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 401 – 600 of 676 Newer› Newest»Tim,
Get on the Crazy Land Express, it's leaving the station and all the crazies have already boarded. You don't want to be left behind do you? You'll miss all the fun stops on the route and they serve popcorn.
"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"
He was offering to help you. However, I think you're beyond all aid.
A shrink can't teach you morals you never learned.
No, he offered to help... with you.
The crazy think the sane are crazy.
I would have thought it would be obvious to anyone, regarding of political affiliation, that the combination of surveillance of political opponents and passing false rumors to the press about the content of that surveillance during a presidential campaign was poisonous to democracy.
I thought I was a cynic, but I'm quite appalled and considerably shocked by this. As for those who just don't see a problem with it - I don't know what to say.
Perhaps I am the fool here. Given the IRS political campaign to quash the speech of the wrong thinkers, I should already have accounted for the strong implication that Obama's administration (and he is directly responsible for not terminating the wrongdoing, once he found out about it in the papers) was politically weaponized. Yeah, I'm the fool here.
But I am still shocked and appalled. I have been so confused by all this Russian election BS - the "proof" shown was worse than useless - it never even provided a strong suspicion that Russians had anything to do with the DNC hack.
So it was all one innuendo campaign from the start, politically motivated, and that odd Obama press conference was an attempt to deal with the fallout. No wonder he's hiding in that resort!!
So much for President Lovely Man. He's either a dunce or a rather ugly character. He cannot have been unaware. It hurts to lose the idea that he was at least a more ethical character than many politicians.
If only! If ONLY all we had to worry about regarding the integrity of the political process were the damned Russians. But no, we've got much, much bigger problems. The whole Homeland Security top-level must be implicated in this, and all those covering statements.
Where do we go from here?
No use arguing with you, Inga, you'll believe whatever you wish to believe.
However, few here believe you.
Perhaps you can hold another conversation with your imaginary friends and tell them how awful we all are to you, poor little darling.
Chuck said...
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.
All weird claims, in grandiosely vague language. All complete bullshit.
4/4/17, 3:00 PM
So Trump tweeted that Obama was wire tapping him and you want him to clarify.
I am no Trump but I will give it a shot.
If current news can be believed Rice was privy to the conversations of Trump, his family, and his associates. This has all been undertaken while Mr. Obama was President.
What needs to be "clarified"? Apparently he was wire tapped/servailled and that information was shared around the Government with as yet NO proof that he did anything to warrant such surveillance.
Why again does HE need to prove anything? It appears that he is the victim in all this. Aren't we supposed to always believe the victim? Just asking...
@ Chuck, you so called fopdoodle
You cannot be defamed if you are an anonymous poster. You either are not an attorney or you are simply lying.
Quit it, fopdoodle.
"lifelong republican" Chuck has "courageously" avoided any mention of Susan Rice's massive public lie from just 13 days ago. That's the kind of "courage" that almost led to Chuck joining the military. Almost.
Summary of Susan Rice's comments from 13 days ago and today: That unmasking that I had absolutely no idea about or memory of 13 days ago was however absolutely justified and part of my normal duties.
It's uncanny really how Chucks Trump attacks accelerate whenever some dem gets in a bit of hot water.
Todd: "If current news can be believed Rice was privy to the conversations of Trump, his family, and his associates. This has all been undertaken while Mr. Obama was President.
What needs to be "clarified"?"
Nothing.
What you've outlined is what needs (from a dem perspective) to be obfuscated.
And our man Chuck is up to the task!
Exiled, by now when you speak to me all I hear is "blah, blah, blah, drool, spittle slurp, blah, blah, rant, blah rant, spittle slurp...."
Boring, boring, boring distractions.
When I was a much younger man, I was interested in conspiracy theories. Not the substance of them, but the psychology revealed by the text of them.
Conspiracy theorists love diagrams. They write down names and events and draw lines between them, implying a causality that does not exist. So you have (for example) a line from the FBI to L.H. Oswald (who was investigated as a turncoat), and another line from the FBI to the Secret Service (which has ex-FBI people on its payroll) who were charged with guarding Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963.
What differentiates conspiracy theories from real conspiracies is that they never go anywhere.
I know a woman who was lost in the jungle near my house for two days and nights. She tried to take a short cut between two streets. She started out following a trail -- but it was a trail made by feral pigs, not people. It didn't go anywhere.
Conspiracy theories are like that. They don't go anywhere, there is no reason to them. The narrative is only in the imagination. The investigator looks for a causal chain but it never quite comes into focus, so they draw a chaos of lines.
Umberto Eco described the psychology much better than I can in Foucault's Pendulum.
The "Trump worked with the Russians to steal the election" conspiracy theory is like that.
The "Obama wiretapped the Trump campaign" is not like that. There is a specific event (the "wiretapping") that may or may not have been legal, and the leaking of private conversations with known individuals, which was a crime. The "unmasking" of the names of Americans by Rice is tightening the focus, as is Obama's eleventh hour order to spread the intel as wide as possible.
If Inga were really an RN she would know that she is violating her profession's ethics by telling someone in public that they need psychiatric care.
But then, the real Inga wouldn't care.
MaxedOutMama said...
"I would have thought it would be obvious to anyone, regarding of political affiliation, that the combination of surveillance of political opponents and passing false rumors to the press about the content of that surveillance during a presidential campaign was poisonous to democracy.
I thought I was a cynic, but I'm quite appalled and considerably shocked by this. As for those who just don't see a problem with it - I don't know what to say."
It's simple. Leftists have revealed themselves to be amoral authoritarians who have absolutely no problem with state abuses of power that benefit their side.
They have no scruples and no principles. They are absolutely fine with an American Gestapo spying on "domestic enemies" - political opponents.
The Constitution and the rule of law do not matter to them in the slightest. They would turn this nation into a banana republic if it meant they got to hold power.
They are evil people. Not just misguided or naïve. Evil.
If Inga were really an RN she would know that she is violating her profession's ethics by telling someone in public that they need psychiatric care.
But then, the real Inga wouldn't care.
4/4/17, 3:15 PM
This thread has made it pretty clear that Inga has no ethics to speak of.
u guys have too much time on your hands....please go take a walk or something.
tits
LMoron, get aboard the Crazy Land Express, Tim, Exiled and President Mom Jeans are already aboard, Drago is the engineer and he's tooting the horn for you.
perhaps a hobby? job? maybe a book?
thank you and tits.
Good day Sir!
Sorry Exiled, I can't understand your blah blah blahs. Wipe your chin.
Birkel said...
@ Chuck, you so called fopdoodle
You cannot be defamed if you are an anonymous poster. You either are not an attorney or you are simply lying.
Why do you think I am concerned about "defamation"?
Once again Inga makes train noises, refuses to address specific issues, and misdirects. All the while advocating for positions that would establish a US Gestapo.
Your intelligence and morality are exposed for all to see. Have you, ma'am, at last, no decency?
"Why do you think I am concerned about "defamation"?"
Oh! I forgot Birkel, he's calling "All Aboard" from the Crazy Land Express. Good job Birkel, you'll get extra popcorn.
The "Obama wiretapped the Trump campaign" is not like that. There is a specific event (the "wiretapping") that may or may not have been legal, and the leaking of private conversations with known individuals, which was a crime. The "unmasking" of the names of Americans by Rice is tightening the focus, as is Obama's eleventh hour order to spread the intel as wide as possible.
But why are we still guessing about the meaning of Trump's March 4 Tweets? Why are we still mucking around about "wiretapping" being euphemism for something else? Why are we still in the dark, about what Trump meant, by asserting that Obama was a "Bad (or sick) guy"? Trump wrote about the possibility of a civil action, too. What's up with that?
It's been a month. Why hasn't Trump explained these things? He started it.
Blogger MaxedOutMama said..."I would have thought it would be obvious to anyone, regarding of political affiliation, that the combination of surveillance of political opponents and passing false rumors to the press about the content of that surveillance during a presidential campaign was poisonous to democracy."
I think, Mama, it is obvious to them. It has to be. But there is apparently something more important to them than democracy.
Whatevs, liar.
LMoron,
The discussion is basically over. I made several comments that addressed the issues, up the thread. You obviously are here only to cause trouble. So be a good nutcase and board the Crazy Land Express with the rest of them. There you go...
Just imagine: The Democrats spied on their opponent for a year.
And still lost.
Chuck said... [hush][hide comment]
The "Obama wiretapped the Trump campaign" is not like that. There is a specific event (the "wiretapping") that may or may not have been legal, and the leaking of private conversations with known individuals, which was a crime. The "unmasking" of the names of Americans by Rice is tightening the focus, as is Obama's eleventh hour order to spread the intel as wide as possible.
But why are we still guessing about the meaning of Trump's March 4 Tweets? Why are we still mucking around about "wiretapping" being euphemism for something else? Why are we still in the dark, about what Trump meant, by asserting that Obama was a "Bad (or sick) guy"? Trump wrote about the possibility of a civil action, too. What's up with that?
It's been a month. Why hasn't Trump explained these things? He started it.
4/4/17, 3:25 PM
You might still be catching up but I thought I answered this just a few comments up thread.
Why is it Trump's responsibility to further explain or defend anything? He was right. Obama was tapping him, his family, and associates and Rice spread the intel around Washington. That is was is currently coming to light. Sorry but it really looks like Trump was right, again.
I've been off doing something worth while. Editing my book for Kindle. In the mean time, it seems insanity has broken out.
Inga, try to control yourself.
OK,
Only because it's you asking and I have a great deal of respect for you Dr K!
How does one explain something like this from the increasingly "interesting" Evelyn Farkas (former Deputy Asst Sec of Defense under obambi) from last OCTOBER at a conference in Tel Aviv:
"It’s not a done deal, as you said. And so, to the Americans in the audience please vote. And not only vote but get everybody to vote. Because I really believe we need a landslide. We need an absolute repudiation of everything. All of the policies that Donald Trump has put out there. I am not afraid to be political. I am not hiding who I am rooting for. And I think it’s very important that we continue to press forward until election day and through election day to make sure that we have the right results.
I do agree however with General Breedlove that even if we have the wrong results from my perspective America is resilient. We have a lot of presidential historians who have put forward very coherent the argument – they have given us examples of all of our horrible presidents in the past and the fact that we have endured. And we do have a strong system of checks and balances. And actually, if Donald Trump were elected I believe he would be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government. And I am not even joking."
Again: "And actually, if Donald Trump were elected I believe he would be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government. And I am not even joking."
How strange. This is a gal who left the administration in 2015, yet as a Clinton campaign operative she seems very, very, very well informed.
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.
It's the leaks, Matt. That is what is illegal. And nefarious.
Inga,
You accuse me of being here just to cause problems? Why are you here? Just to be a cunt?
(just kidding)
Cunt.
Titus wins the thread.
And Doc K don't you know it's not ethical to diagnose from afar? Lol. I'm off to take a nice walk, when I get back I'd like to see some semblance of order here.
I see no diagnosis in Dr K's post. Perhaps you have become more delusional? Is that possible?
Buehler?
Chuck tends to show up most when Althouse is not actively posting.
Chuck comments get a lot of responding comments, meaning a lot of clicks.
Chuck takes pride in parsing, a skill of Althouse.
Chuck is always crying for 'help' from Althouse, or wanting her single attention: Althouse doesn't respond.
Althouse has a sly sense of humor.
Althouse is trolling us.
Althouse is Chuck.
Meade helps her with the profanities for the more outraged comments.
Well played, Althouse: well played.
I am Laslo.
Todd said...
...
Why is it Trump's responsibility to further explain or defend anything? He was right. Obama was tapping him, his family, and associates and Rice spread the intel around Washington. That is was is currently coming to light. Sorry but it really looks like Trump was right, again.
There ya go! That's the kind of straight, unequivocal answer I can deal with.
What you say, is bullshit.
Obama wasn't "tapping" anybody. Not unless -- as I pointed out above -- "tapping" is turned into a euphemism for something so vast and so far beyond the understanding of laypersons (several Trump defenders have alluded to something on that scale) that "wiretapping" is a useless term.
You don't have an order from Obama; you don't have any sort of statement from anyone about anything that Obama "ordered" in writing or verbally.
You've made no accounting for Trump's allusion to a civil cause of action. What's the basis for that? Trump called it McCarthyism. What's the basis for that?
Again I say; Trump has had a month to make clear what he meant with his series of weird little Tweets. He could start, by explaining what he meant when he said he had "just learned" of all of it. When did he "learn"? How did he "learn" of whatever it was? What exactly was the info, and how was it conveyed?
When you are President of the United States, and you accuse your predecessor of civil and/or criminal wrongdoing in your first 100 days, you had better expect that you are going to get a whole lot of hard, detailed questions.
OpenID Livermoron said...
I see no diagnosis in Dr K's post. Perhaps you have become more delusional? Is that possible?"
Inga sees words that aren't there.
However, never chalk up to insanity what can be explained by sheer stupidity.
"When you are President of the United States, and you accuse your predecessor of civil and/or criminal wrongdoing in your first 100 days, you had better expect that you are going to get a whole lot of hard, detailed questions."
-- Why? Obama was never questioned when he gave those sorts of comments. If anything, most recent history shows you can make ridiculous claims about your predecessors and be praised for it.
I agree, Trump is a lot of bluster. But, unless you assume a literal meaning for wiretapping, as opposed to the broader, colloquially meaning (electronically spied on, usually nefariously), then Trump is, in the main, right -- and if Rice was the person who ordered it/allowed it to happen/had names unmasked, he's even right that the Obama administration is to blame.
Awww, Chucky is demanding actions to explain the blasphemy against The former Wiretapper in Chief.
Everyone, immediately drop what you are doing and let President Trump know that some hysterical dimwit who pretends to be an attorney and lifelong Republican demands that he explain himself!
This cannot stand!
[Honestly, though, I see no reason to continue dissecting Trump's tweets when we've learned the intelligence arm of government was turned into a tool for opposition research. Yeah, Trump said intemperate things that are vague in a tweet. Noted. Now, about that unmasking private citizens' identities and passing it around the office to collect information about the sitting administration's political opponents...]
"when I get back I'd like to see some semblance of order here."
OK, How about this ?
We also know, from the questioning of FBI Director James Comey at last month’s hearing, that “unmasking” the names of the Americans who were involved in conversations with foreign persons is a felony, punishable by 10 years in prison. So this matter clearly involved criminal actions that must be investigated and punished. But it may not end there. According to the Wall Street Journal’s sources, the unmasking occurred on matters that had nothing to do with Russia and was circulated at least to Susan Rice, a top Obama White House official.
In speaking to the media about surveillance of people in the Trump campaign, Nunes said he thought that the intercepts themselves might have been lawful because they were “incidental” to authorized foreign intelligence activity. Perhaps, but this is a key question. It should not be assumed that, just because a foreign person—say, the Russian ambassador—was party to the intercepted conversations, that the American involved was not the real target.
The most serious issue—as is often true in criminal investigations—is motive.
Is that serious enough for you ?
Rice is going down and, while Obama will not go to prison and can't be impeached anymore, his reputation will not survive this.
I wonder if the Democratic Party will survive it.
@ Chuck, so called fopdoodle
You have claimed many times in Althouse comments that you are defamed when somebody says something about you. As an attorney, you must know you could be violating the ethical canons to make such a claim if that claim is false. You should report yourself to the state bar association if you care about ethics.
Maybe go delete those previous assertions.
Obama wasn't "tapping" anybody
Stop taking comments literally. Matthew Sablan at 3:50 +/- a minute -- he says it better than I could.
I commented earlier and Chrome seems to have munched it. My Facebook feed is curiously quiet about this. Perhaps that underlines just how serious it is for Democrats who hope the Media ignores this long enough -- and that will probably happen, as it did for the IRS, Benghazi, and many many other events under Obama that cast him in a poor light. Shame on the media if it allows this to happen again, but they have no shame I guess.
But why are we still guessing about the meaning of Trump's March 4 Tweets? Why are we still mucking around about "wiretapping" being euphemism for something else? Why are we still in the dark, about what Trump meant, by asserting that Obama was a "Bad (or sick) guy"? Trump wrote about the possibility of a civil action, too. What's up with that?
Trump's tweets are like the trail made by feral pigs (what a weird analogy). They don't go anywhere. They aren't "actionable." You learn more by watching the effect of Trump's tweets than you do from the tweet itself. That is what makes Trump the king of all internet trollers. It was great to watch Trump troll NRO back in the day. It drove them mad. He would tweet outrageous things about National Review and its writers and they had to respond to what was basically nonsense. How can you respond to "National Review is a failing publication that has lost it's way. It's circulation is way down w its influence being at an all time low. Sad!"?
But they did.
I'm sure this point is made elsewhere, but if a spreadsheet was assembled specifically to organise Trump transition-related communications, that's the missing link here, and it obviates (in practical terms, if not in terms of US law) the excuse that the collection was merely incidental. In other jurisdictions (I am thinking specifically of Korea and Japan), personal data is treated differently where it either has been or can easily be searched and linked to the individual, as opposed to situations in which an entity may have collected data in the ordinary course, but it is not in a form where it can easily be associated.
Obviously, the NSA has the underlying information on all of us who are American citizens, but at least from what I have read, that data is generally walled off.
This spreadsheet -- again, if Rice really requested its creation -- transforms the collection here from merely incidental collection of US person data into a compilation of data on the Trump transition through collation of data from other "targets." That may or may not be legal -- in general Americans don't enjoy the kind of privacy protections as people in most developed countries, and my guess would be that our courts are going to bend over backwards to avoid finding a legal violation by Rice or Obama or whoever -- but the question of whether it's legal really ought to be secondary here.
If this spreadsheet was requested and constructed, it completely undermines the defense that Trump's associates weren't targeted in the wiretaps. Legally they couldn't be because they were citizens of the Republic (well, under the provisions we understand the wiretapping to have occurred -- obviously DOJ wiretaps US citizens all the time in active criminal investigations), so someone put together a spreadsheet to circumvent the legal restrictions by targeting non-US persons and reassembling the data on the back end. That might represent a clever lawyer's solution to the problem, but in substance it's highly problematic.
I'm highlighting the "if" throughout this comment, though, because I really don't know what the source for this claim is. It's a pretty explosive claim, and I can see why the source would want to remain anonymous, but anonymous sources also lie, and I simply don't trust journalists to vet them. I'm waiting to see how this plays out.
I doubt this is the original Inga.
The original was devious and manipulative.
This one is just rude.
"National Review is a failing publication that has lost it's way. It's circulation is way down w its influence being at an all time low. Sad!"
-- You post your circulation numbers, list how often you are quoted as a metric, and in what other publications, and show examples of a consistent editorial voice.
Birkel said...
@ Chuck, so called fopdoodle
You have claimed many times in Althouse comments that you are defamed when somebody says something about you.
Up above, you wrote that I was not an attorney, or I was lying about being an attorney.
Now, you are saying that I "have claimed many times in Althouse comments that [I have been] defamed..."
When? Where? What was the context? I do recall perhaps having pointed out to some of the many recklessly insulting commenters who remain here at Atlhouse, that their insults of me may be per se defamation under the common law, at least in the nature of the insult. That is only to make clearer that they are violating the rules set forth by Althouse for these comments pages: "For everyone else, try to be responsive to the post, don't make personal attacks on other commenters, bring some substance or humor to the conversation, and don't do that thing of putting in a lot of extra line breaks."
I'd ban you, if I were moderating this site, and I hope you are banned or at least suspended. Ditto Drago. And "President-Mom-Jeans." Others, in other threads. Look at the number of posts from you folks that are purely attacks on others, just on this page. No substance; no relation to the topic. Not a reply in a series of comments that constitute any back-and-forth. Just an attack out of the blue on someone else. Me, in particular.
I have no idea why Althouse tolerates it. I expect that I do know why she doesn't police it more, and that is because doing that kind of moderation police-work is a terrible pain in the ass. And probably an awful drain on her time. And dispiriting, for someone who is a scholar of the First Amendment and a free-speech advocate.
You post your circulation numbers, list how often you are quoted as a metric, and in what other publications, and show examples of a consistent editorial voice.
That doesn't really work against trolls though -- by the time you refute, they have trolled onto another topic. It's an unending game of Catch-Up.
It's best to ignore. Even if the troll is the President, it's not that hard to do.
I'm recalling a quote from Althouse from years ago: "You'll only encourage them"
That is what makes Trump the king of all internet trollers.
The other name for "King of all internet trollers" is "liar."
@ Balfegor
Precisely. The problem with arguing the law, when that law is crafted by the very people who wish to allow themselves carve outs, is that the law is a tool to accomplish the nefarious goal, by design.
This scandal is about the way the intelligence apparatus was used by a politician and that politician's administration against an opposing politician. Nothing can make that legitimate within a free Republic. This scandal is incredible and completely predicable.
buwaya puti has it right: The intelligence agencies of the United States are the One Ring. They are too powerful and corrupt any who wield the power.
@ Chuck, you so called fopdoodle
Nobody believes you.
"I'm recalling a quote from Althouse from years ago: "You'll only encourage them"
My mother beat Althouse by 50 years.
-- You post your circulation numbers, list how often you are quoted as a metric, and in what other publications, and show examples of a consistent editorial voice.
But what if Trump meant that its newsstand circulation was down? Or it's circulation was down in doctor and dentist waiting rooms? And that its influence among people Trump cares about was at an all time low?
I have sometimes said that Trump doesn't deal in facts. He deals in negotiating positions. You say he lost the popular vote? Fine. Trump's position is that the illegal votes for Hillary counter that. He's like the car salesman who says that old jalopy is a classic car, a great car, and he is going to let you steal it from him for ten grand. He's not telling you the truth, and you shouldn't expect him to tell you the truth. He's just trying to control the negotiation of the price.
"buwaya puti has it right: The intelligence agencies of the United States are the One Ring. They are too powerful and corrupt any who wield the power."
I think he does. It's dismaying that so many don't care.
The funniest thing about Rice's interview today is that she wasn't asked about the lie she told to PBS two weeks ago. Our left-wing media at work.
You literally can't be cynical enough these days.
Chuck, here is something for you to jump on. Susan Rice, when asked if she leaked the unmasked names stated, "I leaked nothing to nobody."
You, legal grammarian that you are, must be well aware that her double negative means that she is admitting leaking the data. Lifelong Republican that you claim to be, I presume that you will now acknowledge that Trumps' essential point was correct, no matter how unartfully put. I mean, that would be the lifelong Republican thing to do, would it not?
You can find her admission here: https://news.grabien.com/story-susan-rice-admits-unmasking-trump-officials-denies-political
(Yes I admit to not knowing the html code for consolidating web addresses under a single word.)
@ Chuck, so called fopdoodle
Now, you are saying that I "have claimed many times in Althouse comments that [I have been] defamed..."
When? Where? What was the context? I do recall perhaps having pointed out to some of the many recklessly insulting commenters who remain here at Atlhouse, that their insults of me may be per se defamation under the common law, at least in the nature of the insult.
When you asked me where, I will point to your answer, quoted in this comment, and posted by you at 4:10PM blog time. You cannot be defame, per se or otherwise as an anonymous commenter on a blog. That's not possible.
I would ask that you submit yourself to the Michigan Bar Association to see if you have committed any ethical violations for misrepresenting the elements of defamation.
Yancey Ward said...
"You literally can't be cynical enough these days."
Yes. Before you reach that point your liver has turned to a small dark charcoal lump.
I am Laslo.
"buwaya puti has it right: The intelligence agencies of the United States are the One Ring. They are too powerful and corrupt any who wield the power."
Then instead of complaining, to no effect, that the law is designed to allow pols to do this, you, and the rest, must insist on changing the law.
I'm not sure why that's not obvious.
Inga said...
Have Rice testify under oath.
This is insufficient when you are discussing security issues. Rice will simply be able to dodge by saying she can't talk about it in public or take the 5th.
Us little people are never given that option. There is a different standard for handling classified information and it is always applied to us. Rice specifically handled TS/SCI SIGINT in a way that ensured it would be leaked. Legal or Illegal is not the standard. When she was read on she was told the rules. She broke them.
Whether or not what she did was "legal" the information got out. I will say with certainty if anyone not protected politically did what she did and things started appearing on the front page of the NYT there would immediately be an investigation and everyone in that compartment with access would immediately be assumed to be a fault. People would be locked up or at a minimum fired and sanctioned.
There is a lot of responsibility when you have access to these powers. Democrats seem unable to comprehend that there are rules that apply to them and they pick and choose how standards are applied to them and others. It is clear you are not worthy and you don't hold the people you elect accountable.
"(Yes I admit to not knowing the html code for consolidating web addresses under a single word.)"
-- Let something useful come from this thread.
First, without spaces, type < a href = >. After the =, type the URL. Then, type the word you want to link. Then type, again without spaces < / a >.
[Well, without spaces after the <, and before the > and before or after the =.
Livermoron: Why do you think I care in the least, about defending Susan Rice? Or attacking her? There are about two-dozen people attacking her on these pages. Do you really need another? Have at it! I don't mind, and don't really care.
My continuing point, with regard to the Trump Tweets, is that they were well beneath being merely "unartfully put."
They were reckless; misleading; weird; dubious. They begged for some explanation, and Trump provided none. They were offensive, and Trump was obligated to be clearer, and as detailed and as definitive as such a charge against others ought to have required.
Browndog said...
I doubt this is the original Inga.
It's the same Inga. She just realized how much letting out the crazy hurt her credibility so she's keeping herself on a tighter leash. But everything about her is the same, right down to pretending people who criticize her are obsessed or stalkers.
@ PB&J
As somebody who advocates the reduction in size and scope of the federal government, generally, I am more than ahead of you. Leviathan cannot tolerate freedom and I am unwilling to surrender mine to threat or coercion.
Have you failed to note my many calls to reduce the size and scope of the federal government?
@ Chuck, so called fopdoodle
"... Trump was obligated to be clearer..."
By the voices?
"Let something useful come from this thread."
Thanks for taking the time to post that Matthew. Extracting a URL from text on a touchscreen (iPad) is usually not worth the effort.
I again note the essential totalitarian and fascist suppression of speech that Chuck wants. He has again repeated his call for Althouse to ban everyone who disagrees with him. That is a very leftist thing to do.
I understand his frustration that everyone seems to think that a lifelong Republican shouldn't be the Obama's administration's lapdog, which he loves to do.
As best as I can tell, Chuck's problem is that Trump called Obama a name. And that's reason to doggedly and insistently call for Trump to be impeached, because he disrespected Obama. Never mind that what Trump said has been proven true: the Obama administration deliberately used the United States intelligence agencies as arms of the Democrat party. Oh, says Chuck, but he said Obama wiretapped him! That's not accurate, unless Trump has video of Obama crawling in a duct inside Trump tower with an electrical engineering kit! Nothing else matters until that stain on Obama's honor is erased!
Why do you care so much about Obama's honor, Chuck? Why do you not care about Obama weaponizing the US government and transforming it into another arm of the Democrat party, just like the mainstream media and academia?
Are you going to defend Obama or his successor when they send troops to every church and order them to worship Obama or die, too?
--Vance
Re: 3rdGradePB_Goodperson:
Then instead of complaining, to no effect, that the law is designed to allow pols to do this, you, and the rest, must insist on changing the law.
The problem with so much of our law is that it was developed under the assumption that people in power could be trusted to exercise appropriate discretion, so all you needed were some very general guardrails. Over the course of the 20th and 21st centuries, we've found that gradually to be less and less true, with the result that the scope for discretion has been chipped away bit by bit, through the promulgation of rules or through litigated settlements. You see that in all kinds of situations, from the police on the street to the rules of engagement on the battlefield to our welfare bureaucracies. All those rules have made our civil service considerably less efficient and considerably less effective than they were two generations ago -- Megan McArdle's recent bit on how the Mormon Church works so much better than public welfare gives us a live contrast. But we can't really roll them back because, fundamentally, we don't trust civil servants to exercise their discretion responsibly.
Even in those situations where we still leave wide discretion to bureaucrats -- prosecutors, for example -- they come in for a lot of criticism (some well-deserved) of how they exercise that discretion. We don't trust them. And we don't trust political appointees either.
The likely outcome here probably is more rules limiting discretion in these cases. But the fundamental problem -- that everyone, even the people in government, think the government is full of untrustworthy weasels -- isn't going to go away. Even the filibuster in the Senate is likely going to be victim of the collapse of public trust. The public generally doesn't seem to support the Democrats filibustering Gorsuch. And the public generally doesn't seem to to support the Republicans abolishing the filibuster. But no one in Congress trusts anyone else. It's a bit like a prisoner's dilemma. We all end up with sub-optimal outcomes because we're all untrustworthy, and we don't have any way of restoring trust.
Suppose that you recognize that Islamic immigrants and visa holders pose a special risk to the peace and security of American citizens. You might decide to give intelligence agencies wide powers to surveil places like mosques and to surveil Muslims in America with ties to hostile foreign governments and terror groups. Some Americans would inevitably be "incidentally' surveilled along with the Muslim targets.
The alternative might be to say "we are not going to do blanket surveillance of people who are citizens or who are immigrants or visa holders in this country legally. Instead we are going to be very discriminatory about the Muslims we allow into this country."
Spying on everybody -- no problem. Discriminating against Muslim foreigners is illegal, according to the Left and some judges.
Balfegor wrote:
The problem with so much of our law is that it was developed under the assumption that people in power could be trusted to exercise appropriate discretion, so all you needed were some very general guardrails.
If global warming is a national security issue, what do you do with Americans who believe that "global warming" is a fraud?
@ Balfegor @ 4:48PM
Nicely put, sir.
AT every turn its simply moving goal posts. It is so exasperating having conversations with such people since they are oblivious to the fact that they move the goal post nearly every day. Now, CNN is saying they refuse to even carry the story since its being pushed by right wing media.
Even though there is far more evidence saying Obama administration surveilled trump than that Trump was colluding with Russia to undermine the election.
Excellent Balfegor @ 4:48. I'll add this: One reason the Mormon church's welfare program works better than the government one is to my mind actually not so hard to figure out.
The government system works quite well for its goal too. We just ask, what is the goal of each plan? The Mormon church (and I'm pretty sure Catholic charities, etc as well) wants to help people become self sufficient, independent and able to turn around and help their neighbor too. They are in the business of creating Charitable Christians. And so their plans and projects tend to produce those.
The government's goal is to create dependency on government, to ensure the perpetual votes from scared slaves who don't want to lose Uncle Sugar. And the government has succeeded quite well in that goal.
Which is more beneficial for society? And which is more beneficial to the ruling elite?
--Vance
Chuck 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.
Again, WHY IS IT INCUMBENT ON TRUMP TO PROVE PRECISELY HOW HE WAS "WIRETAPPED" BY OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
>>Spying on everybody -- no problem. Discriminating against Muslim foreigners is illegal, according to the Left and some judges.
Racism is the worst thing ever. Worse than suicide bombers, beheading hostages, or crashing jetliners.
This is why the Flying Imams can pull their crap, Mexicans can just walk across the border, and OJ is not guilty.
The slightest hint of racism overwhelms everything else.
>>Actually, we sort of have to argue about what he meant.
No, we don't.
jr565 said...
Chuck 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."
Again, WHY IS IT INCUMBENT ON TRUMP TO PROVE PRECISELY HOW HE WAS "WIRETAPPED" BY OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
BECAUSE TRUMP STARTED IT! BECAUSE TRUMP MADE THE CLAIM! TRUMP OUGHT TO AT LEAST EXPLAIN WHAT HE MEANT! AND AFTER EXPLAINING EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANT, HE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO BACK IT UP!
But you know, that would only count with people whom I took seriously. People who mattered in my life. People who were business or professional or social acquaintances of any consequence.
Trump is none of those things; he's a one-man freak show and a troll.
Chuck: You wrote about PDT's tweets:
They were reckless; misleading; weird; dubious.
Yet, based on current information it appears that they were right.
You are quite the nitwit.
@ Chuck, so called
Trump started it when Obama surveilled and unmasked Trump associates? I guess Pearl Harbor started it by getting bombed.
BECAUSE TRUMP STARTED IT!
Very adult way of expressing yourself, Chuck.
And we wouldn't have heard anything from Trump if the name of his NSA appointee wasn't illegally leaked by Obama's people.
>> I guess Pearl Harbor started it by getting bombed.
Did you see the way those airplanes and battleships were dressed? They were just asking for it!
RCP
read the whole thing.
Here's a paragraph
We also know, from the questioning of FBI Director James Comey at last month’s hearing, that “unmasking” the names of the Americans who were involved in conversations with foreign persons is a felony, punishable by 10 years in prison. So this matter clearly involved criminal actions that must be investigated and punished. But it may not end there. According to the Wall Street Journal’s sources, the unmasking occurred on matters that had nothing to do with Russia and was circulated at least to Susan Rice, a top Obama White House official.
Nobody but Chuck, blind faith leftist d-crats and the hack press(D) care that Trump used the word "wiretapped."
@ DantheMan
They were dressing sexily, but with as many sailors had been inside those ships, if I were the Japanese I would not hit that.
Birkel said...
@ Chuck, so called
Trump started it when Obama surveilled and unmasked Trump associates? I guess Pearl Harbor started it by getting bombed.
Fuck off, you miserable prick. If Trump knew that his people had been picked up on surveillance, and if Trump knew that there had been an illegal release of their names/identities, and that there was a recognizable pattern of abuse of the tools of the intelligence services for domestic political purposes, there are lots of really good and convincing ways to make that known. That story could actually have been turned into a positive for Trump, if done correctly.
THE STUPIDEST way to do it would be to send out a series of bleary-eyed, barely-literate Tweets at 6 am on a Saturday morning, proclaiming that Obama "wiretapped" Trump Tower. And that Obama must be a "Bad (or sick) guy."
To be sure, it is a stupid gesture that, given the crude and base language involved, would excite the crudest and basest elements of TrumpLand. And you guys are a testament to that.
I don't believe anything other than that, in a fit of whatever it is that gets Trump up at 5 am, Trump pounded out the Tweets after reading some garbage from Mark Levin about some garbage that Mark Levin read online somewhere. And that is what is now driving all of these additional stories.
I'm not saying that they aren't true; I am not defending Susan Rice; I am not defending the Obama Administration.
I'm just saying what is transparent to me about the immediate chain of events surrounding Trump's Tweets.
You all can believe whatever you want; won't bother me a bit.
AprilApple said...
Nobody but Chuck, blind faith leftist d-crats and the hack press(D) care that Trump used the word "wiretapped."
I'd be willing to bet, that if we asked Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, the chairmen and ranking members of every involved congressional committee, the Republicans on the Supreme Court, and on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Jim Demint at Heritage, Leonard Leo at the Federalist Society, Arthur Brooks at AEI, President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, that they would all privately call the Tweets something like "reckless."
It's such a pity that we can't make that bet and settle it. I would have so much fun, talking with all of those people about that subject.
"It's such a pity that we can't make that bet and settle it."
So you are just blowing smoke?
And who gives a f*ck what those people think?
Chuck,
How did you react to Obama's public speeches when he did not have a teleprompter? I know it is a tiny sample, but you imply that he is more coherent than Trump.
I beg to ... uh ....uh ....uh ...uh... different ... I mean differ. (I would love to read some of his college essays, assuming he wrote them himself).
Chuck said...
Fuck off, you miserable prick. If Trump knew that his people had been picked up on surveillance, and if Trump knew that there had been an illegal release of their names/identities, and that there was a recognizable pattern of abuse of the tools of the intelligence services for domestic political purposes, there are lots of really good and convincing ways to make that known. That story could actually have been turned into a positive for Trump, if done correctly.
This is Chuck's way of saying that Trump needs to stop being right and sop making Obama look bad.
THE STUPIDEST way to do it would be to send out a series of bleary-eyed, barely-literate Tweets at 6 am on a Saturday morning, proclaiming that Obama "wiretapped" Trump Tower. And that Obama must be a "Bad (or sick) guy."
Actually it worked quite well. You act like you are mad that it worked, nt how he did it.
To be sure, it is a stupid gesture that, given the crude and base language involved, would excite the crudest and basest elements of TrumpLand. And you guys are a testament to that.
You are a parody. You post more crude base language than most here.
I don't believe anything other than that, in a fit of whatever it is that gets Trump up at 5 am, Trump pounded out the Tweets after reading some garbage from Mark Levin about some garbage that Mark Levin read online somewhere. And that is what is now driving all of these additional stories.
I'm not saying that they aren't true; I am not defending Susan Rice; I am not defending the Obama Administration.
Yes you are.
I'm just saying what is transparent to me about the immediate chain of events surrounding Trump's Tweets.
You all can believe whatever you want; won't bother me a bit.
We will. You are disingenuous to the core. You have never used the deranged language you use to describe Trump when describing Obama, Hillary, Rice et. al. It is clear what side you are on.
"THE STUPIDEST way to do it would be to send out a series of bleary-eyed, barely-literate Tweets at 6 am on a Saturday morning, proclaiming that Obama "wiretapped" Trump Tower"
So it was just a coincidence that Obama was actually "wiretapping" Trump and his team? That's pretty lucky!!
The Powerline boys are on it.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/04/susan-rice-doesnt-deny-unmasking-trump-associates.php
The quoted interview with Rice makes you think she was delusional. Apparently she thought she was some sort of super-spy in stead of a political hack. Seriously, Rice seems to have believed that she had the power to "unmask" individuals at her discretion.
She did not have that power. She was a political appointee. There was no confirmation of her by congress, there was no power to remove her from office other than having the president fire her. The idea that a person in this position would have the power to spy on whoever she likes is absurd.
"Trump started it when Obama surveilled and unmasked Trump associates? I guess Pearl Harbor started it by getting bombed."
Yeah, but it wasn't bombed bombed!
Chuck
The tweets were reckless then, a few weeks ago, but not so much now. Had our president been less hapless in language he might have tweeted that the obama administration, not obama himself, eavesdropped or otherwise violated his campaign's privacy. That would have avoided the relentless stupidity of people like yourself so focused on the word "wiretapped." LOL
Balfegor,
"Over the course of the 20th and 21st centuries, we've found that gradually to be less and less true,"
Less and less true, or is it just that we are now more aware of what the people in power do?
I'll use my Chuck translator: "I will never, ever forgive Trump for saying that was a fuchsia tie! Any fool knows it was magenta! I demand that everyone acknowledge how evil Trump is for calling a magenta tie fuchsia! Only illiterate moronic people would ever, ever confuse the two! We need to impeach Trump over calling the tie fuchsia instead of its proper color Magenta! Unless Trump proves the tie was fuchsia, when we all know it was magenta, no one should ever listen and you are all ^%*&)^(*&%^ Trump supporters who wouldn't know culture or class if your ***^*( *(&)* sorry excuses for a %&*(& life depended on it! How dare you Trump supporters think you belong in a class such as myself, a clearly erudite and sophisticated person who is of course the epitome of class and grace, you ^*(&^( mongrels of %*&(__(". And then more obscenities and name calling, just to demonstrate how he is so much more classy than the rest of us.
--Vance
Churchill's warnings about Hitler pre-1938 were also reckless.
""Trump started it when Obama surveilled and unmasked Trump associates? I guess Pearl Harbor started it by getting bombed."
The Germans didn't want to do it. We made them do it.
Francisco D. :
Inga was calling for you awhile ago. Many of us fear she has had another psychotic break. That she was reaching out for help makes us hopeful.
Achilles said:
Us little people are never given that option. There is a different standard for handling classified information and it is always applied to us. Rice specifically handled TS/SCI SIGINT in a way that ensured it would be leaked. Legal or Illegal is not the standard. When she was read on she was told the rules. She broke them.
This. Leavenworth is full of people who did far less than what some of these government officials have. When I was in the military I had a TS/SI clearance. We were not allowed to discuss things even with other cleared personnel outside of secure areas. Not anywhere with anyone. And we signed agreements that violations were punishable up to and including DEATH. Now, people leak stuff like it's social media gossip or something.
It's disgusting and ultimately extremely damaging to our national security.
@ Chuck, so called fopdoodle
I too am angry at Trump for choosing a method that got self_assured people to overcommit to an explanation that now proves false. If I were one of those people I would be angry at being forced into a new Modified Limited Hangout. How date Trump NOT reveal all his cards while the hand is played.
Of course, I am not one of those people. How does it feel, fopdoodle?
I am not too worried about a Democrat-run police state.
Chuck the Lifelong Republican sticks his own head in the noose.
Use of police surveillance against political opponents is fundamentally characteristic of dictatorships.
Rice is changing her story, which means she's running scared. Sessions should convene a grand jury this week.
The Germans didn't want to do it. We made them do it.
In theory Rice's chain of accountability ends with Obama. Obama could have appointed anyone he liked to the position. All her powers were Obama's powers, and are now possessed by Trump.
Obama is a smart cookie. He knew that he wielded great power, and in his last two years he was accountable to no one. No more presidential elections, no more congressional elections, congress would not impeach, and the media was his lapdog.
Hey Doc Fransisco,
LMoron seems to need your assistance. I was paging you... stat...a while back. I need .75cc of Thorazine for him. He's decompensating.
Re: exhelodrvr1:
Balfegor,
"Over the course of the 20th and 21st centuries, we've found that gradually to be less and less true,"
Less and less true, or is it just that we are now more aware of what the people in power do?
A fair point! A mix of both, I think. Kennedy spying on MLKJr, as noted elsewhere, is certainly an example of the kind of business government got up to in those days that have left us suspicious today. But I also think that, qualitatively, we had better -- or at least more civic-minded -- civil servants in those days than we have today.
I have remarked in the comments on this blog before how repellent I find the attitude of today's civil servants and politicians towards the people whose interests they ought to serve. They always resort to the excuse that we haven't given them enough money, and berate us for being sexist and classist and racist for wanting decent schools and safe streets. After all, that's so much easier than actually doing their jobs. Maybe it's rose-coloured glasses, but I feel like civil servants of generations past would have hesitated to make such excuses.
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.
As with most things, the hostess loses it by failing to understand that "why" and "how" are the determinant factors here, not the mere fact that more of Trump and Co's stupid actions were being observed than what Trump and Co. wanted to be observed.
The guy covers his fucking scalp with surgical follicular implants, for Christ's sake! Not every display he makes is the only display that people will look for. He can't be trusted.
Somewhere deep within the recesses of your brain, in the part where other people store something called "Morality and Ethics," you must know this.
In theory Rice's chain of accountability ends with Obama
Not a theory.
It starts and ends with one man. There are no other players on the chessboard.
TTR: "The guy covers his fucking scalp with surgical follicular implants, for Christ's sake!"
Weird hair stuff officially became relevant and "beyond the pale" on Jan 20, 2017
http://www.politico.com/story/2008/08/bidens-helmet-012760
It would be helpful if these changes in what is acceptable were announced ahead of time.
@ Balfegor
And now we part ways. What we have now is more concentrated power used, as it always is. They were not civic minded in the past. They were constrained by checks and balances. What could check or balance the power government has taken unto itself. What countervailing force exists?
The answer, as judged by the actions of politicians, is plainly 'nothing'.
R&B's "ethics and morality" apparently include the directive to take people's stuff and hand it over to people he likes. In other words, thievery.
So it was just a coincidence that Obama was actually "wiretapping" Trump and his team? That's pretty lucky!!
Yeah. Whoda thunk it ?
Inga, Peanut and chuck most affected.
I'm laying a new supply of popcorn for the hearings.
Actually, I'm kidding. It's margaritas and salsa. To go with my new saltillo floors.
Michael, I've got my supply of popcorn, maybe some fried cheese curds.This will be better TV than Downton Abbey. No Margueritas, maybe a good Wisconsin craft beer.
It would be helpful if these changes in what is acceptable were announced ahead of time.
Yeah, but if you called Biden out on having a barely enhanced hair helmet (and a cheap one, at that, given how obvious the plugs are), then he would have probably smiled as he always does when you call him out on something obvious. Or admitted to it. But that's Joe - a true blue blue collar guy. Not the imitation one in a fancy suit.
Oh hell, jalapeno poppers sound better than fried cheese curds. No beer, a Marguerita does sound good now that you mentioned it.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
"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."
As with most things, the hostess loses it by failing to understand that "why" and "how" are the determinant factors here, not the mere fact that more of Trump and Co's stupid actions were being observed than what Trump and Co. wanted to be observed.
Tell us the "why" please. I don't believe you are dumb enough to think what Obama did was right.
The guy covers his fucking scalp with surgical follicular implants, for Christ's sake! Not every display he makes is the only display that people will look for. He can't be trusted.
Non-sequitur joke.
Somewhere deep within the recesses of your brain, in the part where other people store something called "Morality and Ethics," you must know this.
The Obama administration used collected SIGINT material against a political opponent. There are very detailed procedures for the use and handling of the techniques used to gather the information, the information itself, and the very existence of the information. Many people in the Obama administration abused these procedures. I want to know how they were Moral and Ethical or if you are even inferring that they were.
The best part is the american people are going to find out not only what the government has been doing in collecting the information, but also how Obama was using it.
Wow. He seems pretty confident.
http://www.businessinsider.com/jaoquin-castro-trump-associates-jail-russia-2017-4
"Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas, a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday that he wouldn't be surprised if the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election led to multiple associates of President Donald Trump getting put behind bars.
Castro made the stunning comment after Blitzer asked him whether he has seen any "hard evidence" that Trump associates had worked to collude with Russian government officials in any way.
"I guess I would say this — that my impression is ... I wouldn't be surprised after all of this is said and done that some people end up in jail," Castro said."
@--Vance
I'll use my Chuck translator:
If only we could use socks like at Ace's!
Drago @ 11:45 AM...
Browndog is right. Drago deserves an award.
I'm working on the Detroit angle to explain "life long Republican" Chuck. Did he plant the "Vote the Black Slate" signs? Or is he the one who removed them? Stay tuned.
@ Inga, the bad idea
He has to seem confident to give true believers hope. He's lying. And people like you don't care.
Oh hell, jalapeno poppers sound better than fried cheese curds. No beer, a Marguerita does sound good now that you mentioned it.
I think this might be the second time we agreed.
I'm not into jalapeno, though, Salsa.
Tell us the "why" please. I don't believe you are dumb enough to think what Obama did was right.
I don't know. It depends on what the facts are/were. As of now, it's enough to know that Obama typically bent over backwards to check the details on what he was doing, going so far as to have Oath of Office flubber Chief Justice John Roberts administer the thing again, properly - out of an "abundance of caution."
Chief Hair Plugs, OTOH, thinks that as long as he inflates the alleged net worth he inherited from daddy 10X, then he can get away with whatever he wants. He gropes, he admires tyrants, he uses his electoral college technical victory as an excuse to do whatever he wants in office. He gloats, he gropes, he believes that signing things is a bigger glory to bask in than convincing the country that he knows what he's doing, let alone demonstrates it. And many, many more abominations.
We can go through these bit by bit, as you like to do. But I know one thing: Obama never tempted a North Korean child-tyrant to test him with missile tests while a Japanese PM was visiting by not knowing where the confidential secluded areas of the resorts he was briefed at were located. But I guess that's because for Obama, impressing people came a bit easier than they do to the "I Can Never Impress People Enough-in-Chief" known as Don Tiny Hands Trump.
I know no one ever questioned the size of Obama's dong. And he never came up with the liar's signature phrase, "I guarantee it," during a debate to prove how much reason people had to think that it justifiably got under his skin.
Leftists always double down. If you are never, ever, ever called to account for your actions, which they aren't, it's a smart strategy... if you can never lose your bet, might as well keep raising. Cause eventually you'll win.
Holding them responsible is the only way to make it stop.
And at this point I'm not sure anything less than hanging from lampposts will dom
"As of now, it's enough to know that Obama typically bent over backwards to check the details on what he was doing"
-- ... We are talking about the same guy who shot off at the hip with "the police acted stupidly," who signed off on a plan to run guns to the cartels that got people killed, who locked up a film maker while lying about the cause of an attack that got people killed, who admitted he didn't realize jobs weren't as shovel ready as he thought, who had to continually waive parts of the ACA because of unforeseen consequences, who laughed at Romney acknowledging Russia as our #1 Geopolitical foe...
Because, your statement there does not match up with ANY of the facts of how we have seen Obama handle things. In fact, frequently, Obama was shocked to find out how his administration was doing things, claiming to have only heard about it that day on the news with the rest of us BECAUSE he never paid attention to what his people were doing.
Leftist D-adoring Obama worshiping blind faithers_ please explain to the class what Susan Rice meant when she blamed an planned Islamic attack on "a Youtube video".
"I guess I would say this — that my impression is ... I wouldn't be surprised after all of this is said and done that some people end up in jail," Castro said."
Why would it be presumed that the "some people" he was talking about are Trump associates?
"If you like your plan you can keep your plan." "Average family will save 2500$ a year on health insurance costs" - I'd add that to your list,. Matthew.
I want leftists to explain how Susan Rice has any credibility.
That's why the press has become so brazen in refusing to hold the Left (including themselves) accountable, btw. They've been doubling down for so long that an actual loss would be catastrophic. They would rather die than admit they've lost a bet, and the only thing they can do is get even more brazen and double down yet again. They have no choice. And if we don't respond to their acts of war in kind, they will take all of us with them.
"Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas, a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday that he wouldn't be surprised if the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election led to multiple associates of President Donald Trump getting put behind bars."
-- Yeah, I remember a few months ago when the intercepts 100% proved the golden showers dossier.
It's now apparent to anyone thinking for a moment that the Obama administration illegally monitored all of the presidential candidates for Potus in the last election cycle, Republicans and Democrats alike. Why? To be able to discredit each of them and enhance the political future of his spouse. What better way than to release Podesta emails to Wikileaks and spread rumors of Trump Russian connections. Unfortunately, it's all going to unravel on the ex President now.
"Obama never tempted a North Korean child-tyrant to test him with missile tests while a Japanese PM was visiting by not knowing where the confidential secluded areas of the resorts he was briefed at were located."
-- No. He just backed down from the red line he drew in the sand, and again, got people killed.
Dance, Pedro, Dance!
Who killed Seth Rich?
-- ... We are talking about the same guy who shot off at the hip with "the police acted stupidly,"
Because they often do - a fact that didn't get as much attention before as it does now, thankfully. At least, thankfully to all of us who appreciate that it took cell phones to record just how abusive cops used to feel that they could be of your rights. But if you cared about limiting the power of government, you would have appreciated that, too.
who signed off on a plan to run guns to the cartels that got people killed,
I remember hearing about that noise. Still can't figure out how big a scandal it was. Was it as big a scandal as Cracker Jefferson Nomination Hearing Liar Sessions thinking that weed is dangerous and positioning himself to swell the DEA budget again so that opioid-addicted cancer patients and potheads can go back to deadlier alternatives like heroin and Oxy-Contin? That would definitely be a big boon to gang crime, that's for sure!
who locked up a film maker while lying about the cause of an attack that got people killed,
That was a stupid one. Most of his stupider policy and statement blunders happened when he trusted/delegated too much to Killary.
who admitted he didn't realize jobs weren't as shovel ready as he thought,
Cutting unemployment in half with both hands tied behind his back by a congressional majority leader hell-bent on restricting him to one term more than makes up for that. And he didn't do it by cutting polluters more slack. Imagine that.
who had to continually waive parts of the ACA because of unforeseen consequences,
It was major legislation, at least the guy is not too proud to recalibrate and actually assess his successes and failures. Unlike his opponents who are happy to let 24 million die without insurance as long as they can get paid off by lobbyists to pretend to represent them.
who laughed at Romney acknowledging Russia as our #1 Geopolitical foe...
In 2012 it probably wasn't. What's your point? Nowadays your buddies actually wish we could BECOME Russia! Hahaha.
Because, your statement there does not match up with ANY of the facts of how we have seen Obama handle things.
Oh, you sure do like to focus on the small things, don't you? Like Trump's penis ,for one. But that's ok; so does he.
Hair follicles, a tiny penis, letting polluters take claim for doing anything about that unemployment number that he said was, what - like 30% or something? Oh, that Trump! He's a real marketing genius! Let's let him lie as often as he feels he must in order to make himself look good.
It's been reported that the Golden Showers Dossier spy guy Christopher Steele, may be on the list of those testifying. Won't that be interesting?
-- No. He just backed down from the red line he drew in the sand, and again, got people killed.
Oh, I know! If only Assad was anywhere near the geostrategic threat that your fellow pompadour preservationist in North Korea is.
Well. This shit got legs.
536+ comments in which we see just how morally bankrupt the usual suspects are.
The left excuse machine on display.
Little lefty darlings, the fish smells and no sauce you can contrive can mask the odor.
The smart and moral move would be to have it out in the open.
But you just can't get that fucking banana out of that jar.
Poor usual suspects.
I'd add that to your list,. Matthew.
That's because:
1. You don't know how insurance works.
2. You don't know what the average cost increases before 2008 and after 2012 are.
And also, YOU DON'T CARE! You're a Neo-Trumpist! You think reality doesn't matter and have imbibed the "alternative facts" Kool-Aid.
Enjoy. Gulp it down, April! Swallow everything he feeds you now.
"-- No. He just backed down from the red line he drew in the sand, and again, got people killed."
If I was a more generous person I would assume that you knew that Congress refused BHO's request for authority re a military response in Syria re chem weapons, but was he denied. And, I'd assume that you just say this stuff because you think lying and manipulation are cool hobbies.
But, I actually believe that you don't know anything re BHO's request of military authorization re the chemical weapons used by Assad. You just repeat talking points sans..........
Carry on.
Adam Schiff Goes Silent After Reviewing the Nunes Documents
He [Schiff] covers a begrudging acknowledgement that the material should be examined by the committee with another lie, that the White House gave Nunes the material. The fact that Schiff totally ignores the information and bitches about the process tells you all you need to know about what he saw.
"Because they often do - a fact that didn't get as much attention before as it does now, thankfully."
-- Obama was not talking in generalities. He was talking about a specific event. The fact you did not know this is probably why you continued to rant about unrelated things for the rest of the paragraph.
"I remember hearing about that noise. Still can't figure out how big a scandal it was."
-- Very big, as Holder perjured himself during the investigation and people died.
"Cutting unemployment in half with both hands tied behind his back by a congressional majority leader hell-bent on restricting him to one term more than makes up for that."
-- That is not what happened at all.
"It was major legislation, at least the guy is not too proud to recalibrate and actually assess his successes and failures. "
-- That is also not how it happened; he was warned about the very consequences that happened. He insisted they would not. When they did, he broke the law by ignoring certain aspects of the ACA.
"In 2012 it probably wasn't. What's your point?"
-- That it actually was, as we've seen, and Obama, as usual, was just wrong.
"Today's chemical attack in Syria against innocent people including women and children is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world," Spicer told reporters. "These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." Spicer also said: "President Obama said in 2012 he would establish a red line against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing. The United States stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this intolerable act." (Later in the day, the White House issued a statement echoing Spicer's remarks.)
Whether or not Obama's policy in 2013 was successful, this much is clear: at that point, Trump had an unambiguous position regarding Syria— do nothing. Throughout this episode, Trump tweeted up a storm about Syria. Repeatedly, he declared—occasionally in all-caps!—that Obama should not be messing around in Syria. He said there was no reason to attack Syria or take any action there. Let the Arab League deal with the problem. He was asserting that Obama should not respond to the chemical attacks—a policy certainly in sync with Assad (and his Russian patrons). Stay out of this, Trump demanded, and focus on domestic issues."
Trump Tweets at site.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/04/trump-syria-obama-tweets-hypocrisy-chemical-attack
"If only Assad was anywhere near the geostrategic threat that your fellow pompadour preservationist in North Korea is."
-- Making threats and backing down on them does not strengthen your position. Many, many people died, especially during the green movement, because they assumed America would back them, as Obama promised, then deferred.
Poor Balls. He's gone off his rocker since his gal Hillary, the corrupt lying money-whore from hell, LOST. All that Podesta Russian money- for nothing!
Obama had the authority to act, in fact, both he and Hagel knew it. The fact that Obama vacillated is characteristic of his wishy-washy, lead from behind style.
Inga: And? I'm no Trump fan; his foreign policy is helter skelter. Whatever Trump says or does doesn't change the mismanagement done by Obama.
Matt,
Then that same assessment applies to the Rs in congress who refused to authorize military force.
AprilApple: "Poor Balls. He's gone off his rocker since his gal Hillary, the corrupt lying money-whore from hell, LOST. All that Podesta Russian money- for nothing!"
It's important to recall and understand that R&B/TTR was ruthlessly anti-Hillary so it is quite unfair to toss her at his feet.
Every critique and rhetorical technique we see R&B/TTR displaying in his attacks on Trump were also on display TIMES 10 vs Hillary.
TTR was definitely a Bernie guy and anti-establishment all the way.
So, of all the dems and "lifelong republicans" who post here, it was R&B/TTR that stuck rigorously to a "screw them all equally" position.
ARM often surprises as well.
The R's were/ are hypocritical cowards. They wanted Obama to go into Syria but didn't want to commit to giving him authority to use military force.
Inga reads Mother Jones and thinks the golden showers dossier is real.
The democrat party ruined public education - by turning it into a pay-to play scheme with the corrupt teachers union, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party, Inc. - and what do the creepy leftist progs at Mother Jones publish? The false accusation that Trump and the GOP want to destroy public education.
LOL - too late. Already destroyed.
"It's important to recall and understand that R&B/TTR was ruthlessly anti-Hillary so it is quite unfair to toss her at his feet.'
Unless April is trolling him for fun.
Like y'all do to Chuck.
Though it's not likely that Ritmo is as susceptible as Chuck is to such.
Holder perjured himself
Unless a jury/judge said so, then your opinion doesn't mean shit.
-- Making threats and backing down on them does not strengthen your position.
The only position we need in the Middle East is out of it.
I'll let you think the man who defends the size of his tiny penis and hands speak for your thoughts on what constitutes "strength," let alone a "strong position."
Trump is a pathological liar.
3rd grader: "If I was a more generous person I would assume that you knew that Congress refused BHO's request for authority re a military response in Syria re chem weapons, but was he denied."
LOL
That did not stop obambi in the least when obambi wanted to action in Libya to support European oil contracts for his EU pals.
Nor did it stop obambi any other time he didn't want it too.
Lets not kid ourselves. Obambi had no intention of attempting to do anything "real" in Syria and he was looking for a fig leaf to hide behind.
You can agree or disagree with President "I've got a pen and phone", but lets not pretend obambi needed the congress to authorize any action in Syria.
I wonder why this reminds me so much of skeet shooting?
oh I recall he was anti-Hillary, Drago. Just flinging some of his own poo right back at him.
I wonder if Trump's buddy Assad felt emboldened to use chemical weapons again because Trump is a Putin puppet.
Inga: "It's been reported that the Golden Showers Dossier spy guy Christopher Steele, may be on the list of those testifying. Won't that be interesting?"
Yes it will and it's about time.
We need to hear much more about FBI #2 McCabes interaction with this oppo research "operator" who was looking to get paid for that hot mess of a supposed dossier and if McCabe really intended to pay that guy for that piece of crap.
Grassley is apparently all over that.
If Matthew Sablan wants to put Trump's credibility up against Obama's then he can feel free to do so. Alternative facts being what they are and all.
Trump will get rolled. And by dangerous enemies. Not just a Syrian ophthalmologist beloved by Putin.
But that's Trump. He will bluster up against a 3-year old if he felt threatened by him. Which you can bet he does.
Matthew Sablan is very impressed by this sort of thing, I can tell.
"Unless a jury/judge said so, then your opinion doesn't mean shit. "
-- Fine, fine, fine. Holder said things he knew were not honest while under oath, however as he was never tried because he was protected by Obama's political influence, we cannot say what is obvious, but must instead go through these round-about phrases.
PB Good Person,
Ritmo will eat April alive and spit her out, without breaking a sweat, lol.
"I wonder why this reminds me so much of skeet shooting?"
A couple days ago I was wiggling out of a skeet shooting invite from a staff member at a country house.
I've also dodged and weaved out of three invites to shoot ARs, from staff at country houses.
Folks in the country are funny. In person I must send out the vibe that I'm into hick shit.
It appears that Inga has forgotten that 2012-Russia is not our geopolitical foe!-obama was still President in 2013.
It's important that history be "flexible" to allow for scooting out of responsibility.
"I wonder if Trump's buddy Assad felt emboldened to use chemical weapons again because Trump is a Putin puppet."
-- How is Trump a Putin puppet, but Obama, who promised Russia more flexibility and delivered on it, not? How is Clinton, who had staffers literally profiting from the deals she and her party had the government make with Russia, not a Putin puppet?
"Ritmo will eat April alive and spit her out, without breaking a sweat, lol."
Yup.
It's sorta unfortunate that Chuck is, every now and then, too easily hoooked.
LOL - Inga - proud Hillary voter. Fucking embarrassment.
Ritmo is busy eating himself alive.
Poor Balls. He's gone off his rocker since his gal Hillary, the corrupt lying money-whore from hell, LOST. All that Podesta Russian money- for nothing!
What does that have to do with Trump being a lying incompetent - other than how good you are with lying and incompetence?
You're not making any point here. You're just saying that you only care about what presidential candidates do - and not what actual presidents do. That you lack the brains to judge performance while in office, when it matters - on the job.
So you're basically declaring yourself an incompetent voter.
You belong on the campaign trail, not in the voting booth. And not in these comments sections.
When Trump is impeached I guess you'll be going on about how awesome it is that "at least it isn't Hillary who's being impeac--"
Oh, wait.
You're being a dumbass. Your opinion is essentially of no value if you have absolved yourself from even the basic responsibility of assessing the guy's performance. But then, so have almost all the rest of your party. They just don't care. Let him do whatever he wants, they say.
Ok, go ahead and try to see what he can get away with. He's already tanked his own ratings and had his major campaign promise shot down by every court that reviewed it.
If that's not failure, then you can go shack up with Hillary and let me know what you can teach her about success.
Just stop being a dildo.
How is Clinton, who had staffers literally profiting from the deals she and her party had the government make with Russia, not a Putin puppet?
I'd like to know, as well.
3rdgrader: "Folks in the country are funny. In person I must send out the vibe that I'm into hick shit"
What Laslo could do with that!
What if having accepted Mike Flynn's resignation as National Security Advisor, President Trump has sent him to Moscow as his secret envoy? This latest firestorm over Susan Rice provides good cover.
Ritmo - focus - this topic is about Susan Rice. You know - the "It was a Youtube video" Susan Rice. It looks like she is lying again.
April honey,
I voted for Green Party. If it had been Bernie, he would've gotten my vote.
Pull!
-- Fine, fine, fine. Holder said things he knew were not honest while under oath, however as he was never tried because he was protected by Obama's political influence, we cannot say what is obvious, but must instead go through these round-about phrases.
I look forward to the day when you perceive that Trump does anything for his political cronies THAN use his political influence to protect him.
He basically flat-out admits it. He thinks that loyalty trumps morals and ethics. As long as people like and are good to him, then he thinks no law applies to them.
Denying this is denying the obvious. He does it more blatantly than any American politician in living memory - if not ever.
Ritmo - focus - this topic is about Susan Rice. You know - the "It was a Youtube video" Susan Rice. It looks like she is lying again.
I'll wait until the people who can keep their jerking knees still for 20 minutes have had a chance to opine on this - you know. Like the NYT or CNN or one of the many other media companies currently experiencing massive audience growth and that Trump can't stop reading/watching, and hating.
Balls - Trump is a lot of things but he did not conspire with the Russians to defeat Hillary. Hillary defeated Hillary.
The lies flow from the democrat party like sewage.
Inga - you voted for Hillary. Stop lying.
We can't help responding. Face it: we can't. Comments run to four hundred when he is involved. I have given this some thought, and am now going to share it with you...
Here's the thing about our fellow commenter Chuck: he is Larger Than Life. He is an Archetype. We see him in the movies: he is the Guy who vainly tells the Protagonists that they are Doing It Wrong...
He is this guy.
This guy.
And this guy.
He IS Jeffrey Jones as Ed Rooney in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"
He IS Paul Gleason as Mr. Vernon in "The Breakfast Club"
He IS William Atherton as Walter Peck in "Ghostbusters."
Look at these quotes from those movies:
"Tell ya what, dipshit. If you don't like my policies you can come on down here and smooch my big ole' white butt."
"I did not achieve this position in life by having some snot-nosed punk leave my cheese out in the wind."
"We'll keep going. You want another one? Just say the word say it. Instead of going to prison you'll come here. Are you through?"
"You'll get the answer to that question, Mr. Bender, next Saturday. Don't mess with the bull, young man - you'll get the horns."
"Hold it! I want this man arrested! Captain, these men are in criminal violation of the Environmental Protection Act! And this explosion is a direct result of it!"
"Oh, what mendacious bullshit. You accuse ME of mincing words and hiding behind twisted meanings and opaque definitions?!? What a lot of fucking nerve....What a bunch of sick, warped, twisted, Trumpkin shitheads you are..."
"You worthless chickenshit fuckheads. There ARE NO EXPLANATIONS FOR TRUMP'S MARCH 4 TWEETS."
Okay, you caught me: those last two weren't from the movies, they are from Chuck a night ago. But the similarities are uncanny, right...?
The Guy with the Inflated Ego and Sense of Self-Worth. The Guy Who Is The Stickler For The Rules. The Guy Who Verbally Explodes When It Is Not Going His Way. The Guy Who Wishes He Can Have You Arrested, Or Put Into Detention, Or Prevent You From Graduating. Note: I did those in reverse order, hopefully that wasn't too confusing...
So maybe we should take it easy on Chuck. Most scripts require someone like him to keep it Interesting. And of those three actors, only one is a known Pedophile...
I am Laslo.
Video of Susan Rice interview on the Andrea Mitchell show today.
OK April, get on the Crazy Land Express, they're holding the train for you.
Balls - Trump is a lot of things but he did not conspire with the Russians to defeat Hillary. Hillary defeated Hillary.
We don't know that. Hillary was incompetent and lost 4 states that if she were less incompetent or less of a shameless bitch then who knows maybe she might have won.
But if there was Russian collusion I don't think (and I doubt AMerica thinks, inc. Republicans) that we absolve them or their conspirators here on that basis. IF. I don't know if it happened. But I know they meddled cybertronically and can't be allowed to do it with impunity. It's an American thing and a patriotic thing. They'll do it to the Republicans next. The winner or party on behalf of they worked doesn't matter. Are you really ok with having foreign governments cyber-attack private U.S. organizations? Let's just get beyond the politics and November and grow up for a minute.
The lies flow from the democrat party like sewage.
The DNC still appears just as corrupt as ever, from what I can tell.
I don't tell the cops not to investigate and prosecute for a crime just because I don't like the victim. Do you?
"I don't tell the cops not to investigate and prosecute for a crime just because I don't like the victim. Do you? "
-- The DNC refused to allow the FBI to analyze the devices they claim were hacked. If a victim refuses to cooperate with the police, there's very little the police can do.
Also: Let's not pretend that the fishing attack on Podesta was anything super sophisticated. They did TRY to attack Republicans in similar ways. They just didn't find any easily exploitable human security issues, like sending plain text copies of their password around or clicking on suspicious links telling them that their account had been compromised.
The government can't protect people from stupid, and considering Obama didn't do much about years of cyber attacks on government institutions, and in fact, was holding out doing anything so that Hillary Clinton could handle it, I can't help but feel that the level of seriousness you and I think these cyber attacks should have been met with is not an opinion shared by the previous administration.
I'll wait until the people who can keep their jerking knees still for 20 minutes have had a chance to opine on this - you know. Like the NYT or CNN or one of the many other media companies currently experiencing massive audience growth and that Trump can't stop reading/watching, and hating.
This is the kind of hi-powered reasoning we have come to expect from R&B! I mean, who can argue with that!
The same media who promoted Trump, because they thought he would be the easiest to beat in the general election against their dreadful corrupt candidate - are acting to take him down. It's payback time. How dare he actually win! So called mainstream "news" organizations have lost most of their credibility with most Americans. The only reason MSNBC is re-surging is because the collective leftwing faithful cannot believe Hillary lost, and they need a soothing dose of hope of an impeding impeachment. enter - fake news.
Podesta was a fool and a tool and I hate him and what he stands for but I'm sorry to say when you get as busy as he must have been a graphic as GOOGLE-esque as the one they pulled is a little confounding. Also, you need to stop saying that when someone pulls off a crime you blame the victim for not being the victim of a more sophisticated criminal.
The government isn't being asked to "protect people from stupid." It's VERY interested in disincentivizing crime. What if your sister was retarded? I guess then anyone can use any trickery to commit any crime against her that they want. Or if your mom was senile. Just learn to be a responsible citizen already, for once. Criminals don't get their choice of victims based on gullibility. They get their choice of victims because Republicans like you are too corrupt to enforce the law when you can poke fun at the victim or make a political victory out of the crime.
@ TTR
On what basis do you know the Russians "hacked" anything. Sure, we can stipulate they always interfere with their own interests in mind. To that end we expect them to interfere for the side that wants to restrict energy production, e.g. oil and natural gas.
There are assumptions unsupported by anything beyond self-serving proclamations.
The Democrat party Stalinized in Wisconsin. People are sick of it.
Right. Cui bono is the only way to determine if crimes occur, let alone why.
Whatever. Let's never investigate a crime again until we can prove who had a motive for it that matches what we know. Analysis of means, opportunity and crime scene forensics need to end.
Cancel all the CSI shows now, saith the Birkel.
"To that end we expect them to interfere for the side that wants to restrict energy production, e.g. oil and natural gas."
How do they feel about the side that wants to supplant oil and gas w/ renewables?
How do they feel about the side that wants to supplant oil and gas w/ renewables?
Liar! No energy is "renewable!" That's a left-wing fantasy.
All energy comes from the ground. How do you think it gets up into the sun in the first place?
Republican energy strategists are waaaaaay ahead of you. And me.
@R&B
"And also, YOU DON'T CARE! You're a Neo-Trumpist! You think reality doesn't matter and have imbibed the "alternative facts" Kool-Aid.
Enjoy. Gulp it down, April! Swallow everything he feeds you now."
Stop projecting. People who don't think the government is the best solution to health care do care just as much as you do. I have a lot more evidence government makes health care worse than you have about the government making it better.
And you are ignoring reality right now. Rice was clearly using police state tactics and Obama clearly changed the rules allowing the use of collected SIGINT intelligence politically.
There is zero evidence Trump was colluding with the Russians, but even if there was a connection using these methods to find out is deeply unethical and illegal. Go back and read your posts. You have no good reason to defend what obama did.
There was a self-described "lifelong Republican" on Tucker tonight complaining about Russian interference in the election. Max something-or-other. I didn't catch the whole segment
@ TTR
Why did the Obama Administration try to hack Georgia and Indiana voting? Motive? Opportunity?
That was, you know, admitted all around. But that was different.
Post a Comment