U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)

[mariomike]

Funny how times change. When President Truman left office, he bought a car and he and his wife went on a road trip across America.

Just the two of them. No Secret Service. Can you imagine that today!?

Harry Truman's Excellent Adventure: The True Story of a Great American Road Trip
https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B004D4Y1PO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

 

[tomahawk6]

Investigators found secret DOJ sluch funds that funneled money to far left groups and will shut them down. Of course now Obama's front group is Soros funded. I can see big trouble down the road with democrat efforts to thwart the Trump administration. I wish Obama would retire to Hawaii.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/01/gop-wants-to-eliminate-shadowy-doj-slush-fund-bankrolling-leftist-groups.html

The Obama administration funneled billions of dollars to activist organizations through a Department of Justice slush fund scheme, according to congressional investigators.

“It’s clear partisan politics played a role in the illicit actions that were made,” Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, told Fox News. “The DOJ is the last place this should have occurred.”

Findings spearheaded by the House Judiciary Committee point to a process shrouded in secrecy whereby monies were distributed to a labyrinth of nonprofit organizations involved with grass-roots activism.

 

[Lumber]

Investigators found secret DOJ sluch funds that funneled money to far left groups and will shut them down. Of course now Obama's front group is Soros funded. I can see big trouble down the road with democrat efforts to thwart the Trump administration. I wish Obama would retire to Hawaii.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/01/gop-wants-to-eliminate-shadowy-doj-slush-fund-bankrolling-leftist-groups.html

The Obama administration funneled billions of dollars to activist organizations through a Department of Justice slush fund scheme, according to congressional investigators.

“It’s clear partisan politics played a role in the illicit actions that were made,” Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, told Fox News. “The DOJ is the last place this should have occurred.”

Findings spearheaded by the House Judiciary Committee point to a process shrouded in secrecy whereby monies were distributed to a labyrinth of nonprofit organizations involved with grass-roots activism.

Here is a much better article, which demonstrates the different quality of writing between various news agency (in this case, the Washington Post presents a much more clearly written and less biased article than FOX News).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-justice-departments-bank-settlement-slush-fund/2016/08/31/a3b4da7a-6eec-11e6-8365-b19e428a975e_story.html?utm_term=.011c473f3e69

Further, the DOJ doesn't tell these banks/companies who to donate money to. It's entirely up to them.

Second, the FOX article doesn't do a good job of explaining the scope of these donations. According to this article: http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/the-justice-departments-third-party-payment-practice-the-antideficiency-act-and-legal-ethics, the total amount distributed to "non-victim" groups, which was $7 billion. The FOX news article only mentions $30 million that went to "HUD Housing Counseling", and $412 million The Legal Services Corporation. Those amounts pale in comparison tot he total value.

Third, neither the HUD nor the LSC are "far left" groups, as you state.

Finally, this isn't an OBAMA issue; this isn't a Democratic Party issue; it's not even Federal government issue. This practice has existed for years, and exists at all levels of law and government, including amongst law-suits between individuals.

I actually agree that practice either needs to be curbed or stopped out-right, as it circumvents the federal appropriations process, which is a key component of the division of powers between the executive and legislature, serving as a check on the President's powers.

However, the FOX news articles make it sound like this is some Obama era conspiracy, which it's not.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Moreover, these are not "secret slush funds", these are court mandated punishments for corporations that broke the law.

They do not "funnel" money from corporations to advocacy groups. Those corporations have done something wrong that affected complete class of citizens - for instance, in the Volkswagen case, they cheated on Federal emission tests, as a result of which, millions of American citizens ended up paying a lot more for fuel over the life of their vehicle.

These types of "punishment" were developed to deal with wrongs that are hard to quantify and individualize, so these corporations long thought that the ordinary citizen won't bother to sue and they can therefore get away with it. They'll be mad for a while but will get over it in time. These remedies were developed about the same time that Class Action Suits were developed as legal instruments and have similar aims.

To make it sound like these corporations are merely used by the government to finance groups illegally is simply put complete bull.

 

[kkwd]

This still sounds pretty greasy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-justice-departments-bank-settlement-slush-fund/2016/08/31/a3b4da7a-6eec-11e6-8365-b19e428a975e_story.html?utm_term=.1f25c6d89b1c#comments

Justice allows banks to meet some of their settlement obligations by directing “donations” to various nongovernmental advocacy organizations that serve Democratic constituencies and objectives — organizations that were neither parties to the case nor victims of the banks’ behaviors. These donations are from money owed to the government, money that otherwise would go to the Treasury, money the disposition of which is properly Congress’s responsibility.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And I don't suppose with bargaining the fines and payout, nobody ever suggested to them where to send their donations in exchange for a decision favourable to all ?

Of course not. That would be collusion and we know that doesn't happen.

 

[Lumber]

And I don't suppose with bargaining the fines and payout, nobody ever suggested to them where to send their donations in exchange for a decision favourable to all ?

Of course not. That would be collusion and we know that doesn't happen.

No no, I'm 100% certain that is happening.

However, lets look at where the money is going: it's going to organizations like the LSC, which provide essential legal services to the poor.

Some of the organization that receive money are organizations that have supporter "far left" activities, but those far left activities are not the primary purpose/activities of those organizations. Thus, not only are they only getting a relatively small portion of the $7 billion dollar pie, only a fraction of THAT money can be said to support such "far left" activities. Besides, it's not in the business of the government to tell charities how they are suppose to manage their budgets.

 

[Kirkhill]

The concept isn't new.  In Canada it has been a reality since at least 1982.  The Government of the Day supports Non-Governmental Organizations to bring suit against the Government of the Day forcing it to implement "unpopular" policies because they are "right".

 

[Jarnhamar]

http://www.infowars.com/racist-graffiti-blamed-on-trump-by-sarah-silverman-shaun-king-was-the-work-of-a-non-white-special-needs-student/

More evidence of trump inspired racism. I love how quick celebrities are to virtue signal. You'd think after Sara Silverman became a laughing stock on Twitter for seeing swastikas everywhere, which turned out to be road construction markers, she'd suck back a little. Nope.

 

[GAP]

Hmmmm.....everything is couched in white - non-white.......why not say Black, hispanic, purple polka dotted.....whatever.....

 

[cupper]

Here is a much better article, which demonstrates the different quality of writing between various news agency (in this case, the Washington Post presents a much more clearly written and less biased article than FOX News).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-justice-departments-bank-settlement-slush-fund/2016/08/31/a3b4da7a-6eec-11e6-8365-b19e428a975e_story.html?utm_term=.011c473f3e69

Further, the DOJ doesn't tell these banks/companies who to donate money to. It's entirely up to them.

Second, the FOX article doesn't do a good job of explaining the scope of these donations. According to this article: http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/the-justice-departments-third-party-payment-practice-the-antideficiency-act-and-legal-ethics, the total amount distributed to "non-victim" groups, which was $7 billion. The FOX news article only mentions $30 million that went to "HUD Housing Counseling", and $412 million The Legal Services Corporation. Those amounts pale in comparison tot he total value.

Third, neither the HUD nor the LSC are "far left" groups, as you state.

Finally, this isn't an OBAMA issue; this isn't a Democratic Party issue; it's not even Federal government issue. This practice has existed for years, and exists at all levels of law and government, including amongst law-suits between individuals.

I actually agree that practice either needs to be curbed or stopped out-right, as it circumvents the federal appropriations process, which is a key component of the division of powers between the executive and legislature, serving as a check on the President's powers.

However, the FOX news articles make it sound like this is some Obama era conspiracy, which it's not.

Come on, who are you going to believe?  Some right wing shill chearleader squad like Fox news, or some left wing mouthpiece like George Will?

;D

 

[a_majoor]

The real issue is that companies which are being fined for breaking the law should pay their money to the US treasury, period, and the money not being used to fund any groups for any reasons whatsoever.

I have read about this practice as well, and while you can suggest that the practice of using fines to fund non government organizations is or should be non partisan, it does seem that very few organizations that can be described as "Right Wing" ever seem to be benefiting from this practice.

 

[cupper]

Hmmmm.....everything is couched in white - non-white.......why not say Black, hispanic, purple polka dotted.....whatever.....

Consider the source. Not exactly a paragon of journalistic competancy and unbiased reporting.

And rememer back when Crayola had a flesh coloured crayon? You could accurately say it was non-white compared to the white crayon. ;D

 

[Jarnhamar]

Seen this on FB and thought summed whats going on in the states pretty well.

If you yell "f*ck white people" while torturing a special needs white kid, the city of Chicago won't call it a hate crime and the superintendent will say it's "just a bunch of kids being stupid".

If you yell "allah akbar" right before murdering someone and call yourself a terrorist, you'll be called mentally ill.

If you burn down cities and destroy property, you're a misunderstood protestor fighting oppression.

But if you voted for Trump, you're a violent racist and white supremacist.

 

[Kirkhill]

Russia and The Trump:  Oooops?

The Daily Express loves its headlines, it is poorly written and even more poorly edited - but it comes up with some gems from time to time.  And this one, to my ear, sounds right.

They had a plan.  And then they didn't.  [

Russian weapons expert claims Trump win was 'UNPLEASANT SURPRISE' for Vladimir Putin

A RUSSIAN weapons expert has made extraordinary claims Vladimir Putin had intended to “destabilise” Hilary Clinton in the hopes she would become President.

By AJAY NAIR

PUBLISHED: 16:32, Fri, Mar 3, 2017 | UPDATED: 16:38, Fri, Mar 3, 2017

Igor Sutyagin, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), stunned Newsnight host Evan Davis with the comments on the BBC programme.

He said the election of Donald Trump was a “very unpleasant surprise” for Mr Putin.

“They tried to undermine the legitimacy of the newly-elected President, which should be Hilary Clinton,” said Mr Sutyagin who was imprisoned for 11 years in Russia on espionage charges.

“They tried to weaken her position to [leave] her having [a] serious row domestically, to weaken her position in her deal with Russia. So that was the goal.

“They instead got Trump winning the election, which was a very unpleasant surprise. Trump was just a spoiler they did not plan to have him as a partner.”

Mr Sutyagin accused Russia of trying to collect “kompromat” – compromising material – because of his hotel ownership. He claimed it was because Russian officials would use hotels to carry out “intelligence operations”.

Speaking about efforts to boost US and Nato forces, the nuclear weapons specialist said it was “not great” for US-Russia relations.

“It is not great but it is not the worse thing which Trump did to Russia,” he said. “The problem is Trump destroyed the very foundation of the Russian policy towards the West.”

He said the American leader’s “unpredictability” was a blow to Mr Putin’s regime.

“It was the belief and knowledge that the West would act in a very predictable way so Putin can always play this threshold,” he said.

“Trump is not going to play according to the rules because he does not know these rules and secondly, it’s terribly difficult to predict where Trump’s red lines lay.

“And so you can cross it just because of miscalculation, which is dangerous for Russia.”

Too clever by half?

I am a great believer in the role of incompetence as a historical driver.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It's certainly as plausible as all the stuff coming from Obama's shadow government.

 

[tomahawk6]

Not since Watergate has there been a more explosive scandal than the one reputed to have been perpetrated by the Obama administration,namely spying on Trump during and after the election and another subject of illegal wire tapping was Senator Sessions while he was still a Senator. Obama has denied it. James Clapper has denied it but his statement was so parsed that it was a poor denial. More and more stuff keeps dribbling out.If Trump's people can find the paper trail then people will go to jail. Whats funny is that the media describes this as not having evidence,but they reported on Trump and the Russians without evidence either.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/hillary-tipped-off-trump-wiretap-tweeted-one-week-prior-election/


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/obama-admin-source-confirms-wiretapping-conducted-video/

Main account. Get some pop corn this is going to be fun.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[QV]

They were so sure Clinton would win and they could keep all this buried. 

 

[cupper]

Not since Watergate has there been a more explosive scandal than the one reputed to have been perpetrated by the Obama administration,namely spying on Trump during and after the election and another subject of illegal wire tapping was Senator Sessions while he was still a Senator. Obama has denied it. James Clapper has denied it but his statement was so parsed that it was a poor denial. More and more stuff keeps dribbling out.If Trump's people can find the paper trail then people will go to jail. Whats funny is that the media describes this as not having evidence,but they reported on Trump and the Russians without evidence either.

And what is your evidence that the Sessions "wiretap" was illegal?

The FBI were already investigating Russian involvement in the DNC hacking, and potential attemps to influence the election. They could very well have requested and received a warrant to place various people involved with the Trump campaign and transition team under surrveillance without the knowledge of the White House.

 

[the 48th regulator]

WOLVERINES!!!!!!!

Sorry for hollering, just wanted to lightened the mood.

dileas

tess

;D