Skip to content

Politics. The feel in your country.

1562563565567568635

Comments

  • CamDawgCamDawg Member, Developer Posts: 3,438

    Once more e-mail messages were found on Weiner's laptop the inquiry should have been made *quietly*, not shouted to the evening news.

    It's a good thing that's exactly what he did, then.
    ThacoBell
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    I feel better about Comey than I used to, now that I've heard him defend his actions in a little more detail. He seems like he was genuinely trying to keep the FBI out of partisan politics, and that motive does fit in with his actions in general. In retrospect, I think it would have been better to keep the re-opening quiet even if Comey's announcement didn't swing the election in Trump's favor.

    But that's hindsight. If we're going to pass judgment on people's behavior in the months leading up to the 2016 election, we should bear in mind that most people expected Clinton to win. If Comey's announcement did swing the election, I doubt anyone could have reasonably known that at the time.

    I am reminded of a historian's comment about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and how many lives would have been lost in a conventional war, without the bomb: "We don't know now; how could we possibly have known then?"
    MathsorcererThacoBellGrond0
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,037
    edited May 2018
    Matthieu said:
    We as private citizens may block social media followers whenever we want to; however, as a public figure the rules are a little different. Obama used social media for communication but Trump seems to use it as his primary means of reaching out. I have mentioned many times before that someone really needs to take his Twitter account away from him--there are too many times when he comes across as illiterate with those tweets of his.
    CamDawg said:

    Once more e-mail messages were found on Weiner's laptop the inquiry should have been made *quietly*, not shouted to the evening news.

    It's a good thing that's exactly what he did, then.
    I recall the reopening being all over the news--that isn't quiet.
    semiticgoddess
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850

    Matthieu said:
    We as private citizens may block social media followers whenever we want to; however, as a public figure the rules are a little different. Obama used social media for communication but Trump seems to use it as his primary means of reaching out. I have mentioned many times before that someone really needs to take his Twitter account away from him--there are too many times when he comes across as illiterate with those tweets of his.
    CamDawg said:

    Once more e-mail messages were found on Weiner's laptop the inquiry should have been made *quietly*, not shouted to the evening news.

    It's a good thing that's exactly what he did, then.
    I recall the reopening being all over the news--that isn't quiet.
    It was all over the news because Jason Chaffetz leaked it within hours of being briefed.
    semiticgoddesssmeagolheartThacoBellGrond0
  • CamDawgCamDawg Member, Developer Posts: 3,438
    edited May 2018

    CamDawg said:

    Once more e-mail messages were found on Weiner's laptop the inquiry should have been made *quietly*, not shouted to the evening news.

    It's a good thing that's exactly what he did, then.
    I recall the reopening being all over the news--that isn't quiet.
    Comey sent a confidential memo to the oversight committee; not informing the committee about the re-opening of a high-profile, politically-sensitive case would have been grossly negligent. As @jjstraka34 has already mentioned, Chaffetz, the chair, leaked it immediately.
    semiticgoddesssmeagolheartMathsorcererThacoBell
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    As I explained, Comey felt he could not keep it quiet as there had been leaks and if he concealed (his term) that the case had been reopened it would possibly harm the FBIs reputation.
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    edited May 2018

    He seems like he was genuinely trying to keep the FBI out of partisan politics, and that motive does fit in with his actions in general.
    I don't agree with that assessment. Most importantly Comey was leaking by proxy for political motivations as he admitted under oath. Regardless of the legality of his particular actions, trying to plant media stories to influence the public does not paint a picture of a man dedicated to neutrality on partisan matters. Neither does his verified twitter feed of epic-level saltiness, for that matter.

    Honestly, I don't see any evidence, at all, of this neutrality. His, very partisan, views are written on his sleeve and his actions are in line with someone who was attempting to influence matters in a partisan direction.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/apr/24/what-law-says-about-james-comeys-leaked-memos/

    The ruling that Trump can't block twitter users is boggling my mind right now. I can't see how this is enforcable without unforseen consequences. For one, should it not apply all public figures and not just the presidents personal twitter account? I'm blocked by a lot of blue checkmarks and i'd love to have the opportunity to speak my mind to public figures with impunity. But with some of the more problematic trolls out there I can see this being a problem. Assuming, of course, this ruling would affect anyone but the president in practice.
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    I'm not sure what that Politifact article has to do with anything. It's just a review of Comey's leaked memos that says multiple times that there's no real legal case that he broke the law by leaking classified information.

    Most importantly Comey was leaking by proxy for political motivations as he admitted under oath.

    Is there a quote or source for this?
    ThacoBell
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,037
    The easy way for Trump to get around that ruling is to quit using Twitter altogether. If he addressed people only via radio broadcast then only the people tuning into a station broadcasting a live feed could hear it--you can't *make* people tune in to a radio station. The same logic applies here--anyone who wants to listen to a Presidential broadcast may do so therefore anyone who wants to follow the Presidential Twitter profile should be allowed to.
    ThacoBellZaghoulsmeagolheart
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811


    He seems like he was genuinely trying to keep the FBI out of partisan politics, and that motive does fit in with his actions in general.
    I don't agree with that assessment. Most importantly Comey was leaking by proxy for political motivations as he admitted under oath. Regardless of the legality of his particular actions, trying to plant media stories to influence the public does not paint a picture of a man dedicated to neutrality on partisan matters. Neither does his verified twitter feed of epic-level saltiness, for that matter.

    Honestly, I don't see any evidence, at all, of this neutrality. His, very partisan, views are written on his sleeve and his actions are in line with someone who was attempting to influence matters in a partisan direction.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/apr/24/what-law-says-about-james-comeys-leaked-memos/

    The ruling that Trump can't block twitter users is boggling my mind right now. I can't see how this is enforcable without unforseen consequences. For one, should it not apply all public figures and not just the presidents personal twitter account? I'm blocked by a lot of blue checkmarks and i'd love to have the opportunity to speak my mind to public figures with impunity. But with some of the more problematic trolls out there I can see this being a problem. Assuming, of course, this ruling would affect anyone but the president in practice.

    Comey’s Memos were never classified, therefore “leaked” isn’t the right term.

    There was also no political motivations on Comey part instead of maybe just being able to do and keep his job. Being impartial is different than being partisan.

    Comey was also dealing with a pathological liar. Getting his side of the he said/he said out, with proof was paramount, unless he ended up like the media who are all labeled as liars because they wouldn’t fight back against Trump’s claims.

    His Twitter feed only began after he was let go from him public servant job. He can enjoy the freedom of speech as much as any other private citizen.

    ~~

    The Twitter decision is also not being enforced. . . Yet.

    I think it will also trickle down that if a government official uses twitter they will be unable to block people. We’ll probably start seeing Private and Official twitter channels that are distinct from each other. Official ones would have to follow this ruling and private ones won’t.
    ThacoBellsmeagolheart
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    edited May 2018

    Most importantly Comey was leaking by proxy for political motivations as he admitted under oath.

    Is there a quote or source for this?

    Here's a clip of his statement on the matter. Basically, he admitted to leaking by proxy, trying to plant a media story, with the motive to appoint a special council against Trump. Looks pretty darn partisan to me, and the way he expresses his own personal political opinions all but confirms it imo. You don't call people "small men" without some level of animosity.

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited May 2018
    They were his memos and they weren't classified. The only way it could be classified as a "leak" is because he gave them to someone else who would give them to the media. The only reason the special counsel got appointed is because Trump took part in a NATIONALLY TELEVISED INTERVIEW in which he flat-out ADMITTED he fired Comey to stop the investigation into Flynn and Russia. I didn't say that, Trump said it to Lester Holt. As I've said 100 times, it was Jack Nicholson admitting he ordered the Code Red. It was him basically saying "yeah I did it, who is going to stop me??" He then ushered Russian diplomats into the Oval Office and told them the "pressure was off" since he had fired Comey. I mean holy hell, Trump COULD have just stuck to the bullshit story that his staff had concocted, which was that Comey was fired because he treated Hillary badly. But he couldn't even stick to that story for 24 hours. He just blurted out the real reason. No Tom Cruise cross-examining necessary in this scenario. Then Sessions, caught blatantly lying to Congress on numerous occasions about his contacts with the same Russian officials, had to recuse himself, which led to Rosenstein being put in charge, and having no choice but to appoint a special counsel.
    ThacoBell
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    I don't see how that constitutes "partisan." He did worse to Clinton by publicly attacking her when announcing the FBI's recommendation against indicting her (he wasn't required to offer personal judgment on her behavior; he did it on his own initiative) and later announcing that the FBI was re-opening its investigation on her. For one reason or another, he harmed both candidates.

    If he was partisan, he would harm one.

    If Comey was trying to help create a special counsel, I don't see how that's an inappropriate goal considering Comey's position. Investigating public officials was his job; promoting another investigation, this time into Trump, falls under his typical powers and responsibilities as an investigator.

    "An investigator tried to start a new investigation." That doesn't sound like a twisting of his role as an investigator.

    Nor do I see the problem with his methods. Indirectly giving his unclassified personal notes to journalists, notes which don't actually contain any information that would harm national security... Why would it be wrong to share unclassified information?
    ThacoBell
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    In other news, Jared Kushner finally has security clearance. Apparently the background checks dragged out the process a lot.
    Mathsorcerer
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited May 2018
    In regards to the Twitter situation, I believe both his press secretaries have said that they are official statements of the President of the United States. It would seem to me this now involves the Presidential Records Act, and that banning certain citizens from access to them, especially in THIS particular case, should not be allowed to stand. Again, this is a situation where Trump has chosen to make his (really) ONLY means of communication a social media platform. But frankly, based on their own terms of service, Twitter should have banned Trump dozens of times by now. Any one of us on THIS forum would be banned by @semiticgod for engaging in a fraction of the smears and outright slander Trump engages in on Twitter. I mean, he caused the stock of one of the biggest companies in America (Amazon) to tank for 48 hours based on total lies. How many death threats do you imagine people he portrays as "enemies" on Twitter get in the days following a Trump tweet?? He isn't just some random asshole, he is the President of the United States. His words have consequences.
    ThacoBellGrond0
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811

    Most importantly Comey was leaking by proxy for political motivations as he admitted under oath.

    Is there a quote or source for this?

    Here's a clip of his statement on the matter. Basically, he admitted to leaking by proxy, trying to plant a media story, with the motive to appoint a special council against Trump. Looks pretty darn partisan to me, and the way he expresses his own personal political opinions all but confirms it imo. You don't call people "small men" without some level of animosity.
    There is nothing partisan about wanting to get a special council appointed.
  • CamDawgCamDawg Member, Developer Posts: 3,438

    In other news, Jared Kushner finally has security clearance. Apparently the background checks dragged out the process a lot.

    He revised his financial disclosure statement 40 times.

    oblig: That's as many as four tens. And that's terrible.

    ThacoBellsmeagolheartsemiticgoddessGrond0
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    CamDawg said:

    In other news, Jared Kushner finally has security clearance. Apparently the background checks dragged out the process a lot.

    He revised his financial disclosure statement 40 times.

    oblig: That's as many as four tens. And that's terrible.


    semiticgoddess
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963


    I don't agree with that assessment. Most importantly Comey was leaking by proxy for political motivations as he admitted under oath. Regardless of the legality of his particular actions, trying to plant media stories to influence the public does not paint a picture of a man dedicated to neutrality on partisan matters. Neither does his verified twitter feed of epic-level saltiness, for that matter.

    Honestly, I don't see any evidence, at all, of this neutrality. His, very partisan, views are written on his sleeve and his actions are in line with someone who was attempting to influence matters in a partisan direction.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/apr/24/what-law-says-about-james-comeys-leaked-memos/

    Consider the whole narrative and not just skip to the end.

    His announcement blurting out that Hillary's emails were under investigation again helped sway the election towards Trump. Tell me again how this guy a just a partisan when he helped get Trump elected? How's that work? He's also a lifelong Republican.

    Ok now moving ahead to today - is he a partisan now against Trump? He doesn't mention Trump by name most the time, only that he's against pathological liars and against those who attempt to attack and discredit the Justice system.

    Let me ask you this: DOES THAT MAKE HIM AGAINST TRUMP?

    If you answer yes to that question, then you are admitting that Trump is on the side of lies and against justice. It shows what side Trump is on and what side Trump is NOT on. Can't you guys see that?


    The ruling that Trump can't block twitter users is boggling my mind right now. I can't see how this is enforcable without unforseen consequences. For one, should it not apply all public figures and not just the presidents personal twitter account? I'm blocked by a lot of blue checkmarks and i'd love to have the opportunity to speak my mind to public figures with impunity. But with some of the more problematic trolls out there I can see this being a problem. Assuming, of course, this ruling would affect anyone but the president in practice.

    Trump is the President. A public official. That he conducts himself like Kim Kardashian doesn't mean that he is the same as any other celebrity. Those other celebrities can block you, the President can't because first amendment

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    By replying to Trump's official twitter you can petition the government for a redress of grievances. You can complain to the President that you want x,y,z and agree or disagree with whatever.

    This doesn't apply to Kim Kardashian who is not a government official.

    The easy way for Trump to get around that ruling is to quit using Twitter altogether. If he addressed people only via radio broadcast then only the people tuning into a station broadcasting a live feed could hear it--you can't *make* people tune in to a radio station. The same logic applies here--anyone who wants to listen to a Presidential broadcast may do so therefore anyone who wants to follow the Presidential Twitter profile should be allowed to.

    One can only dream that he will quit twitter and be like other old angry men.
    image
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,037

    In other news, Jared Kushner finally has security clearance. Apparently the background checks dragged out the process a lot.

    I mentioned that at the bottom of the previous page but it got lost in noise.
    semiticgoddess
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850

    In other news, Jared Kushner finally has security clearance. Apparently the background checks dragged out the process a lot.

    I mentioned that at the bottom of the previous page but it got lost in noise.
    There is a 1% chance he legitimately should have gotten this and a 99% chance the rules for his security clearance were simply altered to fit his current situation.
    Mathsorcerersmeagolheart
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    Anyone have a clue what this guy is even talking about here?? Apparently we have new mortal enemy.....Canada. Who is buying into this shit?? Canada is SPOILED??
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    edited May 2018

    Anyone have a clue what this guy is even talking about here?? Apparently we have new mortal enemy.....Canada. Who is buying into this shit?? Canada is SPOILED??

    I saw that and giggled.

    As I said, if Trump labels you it first, you really can’t label him back as the exact same thing because you just sound petty. Crooked Hillary. Lying Media. Petty and Spoiled Canada. It works.

    Freeland, our foreign affairs minister, flew to Washington in April to review a deal worked out “in principal” in April and nixed it and continues to nix it as the Americans do not budge on certain issues and attempt bullying practises (did you know that the exemptions on the steel tarrifs for Canada/Mexico has an expiry date and is tied to NAFTA).

    Nothing is going to happen with NAFTA until after the American elections. A lot of northern states are for NAFTA and I believe killing the deal would kill Rebulicans chances at being elected in November.

    Trump is stupid, but he won’t swallow that peach flavoured pill.

    He’ll wait till November 25th and say Merry Christmas! Move over Jesus, I am the new messiah and this is the best XMAS present ever!

    Allegedly he is being a stickler on Automobile manufacturing, and both Canada and Mexico are moving towards it and that piece is going to be announced soon (even though the rest of the deal is to remain mum, so we really do not know what the US gave up to get it).

    This allows him to say “see, I got this for you Detroit, I convinced them by calling them names. It was ALL me, NO ONE else could do this for you.” Ignoring the people who are actually negotiating the deal.

    And sadly, people will buy it. It will last till November until after the election and then he’ll kill it with everything else.

    edit: further reading: http://ottawacitizen.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/trump-predicts-auto-workers-will-be-very-happy-on-nafta/wcm/10938258-8703-420a-be31-e7ec872f319a
    Post edited by deltago on
    Grond0jjstraka34ThacoBell
  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 2,266
    I’m just curious what sources of news people here generally listen to?
  • MatthieuMatthieu Member Posts: 386
    Mostly "le Monde", "les Echos" and "La Tribune". These are diplomatic and financial newspapers.

    In English language the Guardian is the source I read the most with Hareetz.
    mashedtaters
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367

    I’m just curious what sources of news people here generally listen to?

    I watch CNN on weekends and listen to WJR (conservative radio) in my car on my way to and from work.
    mashedtaters
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305
    The only news source I read or listen to regularly is the BBC. When looking for information on specific things that interest me I could end up with anything thrown up by a Google search.
    mashedtaters
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited May 2018
    I use mainly use Google News for an overview and check dailykos, CNN, and fox News for additional details.
    mashedtaters
This discussion has been closed.