let us see all that was covered. Don't need the details of the interactions just who was on the line for the interactions. If there are any calls collected that did not include Russians, heads need to roll, agreed?
That's fine with me, Todd. A big, no-holds-barred investigation. Into all of that. And more, maybe. Agreed?
Maybe the Democrats have a good idea, in terms of an independent commission, of former judges and prosecutors and intel chiefs. It wouldn't bother me in the least, if Susan Rice, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner and Donald Trump all wound up in federal prison.
"But this time's different, I guess."
Well for starters the Administration is in Republican hands right now, and Republicans control both houses of Congress. If they cocked it up that would be on them.
"We have little in common, besides thinking that one's principles are worth keeping."
That's the funniest thing I've read all day!
Inga's "principles" boil down to: "It's OK, if we do it."
"lifelong republican" Chuck appears very very upset that the obambi police-state apparatus is being exposed.
Why might that be one wonders?
"We have little in common" Oh come now Inga, you have lots in common. Inflated sense of your own worth and opinion, alcohol abuse, fetish for Obama and Maddow, etc etc etc.
"And what is the purpose of winning, if the government keeps expanding?"
Not to spoil it for you, but that's going to happen with the current gang no matter what.
Now that the facts are coming out about Inga's and Chucks Stasi-like pals, it's very very important that we shut this whole thing up inside a "insiders" "independent" (there is no such thing) "commission" where, again, all info will be bottled up with selected leaks attacking Trump and the republicans are oozing out each and every week over the entire period of the investigation.
Yeah, lets go with a whole bunch of anti-Trump establishment types taking control! What a perfect recipe for the "truth" to come out.
It seems to me the truth is starting to have no trouble coming out now that the whistleblowers are making their voices heard.....
...oh, right. The whistleblowers are bringing out the truth! So thats why we have to accelerate to an establishment "independent commission"!
LOL
Could the tactics here be any more transparent and laughable?
Don Lemon at CNN-We are not going to cover this story
Washington Post-Democracy dies in darkness
Just wow. How is this even happening in America?
As I have explained before, Chuck's entire persona is tied to his being right and shoving it in your face. During the campaign, he spent day after day here explaining in detail how Trump was going to lose, and, when Trump won, all that effort spent setting up the "I told you so" post election routine was for naught. This is a recurring theme with Chuck- the latest is the the Trump tweets accusing the Obama Administration of spying on him before and after the election- Chuck was out immediately saying that there was no support for this accusation and that Trump needed to provide the evidence. Now that the evidence is starting to come out, and it shows Trump was likely correct, another "I told you so" routine goes up in flames.
If Rice was spying on Trump for expressly political purposes, wouldn't it have made sense to release whatever information they had before the election rather than wait and see some of it dribble out after the election?
Let’s not complain too much about Chuck and Inga. Someone has to take the opposing view in real debate. If they did not exist it would be necessary to invent them.
Chuck is a perfect representative of the eGOP/Paul Ryan-type congressional quislings and Inga could be the soul sister of Katrina vanden Heuvel. They’re natural allies, as Ryan and the rest of the eGOP numb-nuts in Congress have amply demonstrated in years past with their ineffective, laughable “opposition” to the Democrats. So … let’s not look gift horses in the mouth.
I want to hear the truth from somebody I might believe.
And Susan Rice fits that bill nicely – right?
It's clear that Schiff-ty saw something that gave him pause because for the first time in about 8 months he clammed right up after viewing the documents just the other day.
Yes. When Schiff did not ridicule, downgrade or deny the evidence he saw in the Whitehouse meeting … that told me that the evidence Schiff saw was significant and a potential vindication of Trump’s wiretapping tweet. What is NOT said can often be more informative than what WAS said.
I'm the guy who has been linking to the Wall Street Journal, the National Review and the Weekly Standard for so many years here.
All reliable mouthpieces for the eGOP quislings. And firmly against Trump. All who would rather that Hillary had won so that they could continue their pointless, sleepy existence of pimping irrelevant, obscure rightwing issues while the Democrats steal the intelligence agencies, the IRS and pass Obamacare. No surprise there. Of course Chuck LOVES those news outlets.
I knew Trump would be vindicated but I did not realize it would happen this fast.
pacwest: "Just wow. How is this even happening in America?"
This is what happens everywhere cookies and Inga's pals get sufficient control. We were one election away from a Hillary Presidency and a SC nomination from losing our first amendment (like Europe and Canada) and second amendment rights. With all the others falling by the wayside is time.
Inga's pals already had the bulk of the surveillance state in place and fully energized...until Trump. The lefties are busy as little beavers doing everything they can to turn the clock back to Nov 8 and undo the results. By Any Means Necessary...with the help of their "lifelong republican" associates.
What needs to be done here is pretty clear to me, but I doubt it happens. A public hearing before a Congressional committee where all the major players are subpoenaed and put under oath. The intelligence heads can determine what can be safely made public about the surveillance, and it can be declassified so that the testifiers can't hide behind national security. You also ask them if they are the sources for the media stories- get them under oath denying or confirming it.
They never expected him to have a chance, suddenly after the election, it's all hands on deck to destroy him.
But we don't need to speculate about motives, she is a proven liar who has been caught.
President-Mom-Jeans said...
"We have little in common" Oh come now Inga, you have lots in common. Inflated sense of your own worth and opinion, alcohol abuse, fetish for Obama and Maddow, etc etc etc.
"President-Mom-Jeans":
Just to be clear; are you alleging -- with no evidence to support it -- that I have an "alcohol abuse" problem?
cc: Ann Althouse
If people had good arguments to support their opinions they wouldn't need engage in lying and personal attacks.
ARM: "If Rice was spying on Trump for expressly political purposes, wouldn't it have made sense to release whatever information they had before the election rather than wait and see some of it dribble out after the election?"
Perfectly reasonable question.
Except...no one thought Hillary would really lose. None of them.
Plus there really isn't any "there" there, otherwise this MSM/DEM cabal would have had zero compunction in facilitating the leaking and dissemination.
After the election, they had to cover their tracks before the "new sheriff in town" showed up and asked, hey, this is some really interesting stuff here......eh?
So, voila! "collusion eleventy!!!" "Russian (not) (fake) Dossier eleventy!!!" "pay no attention to those folks over there by all those intercepts!!!"
There is no collusion.
There is only the weaponization of the state intel apparatus.
Which has now been exposed...a bit. More to come as the Intel professionals push back and continue their whistleblower tactics to make sure these political activities come to light.
Regardless of how much distress that causes Chuck or Inga.
ARM asked:
"If Rice was spying on Trump for expressly political purposes, wouldn't it have made sense to release whatever information they had before the election rather than wait and see some of it dribble out after the election?"
It is becoming very clear that none of the evidence they collected was actually damaging, and leaking it before the election ran the risk of damaging Clinton. As I have pointed out over and over- not a single shred of evidence supports the Russian collusion story- all of it is innuendo. After the election, and knowing Trump was going to have access to the evidence, only then did they throw caution to the wind- all of their actions after November 8th have the clear smell of desperation over them.
I believe that Laslo documented that in great detail, Vichy Chuck.
CC: Go fuck yourself.
CC: Greta Van Susternen
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Just to be clear; are you alleging -- with no evidence to support it -- that I have an "alcohol abuse" problem?"
Perhaps it's related to a certain dossier we have seen on you which is not complimentary. Or perhaps you have autism. There are certain symptoms of which we have become aware.
Alls fair, eh?
Blogger AReasonableMan said..."If Rice was spying on Trump for expressly political purposes, wouldn't it have made sense to release whatever information they had before the election rather than wait and see some of it dribble out after the election?"
An obvious response (which doesn't necessarily make it correct) is they found nothing to release.
Inga said...
We have little in common, besides thinking that one's principles are worth keeping. I'd say the same for ARM and a few other commenters here.
Obama spying on political enemies with the powers of the police state is now a principle worth keeping.
You are not good people.
Inga said...
If people had good arguments to support their opinions they wouldn't need engage in lying and personal attacks.
That needs an "irony" tag.
"What needs to be done here is pretty clear to me, but I doubt it happens. A public hearing before a Congressional committee where all the major players are subpoenaed and put under oath. The intelligence heads can determine what can be safely made public about the surveillance, and it can be declassified so that the testifiers can't hide behind national security. You also ask them if they are the sources for the media stories- get them under oath denying or confirming it."
Careful, Yancey, you're getting a little close to my POV!
That can and should happen. I'm a lot more interested in deterring the Russians from trying this again--short-sighted Trumpers seem to forget this could just as easily be used against Republicans next time. Their fear that this will uncover actual colluding by Trump or his top advisers is silly--colluding was unnecessary and would be an unforced error of mind boggling stupidity.
If Rice was spying on Trump for expressly political purposes, wouldn't it have made sense to release whatever information they had before the election rather than wait and see some of it dribble out after the election?
Yes, it would. But apparently they got nothing on Trump and so could not leak what they did not find. I’m astonished that Trump is apparently such a clean-liver and straight-shooter that they couldn’t dredge up any dirt.
Now that the facts are coming out about Inga's and Chucks Stasi-like pals, it's very very important that we shut this whole thing up inside a "insiders" "independent" (there is no such thing) "commission … "
Ryan and Pelosi are yearning for a commission or better yet a “special prosecutor.” For the rest of Trump’s term they could manufacture a leak anytime they needed a distraction. Like right now, with the Rice Revelations.
The hilarious thing about dopey lefty shills like Michelle Goldberg is that they are incapable of even the most elemental extrapolations. If the Obama administration can use the nation’s intelligence agencies to spy on its political enemies third-world-despot style, then surely it’s fair for Trump to do the same.
"What needs to be done here is pretty clear to me, but I doubt it happens. A public hearing before a Congressional committee where all the major players are subpoenaed and put under oath. The intelligence heads can determine what can be safely made public about the surveillance, and it can be declassified so that the testifiers can't hide behind national security. You also ask them if they are the sources for the media stories- get them under oath denying or confirming it."
Exactly! Oops Yancy, I agreed with you, now expect the attacks to start.
Drago said... [hush][hide comment]
Inga: "Chuck has committed a cardinal sin in Trumpland, similar to the Milwaukee right wing radio talker Charlie Sykes. He never jumped on the Trump Train."
There are many people here who aren't on the Trump Train they're just not aholes about it. And since Inga's only interest here is being an ahole those people aren't useful to her like Chuck is.
Chuck called me dangerously mentally unstable and he is crying to Althouse.
Of course I realize Democrats are still reeling from an unexpected Hillary loss, and the urgency of the situation may be causing them to make some ill advised choices, and it is in light of this that I must warn them that every questionable move they make becomes a detailed roadmap for how they can expect Republicans to respond in future similar situations.
It's good to know that 4 years from now there will be no objections by Democrats when Trump appointees use every national security resource available to them to undermine their political opponents.
Of course there will be outrage, outrage that Republicans have the temerity to think they can behave like Democrats.
After the election, and knowing Trump was going to have access to the evidence, only then did they throw caution to the wind- all of their actions after November 8th have the clear smell of desperation over them.
Bingo. A brand new GE toaster goes to this player.
I think the real Inga was smarter than this one.
Inga said...
We have little in common, besides thinking that one's principles are worth keeping. I'd say the same for ARM and a few other commenters here.
Unspoken is that her only principle is Team Blue Uber Alles.
Has anybody ever seen Althouse engage Chuck?
Chuck is a perfect representative of the eGOP/Paul Ryan-type congressional quislings...
Huh. I thought I was the perfect representative of the GOP of Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. And Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton. And Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society (who probably chose Judge Gorsuch for the Supreme Court). And Hans von Spakovsky, and Prof. Bradley Smith.
If Paul Ryan and his congressional Republicans are "quislings," it sure is odd how Donald Trump, the Great Negotiator, aligned himself so closely with them on health care. And how Trumpkins in the White House are now calling for Congressmen Justin Amash and Jim Jordan to be primaried.
ARM has made something clear to me. If Rice et al. were spying on Trump (we'll see) they found nothing. Otherwise, they surely would have leaked it.
The problem with your post is you are not attempting to get at the truth. You set up the liberal argument against the Obama Admin spying with that of the liberal argument for the Obama Admin spying as if both of those arguments are the true or are arguments that move the goal posts. But it is just spin either way.
The truth is, yes, the Obama national security team had a job to do. IF they suspected illegal contact between Trump and foreign contacts then it was their DUTY to investigate. But what you [and conservatives] want to do is apply your own conspiratorial spin on the matter and pretend like Rice et al were doing something nefarious and trying to get away with something illegal. But there is no proof of that. Read the article. This is not a matter of were they collecting information on the Trump team the question is did they follow the legal channels to do so.
Again, Brando, what did the Russians do? They didn't hack the election, and there literally not a single piece of verifiable evidence the Russian government hacked any e-mails either. Which Trump supporters do you see that fear any finding about any collusion? I certainly don't since if it existed, there are literally hundreds of reporters that wouldn't hesitate to print it the minute after someone in the intelligence community leaked it- and they would have done so if there were any found. Instead, all you see is innuendo about what might plausibly have happened. The only fear I see is in Democrats who fear finding out that Obama's government found nothing at all to support the innuendo. Just look how the narrative changed in a month's time, which is the point of Ann's post here.
Brando said...
It's more than that though--notice even with a more recent entitlement (ACA) the GOP could not straight up repeal it. I imagine it'd be even harder to repeal the prescription drug Medicare benefit now. It's not just "hey let's do this to please Democrats so they're nice to us"; that ship sailed two administrations ago (if it ever really was afloat!). The problem is GOP voters--they don't want their stuff taken away any more than Dems do; they love the idea that they're for small government but when it comes time to give up stuff they get cold feet. And their elected officials only want one thing--to get re-elected. And so here we are.
The nail if found the hammer.
Democrats have evil principles. But they have principles. They will support scuzzy human beings like Obama who blatantly lie to them and use the government against political enemies. Truly wretched human beings like Hillary who blatantly sell influence. People who need no introduction like Harry Reid. True scum.
Republicans on the other hand are spineless cowards who say one thing and do another. At every level. They say they want small government as long as their goodies aren't cut. They say stuff, but when they accidentally attain power they quietly forget all the stuff they said and merrily pretend they are something else.
This is why we were founded as a constitutional republic. It wont matter soon what the politicians say though. Technology is going to eliminate all of this talk. It is what happens after that concerns me. If we have a thug like Obama in control of the powers technology will confer it will be awful. Hopefully a spineless coward is in control at that point.
"If people had good arguments to support their opinions they wouldn't need engage in lying and personal attacks."
Well said, Inga!! It is very nice to see someone from the left finally seeing the error of their ways!! Would you please pass that comment on to your Democratic representatives, DNC head, and your fellow Democrat voters, and ask that they follow your lead in renouncing the lies and personal attacks that you all have been engaging in?
grackle said...
Let’s not complain too much about Chuck and Inga. Someone has to take the opposing view in real debate. If they did not exist it would be necessary to invent them.
If they weren't here it's likely some intelligent opposition would contribute.
Levi: "Of course there will be outrage, outrage that Republicans have the temerity to think they can behave like Democrats"
We are seeing this play out in real time as the dems continue their crazy-leftward swing towards filibustering Gorsuch.
As noted yesterday, the dems have been the aggressors from the very beginning of the judge war escalations and every time the republicans respond in kind to the dems the dems/MSM/"lifelong republicans" scream like stuck pigs.
Rick, you may not sound like an insane ranter like President Mom Jeans, but really, you're no different.
WaPo has a little "wait, wait" apology piece about Rice. Comments from Dems look like this:
Rice 600
Ethics 0
Democrats are moving relentlessly from amoral to immoral. Or is it from sociopath to psychopath? Or both? Or are these redundancies?
If they weren't here it's likely some intelligent opposition would contribute.
4/4/17, 1:00 PM
I'm trying to figure exactly where this "intelligent opposition" is. Don Lemon of CNN is dumber than a stick of gum.
Blogger hombre said...
WaPo has a little "wait, wait" apology piece about Rice. Comments from Dems look like this:
Rice 600
Ethics 0
That's because they have the same principles as Inga.
"It's OK if we do it!"
"Again, Brando, what did the Russians do? They didn't hack the election, and there literally not a single piece of verifiable evidence the Russian government hacked any e-mails either. Which Trump supporters do you see that fear any finding about any collusion? I certainly don't since if it existed, there are literally hundreds of reporters that wouldn't hesitate to print it the minute after someone in the intelligence community leaked it- and they would have done so if there were any found. Instead, all you see is innuendo about what might plausibly have happened. The only fear I see is in Democrats who fear finding out that Obama's government found nothing at all to support the innuendo. Just look how the narrative changed in a month's time, which is the point of Ann's post here."
The intel agencies claim they have evidence the attacks came from Russia; either they do have such evidence or they're lying, and I'd prefer to find out.
What I don't get is why anyone would oppose a full and open inquiry to get to the bottom of this--if our intel agencies are trying to undermine the president wouldn't you want that exposed? I just haven't seen a compelling argument against opening this whole thing up.
The narrative never changed. No one ever said that Trump and Co. weren't swept up in incidental intercepts of foreign agents and thank goodness they were. The investigations would not be very good or thorough without this information. Trump erroneously said that Obama directed the survellience at him to begin with, he said Obama ordered a wiretap on him. Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas. Susan Rice did nothing outside the scope of her job.
Yancey Said
What needs to be done here is pretty clear to me, but I doubt it happens. A public hearing before a Congressional committee where all the major players are subpoenaed and put under oath. The intelligence heads can determine what can be safely made public about the surveillance, and it can be declassified so that the testifiers can't hide behind national security. You also ask them if they are the sources for the media stories- get them under oath denying or confirming it.
This assumes that the people on the requisite congressional committees are committed to serving the citizens of the United States. It is clear that both parties consider themselves above us.
What they cannot allow is for the American people to find out the Government is reading and collecting everything they say on the mobile networks. Everything.
Our job was to hunt down AQ/Tban when I was in the service. We did this with their cell phones. Starting over 15 years ago we would go through their calls, texts and contacts. If we saw a contact it was determined more information about was needed a request for their calls and texts for the last 3 months was made. The only thing that slowed this down was the need for interpreters so each team was given a certain number of priority requests for the terps time. All of the calls and texts and posts and emails and everything else are stored in archives to be brought up at whim.
I can tell you that right now this is going on unabated and and it is US citizens that are having their pasts dredged through. The real evil going on is not just Obama going after political enemies. It is the DC bureaucracy doing the same thing to us. Snowden showed people the tip of the iceberg. "Metadata" is a joke.
"Republicans on the other hand are spineless cowards who say one thing and do another. At every level. They say they want small government as long as their goodies aren't cut. They say stuff, but when they accidentally attain power they quietly forget all the stuff they said and merrily pretend they are something else."
Pretty much. It's less "big government vs small government" than it is "big government vs different big government".
Clearly we need an investigation. National security is at stake. President mom jeans is at the center of this. Obama is eager to break tradition, as an ex-president. Haul his ass in and question him. He is a private citizen and has no more rights than anyone else in our great republic.
tim in vermont said...
Chuck called me dangerously mentally unstable and he is crying to Althouse.
Not sure I believe you; do you have a link? What was the context?
Shades of my 1:10, I see Chuck (channeling Schumer) and Inga (he) have weighed in.
There must be some better explanation than the obvious, right, guys?
The Liar of Benghazi would never bend intelligence info to political advantage, would she?
Michelle Goldberg and Inga are enablers for Rice's bad behavior. Pity they can't wind up in cells on either side of Rice after she is tried and convicted.
Brando said...
What I don't get is why anyone would oppose a full and open inquiry to get to the bottom of this--if our intel agencies are trying to undermine the president wouldn't you want that exposed? I just haven't seen a compelling argument against opening this whole thing up.
That is because there isn't one. Trump was right from the start.
The problem is there are no honest actors in DC outside of Rand Paul and look how he is treated by both parties.
Trump erroneously said that Obama directed the survellience at him to begin with, he said Obama ordered a wiretap on him.
No, he did not.
Got to begin by clearing the record.
This blast form the past - dateline Nov. 18, 1992. State Dept. Official Who Searched Clinton's Passport Files Resigns
Achilles said...
...
I can tell you that right now this is going on unabated and and it is US citizens that are having their pasts dredged through. The real evil going on is not just Obama going after political enemies. It is the DC bureaucracy doing the same thing to us. Snowden showed people the tip of the iceberg. "Metadata" is a joke.
But, in fairness, Michelle Goldberg was trying to make that very point in the column that led off this blog post. Not in your technological detail, but in saying this: "Obviously, when American citizens get caught up in incidental surveillance, it raises civil liberties concerns. If Trump and his apologists wanted to argue that this incident shows the need for greater privacy protections for all Americans, they might have a point. Instead, they’re trying to pretend that the fact that they were monitored on perfectly legal surveillance is evidence of a sinister plot again them."
And Althouse glossed over that part, to focus on some imagined inconsistency on the part of Trump critics.
Big Mike... is an enabler for Trump's and Flynn's and Nunes' bad behavior. Pity he can't wind up in cells on either side of them after they are tried and convicted....
That was easy and fun.
Chuck
You are looking for nuance on a CONSERVATIVE site. You won't get it here. Mob mentality rules the day, not nuance.
Inga said...
Susan Rice did nothing outside the scope of her job.
4/4/17, 1:14 PM
Wait, so her job was to get a un-redacted spreadsheet of all of the trump people's phone calls and spread it around the government? Don't think anyone else ever made that assertion and in fact some "knowledgeable" folks have stated that doing that is actually against the law and punishable by up to 10 years in the federal pen. But sure, within the job scope.
As an aside, where is the list of the Clinton campaign and their interactions with the Russians? That does not seem to have made the light of day and I don't seem to recall any reporters asking for that call sheet. Huh?!?
Why is CNN refuting a story it refuses to cover?
#when the hack press becomes the bigger story.
For months, CNN has been all over stories that attempt to undermine the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s presidency by suggesting ties to Russia. It would be impossible to catalogue the hourly drumbeat of “new” stories on this angle that have gone on for months, despite the lack of named sources or actual evidence.
The cable news outlet heavily pushed the infamous “Russian dossier” story that was quickly harmed by BuzzFeed showing how dubious to the point of laughable the dossier was. The network’s obsession extends to running red-washed photoshopped graphics of Trump advisors in front of St. Basil’s. The Russia scare headlines run into the dozens each and every day.
You are looking for nuance on a CONSERVATIVE site. You won't get it here. Mob mentality rules the day, not nuance.
4/4/17, 1:28 PM
Yeah, the BLM crowd and pussy hat bunch, the people who scream down conservative speakers on college campuses are sure nuanced and don't have a mob mentality at all!
"Pigs in a blanket let them fry!"
Jesus, another leftist twit without an ounce of self-awareness or irony.
Todd, Susan Rice was interviewed today on the Andrea Mitchell show. She said there was no spreadsheet. I'm quite certain that she knows if she lied by saying this, she would have to repeat it under oath and if untrue it would perjure her. Where did this "spreadsheet" info come from?
Lewis Wetzel said...
"Trump erroneously said that Obama directed the survellience at him to begin with, he said Obama ordered a wiretap on him."
No, he did not.
Got to begin by clearing the record.
Here they all are, as a .jpg image:
http://crooksandliars.com/files/imagecache/post_medium/images/17/03/capture.jpg
And the text(s):
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!
6:35 AM - 4 Mar 2017
Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!
6:49 AM - 4 Mar 2017
I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!
6:52 AM - 4 Mar 2017
How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
7:02 AM - 4 Mar 2017
Now exactly what are we to presume from those Tweets, Louis Wetzel? Trump; the plain-talking straight-shooter. I know exactly how to interpret those Tweets. They are false, of course; I presume that Trump intended to communicate to readers like me, that Obama personally and illegally ordered surveillance on Trump, within Trump Tower. And indeed, that assertion by Trump is, by all knowledgeable accounts so far, false. And with all of the ensuing passage of time, and with all of the massive resources available to the President of the United States, Trump has shown nothing to substantiate the Tweets.
Susan Rice's job is to lie. Mission Accomplished.
It was the video!
"And Althouse glossed over that part, to focus on some imagined inconsistency on the part of Trump critics."
The highly illegal part is using the information as a political weapon, Chuck.
AprilApple, I doubt very much you'll see much about it on ABC News either:
"Susan Rice’s husband, Ian Cameron, is an ABC News Executive Producer"
Nice little incestuous racket they have going.
In other words, no one is supposed to notice that one government did interfere in the U.S. election — ours. For months and months, the Obama administration was spying on Trump and leaking hints of its investigation to the press in the hopes of helping Hillary, who, by the way, colluded in the effort. Yet even the ruthless partisan Adam Schiff can’t “definitively” cite a single proof of collusion on Trump’s part, as he reluctantly acknowledged on Sunday. Given all the spying and leaking on Trump, wouldn’t we know by now if they had any evidence of collusion?
Chuck quoted...Obviously, when American citizens get caught up in incidental surveillance, it raises civil liberties concerns. If Trump and his apologists wanted to argue that this incident shows the need for greater privacy protections for all Americans, they might have a point. Instead, they’re trying to pretend that the fact that they were monitored on perfectly legal surveillance is evidence of a sinister plot again them
Straw man. Massive, dry, flammable straw man.
Lots of American citizens are picked up as part of legal monitoring, daily. What are their names? You don't know, I don't know...because their names aren't released. Their names aren't unmasked and spread around. The names of Trump associates, though, were. That's the problem.
It's ridiculous to pretend "people incidentally monitored but whose names are kept secret (even within the government)" and "people incidentally monitored whose names are unmasked and whose details (of the monitoring) are spread around in an attempt to do political and personal harm" are the same thing.
You know they're not the same, Chuck. Michelle Goldberg does, too, but she's acting as a pro-Dem political operative. What's your excuse?
"Given all the spying and leaking on Trump, wouldn’t we know by now if they had any evidence of collusion?"
No, we wouldn't. The investigation is ongoing and no conclusions have been published, or leaked.
"Todd, Susan Rice was interviewed today on the Andrea Mitchell show. She said there was no spreadsheet. I'm quite certain that she knows if she lied by saying this, she would have to repeat it under oath and if untrue it would perjure her. Where did this "spreadsheet" info come from?"
Inga so touchingly believes whatever Democrat party hacks tell her. Rice lied once on TV about Benghazi and got away with it. She undoubtedly believes she can get away with it again.
Inga said...
The narrative never changed. No one ever said that Trump and Co. weren't swept up in incidental intercepts of foreign agents and thank goodness they were. The investigations would not be very good or thorough without this information. Trump erroneously said that Obama directed the survellience at him to begin with, he said Obama ordered a wiretap on him. Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas. Susan Rice did nothing outside the scope of her job.
Except the law explicitly states you can't do this and the intent of the law when written was to protect American citizens from this kind of collection and prosecution. The 4th amendment is crystal fucking clear. I guarantee you if Bush had done the same thing to Obama in 2008 Inga would be calling for Bush to be prosecuted and the entire republican party would be right there with her.
Sadly the right is too cowardly to turn this on the left. What is Obama doing abroad right now? Who is he colluding with? Since he is talking to foreigners we should know what he is saying. He promised Putin he would have more flexibility after the election. What did he mean by that? We should just go snoop through all of his calls and contacts too amrite? And I would give a pretty to know what Obama and the Mullahs in Iran discussed before he started shipping pallets of money to them. And then we can start talking about Bill and Hillary's speaking fees and foundation donations from foreign countries. We should incidentally collect all of Hillary's communications and distribute them all over the government and leak them to the press.
From her own mouth Inga admits that the left including voters like herself are completely without conscience and morality. They would never countenance Trump doing the same thing to Hillary and Obama. They are purely driven by a will to power. They have only one principle and that is to take and maintain power.
I see that once again, Chuck has made himself the center of attention. Hmmm....
The fact that they were monitored is not proof of government abuse. (That fact that others are monitored is not proof that the Trump people's monitoring WASN'T an abuse, but put that aside)>
The fact that the normally-redacted details of that monitoring were intentionally made public at the direction of political operatives, using the power and national security tools of the State, is proof of abuse.
Honestly, it's pretty straightforward.
~Hope doth spring eternal~
A slight Alexander Pope misquote, but we are talking about Susan Rice. And certainly hoping for something, something like a public scourging. We may even get her booted out of the Oval Office. Along with the man who puts his shoes on the furniture.
Yes, hope doth spring eternal.
Inga said...
Todd, Susan Rice was interviewed today on the Andrea Mitchell show. She said there was no spreadsheet. I'm quite certain that she knows if she lied by saying this, she would have to repeat it under oath and if untrue it would perjure her. Where did this "spreadsheet" info come from?
4/4/17, 1:34 PM
Update: In response to a question Tuesday from NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell, former Obama White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice denied that she “prepared” spreadsheets of surveilled telephone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides. The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group, however, reported that Rice “ordered” the spreadsheets to be produced.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/susan-rice-ordered-spy-agencies-to-produce-detailed-spreadsheets-involving-trump/#ixzz4dJ8GxnFD
It is all about what the definition of "is" is with Democrats...
Achilles,
Where did you get your law degree?
Exiledon...
Nice little incestuous racket they have going.
Incestuous indeed.
I'm old enough to remember when a low rank service member putting panties on the head of an Iraqi prisoner was the direct responsibility of GW Bush, to the point that the NY Times insisted on it as their front page above the fold headline for 31 consecutive days.
But now, if Susan Rice does something bad, Obama had nothing whatsoever to do with it, and to suggest he did is the most sinister and contemptible of LIES LIES LIES.
What a crock of shit.
Chuck I wonder how many posters here are Russian bots--just asking.
During the campaign, CNN was an embarrassing ad campaign for Hillary.
Inga said...
Susan Rice did nothing outside the scope of her job.
We know some things Susan Rice did but not everything, so how could anyone reach this conclusion? We again we see Inga's analysis is limited to supporting Team Blue without regard to the facts.
Inga: "Todd, Susan Rice was interviewed today on the Andrea Mitchell show. She said there was no spreadsheet. I'm quite certain that she knows if she lied by saying this, she would have to repeat it under oath and if untrue it would perjure her"
That would be Susan "Benghazi Video" Rice.
That would be Susan "Just Days Ago I Denied Unmasking Occurred But Now I Say "oh THAT Unmasking" Rice.
Yep.
Totally credible.
Totally.
"... I wonder how many posters here are Russian bots--just asking."
Drago!
(Just kidding!)
Inga said... "Todd, Susan Rice was interviewed today on the Andrea Mitchell show. She said there was no spreadsheet. I'm quite certain that she knows if she lied by saying this, she would have to repeat it under oath and if untrue it would perjure her. Where did this "spreadsheet" info come from?"
re: Rice's veracity: Wasn't it convenient that Mitchell didn't ask her why she lied to a PBS journalist just two weeks ago on this very topic?
Oh, and just days ago, anything Flynn did before Trump even took office was Trump's fault.
Francisco D said...
I see that once again, Chuck has made himself the center of attention. Hmmm....
Look; my first post in this comments section was addressed purely to Althouse. I didn't mention any other commenter.
Then, as is the pattern, the wave of personal attacks on me started.
That is the pattern.
If that bothers other commenters who aren't nearly as interested in me as they are in the subject post and in Althouse's writing, I agree. I have always been surprised that the level and persistency of personal attacks on me have been allowed by Althouse, because I think it detracts from the overall quality of her blog.
Inga said...
Achilles,
Where did you get your law degree?
You can't be serious.
So I guess it would be OK for Trump to go through all of Hillary and Obama's communications "incidentally?" Lets just go for all of his associates too like Jarett and Schumer. That's just one of the perks of being in power right? Or is that only for democrats?
Well OK then I am sure they have nothing to hide. Since whomever is in power gets to do this now it is OK by Inga.
You are a cliche. A really dumb and evil cliche.
Have Rice testify under oath.
roesch/voltaire: "Chuck I wonder how many posters here are Russian bots--just asking"
All of them! Including you!
Seriously dude, the 80's called and they want their foreign policy back! (a noted Democrat Messiah President told me that not that long ago)
BTW, after almost 100 years, the lefties finally come around to the idea that maybe the russkies aren't our bestest buddies. Of course, if the Russkies decided they were Soviets again every single lefty here would immediately fall back into line.
Heck, if Putin converted to Islam he would immediately shut up every leftist in the western world.
"Clearly we need an investigation. National security is at stake. President mom jeans is at the center of this. Obama is eager to break tradition, as an ex-president. Haul his ass in and question him. He is a private citizen and has no more rights than anyone else..."
Actually, it would be quite interesting legally. Obama essentially has absolute criminal immunity for anything he did while President. The sole legal remedy against illegal Presidential acts is impeachment, which is moot now, as Obama is no longer in office. Which essentially would place him in a similar position to people who have been granted immunity in order to get them to testify. If they have immunity, they cannot legally plead the 5th Amit as justification for not testifying. They cannot incriminate themselves because they are immune from any criminal ramifications of their testimony. They either have to testify, or a judge can, and often does, throws them in jail for contempt until they do. And then the question arises, how do you jail a former President, with lifetime Secret Service protection, for contempt? Do you jail his SS detail too? Do they get to keep their machine guns? Fun to contemplate.
"Todd, Susan Rice was interviewed today on the Andrea Mitchell show. She said there was no spreadsheet. I'm quite certain that she knows if she lied by saying this, she would have to repeat it under oath and if untrue it would perjure her. Where did this "spreadsheet" info come from?"
Susan Rice was interviewed on March 22nd on NPR. She said, ‘I know nothing’ about unmasking of Trump officials. I'm quite certain that she knows if she lied by saying this, she would have to repeat it under oath and if untrue it would perjure her. Where did this "unmasking" info come from?"
"That is the pattern."
Exactly, it never fails to happen.
Inga: "Have Rice testify under oath."
Brilliant! What insight!
But you won't mind if we spend just a weee bit more time collecting background documents to "help" Ms Rice "remember" things like unmasking the names of American citizens prior to unleashing that info into the obama-cloud of expanded raw intelligence consumers, would you?
After all, all your democrat pals in the intel agencies have been slow walking their responses to requests by the investigative committees for information.
I'm sure there is nothing to that non-responsiveness. Nope. Why, just some simple "housecleaning" that has no doubt been "disrupted" by a certain pesky House Chairman who seems to have the actual document identifiers and location information from whistleblowers!
Darn it!
"lifelong republican" Chuck: " I have always been surprised that the level and persistency of personal attacks on me have been allowed by Althouse, because I think it detracts from the overall quality of her blog."
How dare Althouse run her blog her way? Who does she think she is ignoring Chucks advice?
Well, harrumph!
I don't mind at all Drago, take all the time you need and make sure you volunteer your services to the FBI, I'm sure they'll need your help.
"That's not a spreadsheet, it's a flow chart"
Inga: "I don't mind at all Drago, take all the time you need and make sure you volunteer your services to the FBI, I'm sure they'll need your help."
Normally a funny laugh line. After 8 years of obambi however.......
roesch/voltaire said...
Chuck I wonder how many posters here are Russian bots--just asking."
I am Slav, but not Rooskie.
I'll bet you were telling conservatives back in the '70's and '80's - when the USSR was actually a real threat - that they were silly to be so concerned about the Commies in the Kremlin. What paranoia!
After all, don't Russians love their children too?
Darn, Shepard Smith is off today. Guess I'll have to get my fill of lefty apologia from Inga.
J2: "That's not a spreadsheet, it's a flow chart"
It's a hat! A broach! A pterodactyl!
Anything but a spreadsheet!
Chuck said...
If that bothers other commenters who aren't nearly as interested in me as they are in the subject post
I'm greatly amused by this claim since Chuck's MO is turning Althouse posts not about Trump into comment threads all about Trump. But now he wants to pose as someone who stays on topic!
People like this seem to think everyone else wakes up each day not remembering anything about what has come before.
And Drago, if you're a Disinformation Troll for Russia, I'd avoid volunteering your services with the FBI...
(Just kidding!)
exiled: "After all, don't Russians love their children too?"
So many fond memories of the lefties doing whatever they could thru their Soviet front groups undermining American interests globally.
Remember, you can't hug your kids with nuclear arms!
Hey, all the lefties wanted was a nuclear-free world. Is that so bad? Of course not.....
....but the Western allies first! Always the western allies first. 'cuz (insert latest lefty excuse here)
Even the WaPo notes that Rice is an inveterate liar.
Inga is indeed dumb and evil. She is also clearly in the hallucination stage that Scott Adams describes.
Note that she never responds to the substantive points brought up by others but always falls back to strawmen of her own bundling.
And that (just kidding) routine of hers reflects a juvenile personality.
Chuck's stupid 'surveillance isn't wire-tapping so Trump is lying sack-o-shit' position and his whining to Ms. Althouse suggest someone with serious mental issues and perhaps early onset dementia. He should seek professional help. Really.
That he complains about the quality of commenters here is risible.
Liver moron good handle BTW.
Rick: "People like this seem to think everyone else wakes up each day not remembering anything about what has come before."
History begins anew each day for our leftists. That makes it much better for rewriting it, a skill which the left has mastered.
Obambi's flexibility? US Uranium? Payoffs to Clinton? Soviet funding of anti-frackers?
All, and too many more to list, forgotten the moment they were exposed.
Blogger Chuck said...
Lewis Wetzel said...
"Trump erroneously said that Obama directed the survellience at him to begin with, he said Obama ordered a wiretap on him."
No, he did not.
Got to begin by clearing the record.
Chuck agrees with me, and provides documentary evidence.
Good show, Chuck, surprised to find you on Team Trump!
Honestly, hearing Lindsay Graham this morning sending signals that he is going to get to the bottom of all this unmasking and leaking from the Senate side ought to give one hope.
McCain is still dancing to whatever tune the dems are whistling (just as with Keating and the comically false "russian" "dossier"). He'll always be the dems patsy, but Graham is capable of leading the charge.
"Remember, you can't hug your kids with nuclear arms!"
And I'd be willing to bet that RV had a VW with every friggin' brain-dead lefty cliché bumper sticker plastered all over it.
But that was then. Now he's all indignant about the Kremlin.
But Iran? No problem there!
Ann and Katie Pavlich get it.
"Democrats have gone from: Trump is insane for suggesting Obama admin spied on him ---> Susan Rice was just doing her job."
exiled: "But that was then. Now he's all indignant about the Kremlin. But Iran? No problem there"
The left has made common cause with another existential threat to the west (as they always do), and this one is radical islam.
Which, apparently, has nothing to do with Islam, according to the ever-helpful left. Which is why Putin should convert immediately and get his Western Lefty "Get Out Of Jail" card!
And Inga continues to display that scintillating wit and dexterous mental agility that we've all come to expect.
No adolescent personality disorder for her! (just kidding)
How are your pretend children btw?
I wonder why Inga does not care where Hillary's campaign manager got 75,000 unreported shares of Gazprom? No I don't!
Paging Dr. Francisco D....
AprilApple: ""Democrats have gone from: Trump is insane for suggesting Obama admin spied on him ---> Susan Rice was just doing her job.""
That's nothing. There are some dems/lefties who, as always, have demonstrated full capability to argue BOTH positions SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Needless to say they do this effortlessly.
Livermoron: "How are your pretend children btw"
Correction: daughters. Always daughters. Daughters in combat. Daughters in the medical field. Daughters who are lawyers. Daughters in government. Daughter engineers, space explorers, diesel truck mechanics, trainers of dolphins, daughters who climb on rocks, tough daughters, sissy daughters, why, even daughters with chickenpox!
So many fond memories of the lefties doing whatever they could thru their Soviet front groups undermining American interests globally.
It was called the popular front by Stalin's politburo. The idea was to turn the movers and shakers in the intellectual and artistic classes of the West into commie stooges. The results exceeded all expectations. American elites were supposed to be especially susceptible to this manipulation because, as a young country, we had no long standing traditions in the liberal arts to fall back on, to give us a "truth check" (the Aussies were supposed to have a similar weakness).
We flatter ourselves if we think that it is only the Russians and Eastern Europeans who are paying the price for seven decades of rule by the commies. Even the Israel/Palestinian conflict has its roots in the cold war -- the Russkis trained and paid the PLO terrorists.
It's called "doublethink" in their "how to" book, 1984.
Tim, the LLR will be here shortly to point out that Podesta DID NOT GET 75,000 shares of Gazprom!: They were placed in an account of his and he never even held them in his hand.
Paging Dr.Franciso D... stat....
Lewis: "We flatter ourselves if we think that it is only the Russians and Eastern Europeans who are paying the price for seven decades of rule by the commies. Even the Israel/Palestinian conflict has its roots in the cold war -- the Russkis trained and paid the PLO terrorists."
And........? What side of the ME conflict does the western left find itself on?
The side of the only democracy that is being attacked on all sides but provides civil liberties and liberal policies for all its citizens?
Absolutely not.
The left sides with the murderous islamic extremists.
Unexpectedly.
And since we are talking about foreign interference in elections, is now a bad time?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/
Actually, I think Putin should send flowers and chocolates to the American media and their gulliable parrots like Inga and RV thanking them for Making Russia Scary Again. Here I thought Russia was a second rate power with a sharply declining birthrate which stands to lose a lot of power due to our fracking and natural gas production. But, thanks to the Dems and their flunkies and tools, old Vlad has become the World's Greatest Geopolitical Mastermind. Think of how great that must make the Russians feel! What a boost to their self-esteem!
Drago, don't forget Honduran and Guatemalan elections as well.
Paging Dr.Franciso D... stat...."
Inga forgets that Dr. D is not exactly a liberal.
However, unlike her, he's actually a pro, a trained physician and so doesn't do snap Internet diagnoses of people he has never met.
And........? What side of the ME conflict does the western left find itself on?
It is a long time ago, now, and most people have forgotten this, but Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a client state of the USSR up until 1991. The Palestinians openly took the side of crazed fascist genocidal murderer Saddam Hussein against the Arab/Western coalition that freed Kuwait.
The question that no one seems to be asking is why did Susan Rice have the power to unmask identities of US Persons whose communications were supposedly innocently intercepted? Rush pointed something out today - Rice worked in the White House, and the White House doesn't do investigations. They have the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. for that. That is where investigations are initiated (or, in the case of the FBI, the DoJ), and that is where they are conducted. Or, that is what is supposed to happen.
The key thing here is that those authorized to unmask identities are supposed to either be confirmed by the Senate, or work for someone who has to be confirmed. Which means that such a Senate confirmee can be impeached or otherwise removed from office for malfeasance, which includes abuse of the power to unmask the identities of US Persons who are not official, legal, targets of FISA warranted intercepts. The National Security Advisor is a personal aid of the President, and serves only at the discretion of the President. They are not subject to Senate confirmation, and cannot be removed by impeachment. Why was Rice in a position that did not require Senate confirmation? Because of Benghazi, or, more accurately, that, while UN Ambassador, she went on the Sunday shows and lied through her teeth to the American people about the cause behind the attack there on our consulate, that ended in the deaths of 4 Americans. With the Republicans in control of the Senate, she wasn't going to get confirmed as dog catcher, more/less in any office of importance.
Which is a long way of saying that her unmasking of identities, or ordering the spreadsheet of Trump people, was not within her job function. It intentionally was not. She could request that the NSA, CIA, etc. perform investigations, but she had no legal authority to be part of them, or, as appears here, to have run such.
This, BTW, gets back to my point last night that what the Obama people did was nibble a bit around the edges here, and there, and all of a sudden, there is a hole big enough to drive a freight train through. Every little step was small, and probable defendable, but in the end, you have a complete abrogation of the intent of the law.
"However, unlike her, he's actually a pro, a trained physician and so doesn't do snap Internet diagnoses of people he has never met."
I should note that Dr. D did offer his help to a commenter here a few night ago.
It was Inga.
"Are you actually arguing that Obama eschews the academic left's romantic view of Castro and Guevara? Or, do you assume it's probably true, but want to play a little game? I suspect it's the latter." Me, too. Also, since "Il Dufe" tells us that he gets his dreams from his father, and his father was a communist, it isn't too much of a stretch to think that the Red Diaper Baby in the White House has at least a warm regard for Castro and Chavez. The Left has been having crushes on Commie dictators for decades now.
Lewis Wetzel: That is the most Trump thing I have seen this week. Your straight-faced claim that the complete text of the March 4 Trump Tweets does not demonstrate that "Trump... said that Obama directed surveillance at him [and that Trump] said Obama ordered a wiretap on him."
We have nothing to discuss. There is no common ground; no common set of reasonably-understood facts from which to work.
I will not lose sleep over it. There are plenty of people on the Left -- the John Conyerses, Maxine Waterses, Elizabeth Warrens, Jerry Browns, Bill McKibbins -- with whom we/I have so little in common, that any attempt at discussion is pointless. But that's the Left.
It is, however, a bit bothersome that now our side is so divided, and with so little hope of any reconciliation. Trump Republicans versus non-Trump Republicans.
"Trump... said that Obama directed surveillance at him [and that Trump] said Obama ordered a wiretap on him."
Trump did not say this, Chuck. I hope that we can agree on that.
Lewis: "It is a long time ago, now, and most people have forgotten this, but Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a client state of the USSR up until 1991."
Those of us who had the pleasure of engaging the weapons systems supplied by the Soviets and some others to Iraq at that time were well aware of where those weapons came from.
It has always amused me when the lefty liars line up to say the US was some big supplier of weapons to Iraq. Just another on lie on the mountain of leftist prevarications as they undermine the US.
There was a very good Rand Global Arms Exports Study that documented where the Iraqis had acquired all of their weapons from 1960 up to 1990 and the lead in to the First Gulf War.
Andy McCarthy:
"[W]hile not a pillar of rectitude, Ms. Rice is not an idiot. Besides being shrewd, she was a highly involved, highly informed consumer of intelligence, and a key Obama political collaborator. Unlike the casual reader, she would have known who the Trump-team players were without needing to have their identities unmasked. Do you really think her purpose in demanding that names be revealed was to enhance her understanding of intelligence about the activities and intentions of foreign targets? Seriously?
I'm betting it was so that others down the dissemination chain could see the names of Trump associates -- names the investigating agencies that originally collected the information had determined not to unmask."
Ace of Spades continues:
"Why would Obama suddenly allow broad dissemination of intel reports in his last days in office, making it impossible to find a leaker?
Why would Rice demand unmaskings of persons whose identities she probably knew in reports that had nothing to do with any criminal or counter-espionage probe?
The two moves were required together to start the conveyer belt of leaks from Rice, Clapper, and the whole gang to their co-conspirators at CNN and the Washington Post. The two work in tandem to propel the information across the national sea, like the sail that catches the wind and the mast that transfers the wind's power into the ship itself.
And that's why CNN is so furiously attacking a Real News story: They're protecting their sources, and protecting their own asses as well: In any genuine criminal probe of the leaks, CNN reporters could be sent to jail on a judge's contempt order if they refuse to reveal their sources, just as Judith Miller was ordered to jail for refusing to give up her sources in the Valerie Plame investigation."
Exactly. Watergate was nothing next to this. But this time, the reporters aren't "speaking truth to power" because they're an integral part of the whole rotten thing.
Blogger Bruce Hayden said..."The question that no one seems to be asking is why did Susan Rice have the power to unmask identities of US Persons whose communications were supposedly innocently intercepted?"
Thank you for your post, Bruce. Illuminating.
Lewis Wetzel:
I expect that the only goddamned thing that we could ever agree on, is the exact words of what Trump Tweeted.
I posted those words so that other readers could look at them and make up their own minds about what a plain English interpretation might yield.
@ Chuck, the so called fopdoodle.
Nobody believes you.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "It is, however, a bit bothersome that now our side is so divided, and with so little hope of any reconciliation. Trump Republicans versus non-Trump Republicans"
Uh no, dummy.
It's the same old mix of some libertarians and then conservatives thru to moderates and some liberals.
What's different now is all the new, formerly democrat Trump Democrats. Those folks that swung by 20 points or more so many mid-western rural counties.
They are the "Always Trumpers". The "True Believers". Everyone else is what they have always been but most of us refuse to put up with the democrat BS that you embrace.
No wonder you were so blind-sided. You don't have a clue as to who comprises the republican base. None at all.
"Think of how great that must make the Russians feel! What a boost to their self-esteem!"
October 2007: Trump said Putin's doing a great job
December 2011: Trump praised Putin's "intelligence" and "no-nonsense way" in his book "Time to Get Tough."
June 2013: Trump wonders if Putin will be his "new best friend"
October 2013: Trump says Putin is outsmarting the US
July 31, 2015: Trump says they'd get along
Oct. 11, 2015: Trump says they had good ratings together
Nov. 10, 2015: Trump reiterates that he and Putin "were stablemates"
Dec. 17, 2015: Trump returns Putin's praise
Dec. 18, 2015: Trump defends against allegations Putin has ordered the killings of journalists
Feb. 17: Trump says he'd be "crazy" to disavow Putin's praise
April 28: Trump says maybe they'll get along
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-quotes/
Trump’s Response to Being Told Putin Is ‘a Killer’: The U.S. Isn’t ‘So Innocent
http://fortune.com/2017/02/05/trump-putin-us-not-so-innocent/
Wasn't the real Inga a nurse? Why would she need to consult an anonymous Dr?
This is just some fifty-center who took the handle you guys all obsess over.
I've noticed that Francisco D never defends people like Exiled. I think perhaps he treats them in his practice. Doesn't matter what political ideology he espouses, I'm sure he treats conservatives as well as liberals.
Just think Inga, all Trump has to do is praise the Russian leaders for 80 more years and he'll catch up to the left!
"I expect that the only goddamned thing that we could ever agree on, is the exact words of what Trump Tweeted."
Well, yes. Neither of us can read minds, Chuck. We can argue about what Trump meant, but what he said (or wrote on twitter) is beyond dispute (I hope).
What ever came of the two warrants that were requested? The first that was denied and the second that was approved (after removing Trump's name - the story goes) to enable all of the taps to start with? Wasn't there some sort of digging into the details and the source of the request as well as who approved and who denied them? That all skulked off into the night rather quickly...
"Wasn't the real Inga a nurse? Why would she need to consult an anonymous Dr?"
Sometimes the patient needs the doctor instead. You know, the more serious cases (exiled) Francisco D is a real psychologist, a commenter here.
Lewis: "Well, yes. Neither of us can read minds, Chuck."
Not true. Chuck has made it quite clear he knows precisely what is going on in Trumps mind as well as Trumps staff.
Again, with all that other-worldly talent and insight you'd think Chuck would be running and winning campaigns.
Alas.
Todd: "What ever came of the two warrants that were requested? The first that was denied and the second that was approved (after removing Trump's name - the story goes) to enable all of the taps to start with? Wasn't there some sort of digging into the details and the source of the request as well as who approved and who denied them? That all skulked off into the night rather quickly.."
Just more documents requested by Nunes that Inga's pals couldn't quite bring themselves to fork over.
Until now.
I suspect those will be prominent as the investigation goes forward as the obama-ites seek to justify their Reverse Monitoring spying on the Trump campaign/transition.
For our Unknown Troll from the New York Times:
The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”
The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
Blogger Inga said...
I've noticed that Francisco D never defends people like Exiled. "
I never noticed, because I never felt I needed "a defense" from Francisco D, or anybody else here really. I'm commenting on a blog, not rallying people to my "defense." I can defend myself just fine.
I like him as a commenter and often agree with him.
Lewis Wetzel said...
"I expect that the only goddamned thing that we could ever agree on, is the exact words of what Trump Tweeted."
Well, yes. Neither of us can read minds, Chuck. We can argue about what Trump meant, but what he said (or wrote on twitter) is beyond dispute (I hope).
That's right. He wrote what he wrote.
And we can argue, about what he meant. Actually, we sort of have to argue about what he meant. Because what he meant now seems to be at such odds, with what he wrote. And because Trump himself has never clarified what he meant, by what he wrote. They are astonishing allegations, begging for clarity, precision and backup information.
And Trump has provided nothing of the kind.
Which is also typical of Trump. Trump's trashtalk about how he'd win the Trump University fraud case. Trump talking trash about how his own private investigators in Hawaii were finding amazing things in relation to the Obama birth certificate. Trump playing the role of "John Miller" in a taped phone call. Trump's bizarre claims about his personal wealth in his failed libel suit against Tim O'Brien.
All weird claims, in grandiosely vague language. All complete bullshit.
Why again would Putin want a pro-fracking, pro-Keystone president when the price of oil is already collapsing, crippling his regime? I bet Unknown Troll has a theory! Or not. I actually bet she never even wondered why the Russians would want to increase the supply of oil into what they see as an already glutted market.
"I should note that Dr. D did offer his help to a commenter here a few night ago."
Yes he came at my request because I said there were two commenters that needed a shrink. He offered to help, which was mighty good of him.
"declining-quality commenters"
Is there a list?
Are you know or have you ever been a member of the declining-quality commentariat?
You don't need his defense, you need his help.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-21/opec-russia-say-oil-cuts-are-deeper-and-faster-than-expected-iy9q99bh
Making room in the market for American oil and the Keystone output, I am sure.
Not sure that the use of irony is advisable when talking to a simpleton like 'Inga.'
Post a Comment