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

[tomahawk6]

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.

Well there are at least 30 Senators that have had contacts with foreign ambassadors,including Sessions. It was part of his job as he was on the Armed Services Committee.

 

[cupper]

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

What the hell was there to bury?

The information that was supposedly "hidden among agencies" was evidence related to Russian involvement in the hacking and attempting to influence that outcome of the election. Why bury that rather than throw it out into the open. That would be potentially more damaging to the incoming administration than keeping it from being discovered.

The level of paranoia with Trump that has arisen since the election of Trump is truely on par with McCarthy and the Communist which hunt, or Nixon with the anti-war movement and the leak of the Pentagon papers, and Watergate. And it's not surprising that people are starting to make comparisons to McCarthy. Roy Cohn, Trump's former lawyer, early in his career was legal council on the McCarthy hearings.

The GOP are tolerating the BS that is coming out of the White House for now because they see him as a means to get their agenda through. But when they realize that Obamacare is truely the political third rail it is, and the fight over Trump's budget comes to a head, they will cut him loose, because they will have to start facing to electorate in the 2018 midterms.

As it is, the White House is already walking back Trump's allegations, and Director Comey has asked the DOJ to make a statement that there is no evidence of the statement Trump made.

op:

 

[cupper]

Well there are at least 30 Senators that have had contacts with foreign ambassadors,including Sessions. It was part of his job as he was on the Armed Services Committee.

So what?

30 senators doing the same thing is not evidence of illegal surveillance. In fact the only thing that can be taken from that statement is that politicians have contact with diplomats and people from other nations.

The same thing could be said of the Secretary of State, the President himself, and probably other members of the administration. But it doesn't act as proof that, first anything suspicious occurred in any of those contacts, and second, that there was need to investigate those contacts.

 

[Jed]

What the hell was there to bury?

The information that was supposedly "hidden among agencies" was evidence related to Russian involvement in the hacking and attempting to influence that outcome of the election. Why bury that rather than throw it out into the open. That would be potentially more damaging to the incoming administration than keeping it from being discovered.

The level of paranoia with Trump that has arisen since the election of Trump is truely on par with McCarthy and the Communist which hunt, or Nixon with the anti-war movement and the leak of the Pentagon papers, and Watergate. And it's not surprising that people are starting to make comparisons to McCarthy. Roy Cohn, Trump's former lawyer, early in his career was legal council on the McCarthy hearings.

The GOP are tolerating the BS that is coming out of the White House for now because they see him as a means to get their agenda through. But when they realize that Obamacare is truely the political third rail it is, and the fight over Trump's budget comes to a head, they will cut him loose, because they will have to start facing to electorate in the 2018 midterms.

As it is, the White House is already walking back Trump's allegations, and Director Comey has asked the DOJ to make a statement that there is no evidence of the statement Trump made.

op:

I find it hard to believe that you can ask a question like this and not expect a WTF response.

Every thinking pundit can see the obvious pile on by former President Obama / Hillary Clinton supporters and the very biased Press that has been occurring non stop for several months.  I sure hope the citizens of the USA clear out the stench emitting from the Elites that have damaged this great country as quick as possible.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I find it hard to believe that you can ask a question like this and not expect a WTF response.

Every thinking pundit can see the obvious pile on by former President Obama / Hillary Clinton supporters and the very biased Press that has been occurring non stop for several months.  I sure hope the citizens of the USA clear out the stench emitting from the Elites that have damaged this great country as quick as possible.

You mean like The Gateway Pundit or Instapundit?  :rofl:

 

[QV]

What the hell was there to bury?

That the Obama administration had an opposing presidential candidate wire tapped.  If this all proven beyond a doubt I hope people go to jail. 

So far Trump is doing great.  Hell he is even doing good for Canada despite Trudeaus efforts to sell us all out. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

The brouhaha over the surveillance (wiretaps) is that the FBI considered a criminal investigation into financial connections (the "talkative" server) and decided there was nothing criminal to be investigated.  When anyone talks about this matter in the context of "criminal investigation", they are either throwing out or chasing a red herring.

FISA surveillance is not for criminal investigations.  It is for counter-intelligence.  If someone misused it as a work-around (as sometimes happens when people are too clever by half and are looking for creative ways to achieve ends within what they think are the rules), there are a number of things which could end with someone going on trial:
1) Failure to include materially relevant information about the first, rejected application on the second application.
2) Misuse of a FISA surveillance order.
3) Disseminating information gathered to other agencies.
4) Leaking information gathered.

Note that even if the second application was satisfactorily formulated and information was legitimately gathered (with counter-intelligence purposes in mind), unnecessary distribution within government and subsequent leaks should still end up with the people responsible on trial.

 

[tomahawk6]

You mean like The Gateway Pundit or Instapundit?  :rofl:

There is nothing wrong with their reporting.

 

[Jed]

You mean like The Gateway Pundit or Instapundit?  :rofl:

Well OGBD, you can pick whatever pundit you want and mock them to your heart's content. The fact is that numerous pundits, with good credentials, far better than mine, and possibly yours, see the obvious. 

 

[cupper]

Well OGBD, you can pick whatever pundit you want and mock them to your heart's content. The fact is that numerous pundits, with good credentials, far better than mine, and possibly yours, see the obvious.

Nobody can see the obvious because nobody other than Trump knows what the F he's going on about. You can tell by the responses coming from the Administration that even they have no clue about Trump's latest trivle.

If Trump did this like most of his brain drippings before as an attempt to distract from the Russian story, this was the most hamfisted and illconceived attempt yet. It's actually made things worse.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Nobody can see the obvious because nobody other than Trump knows what the F he's going on about. You can tell by the responses coming from the Administration that even they have no clue about Trump's latest trivle.

If Trump did this like most of his brain drippings before as an attempt to distract from the Russian story, this was the most hamfisted and illconceived attempt yet. It's actually made things worse.

Let's see your proof for your statements and where you draw your US political expertise from. As per your last couple and many previous posts. As bad as McCarthy? How do YOU know? As bad as Watergate? Again, how do YOU know. Your posts are full of these hyperbolic assertions, but I never see you produce much more than anti Trump bile. Seldom, or if ever, (I don't really pay much attention to politics here anymore) do I ever see you post anything to back your own statements, but you can't wait to jump out of your boots to demand the same from all others that are contrary to your views.

You've been going on, Trump this and Trump that, since before the election. You've totally discounted what others have said. Accused everyone, pro Trump< they don't know from where they speak.

Then like the bit in yellow. After driving your outrage bus into the conversation and slamming anyone on the Trump side as being all wrong, you say "Nobody can see the obvious because nobody other than Trump knows what the F he's going on about. You can tell by the responses coming from the Administration that even they have no clue about Trump's latest trivle.

So, perhaps, maybe, you don't know what the F is going on either? Just guessing, because if, as you assert, nobody in the Trump administration, including himself, knows what is going on, how do you?

Opinion is great. Just make sure everyone knows that's what it is. Your opinion, not fact and certainly less credible than almost anything that has a reference.

YMMV, it's Radio Chatter. Write what you want, I guess. Let's just have some balance is all I'm saying.

:2c:

 

[tomahawk6]

At least Gateway Pundit supports its articles unlike the NYT or Washington Post. More evidence of previous tap's. Comey the FBI director has denied wrong doing. But his agency is not the only one capable of eavesdropping. My guess would be someone at NSA. The White HOuse Counsel is looking at FISA records but its just as possible that it was off the books with no paper trail. The narrative has definitely shifted from Russians-Trump to Obama and his minions most of whom are still in place. The Senate needs to confirm the Trump appointments to staff these agencies and replace the Obama appointees..

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/draft-heres-the-complete-list-of-victims-from-obamas-many-wiretaps/

WikiLeaks released the following list on February 23rd (see link here) of Obama Administration wire taps:

* The US National Security Agency bugged a private climate change strategy meeting; between UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin;
* Obama bugged Chief of Staff of UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for long term interception targetting his Swiss phone;
* Obama singled out the Director of the Rules Division of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Johann Human, and targetted his Swiss phone for long term interception;
* Obama stole sensitive Italian diplomatic cables detailing how Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu implored Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to help patch up his relationship with US President Barack Obama, who was refusing to talk to Netanyahu;
* Obama intercepted top EU and Japanese trade ministers discussing their secret strategy and red lines to stop the US “extort[ing]” them at the WTO Doha arounds (the talks subsequently collapsed);
* Obama explicitly targeted five other top EU economic officials for long term interception, including their French, Austrian and Belgium phone numbers;
* Obama explicitly targetted the phones of Italy’s ambassador to NATO and other top Italian officials for long term interception; and
* Obama intercepted details of a critical private meeting between then French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Merkel and Berluscon, where the latter was told the Italian banking system was ready to “pop like a cork”.

In addition to the above list we also know now that Obama wire tapped various individuals in the US media that were reporting information not flattering to the Obama Administration.  It is widely known that Obama’s Justice Department targeted journalists with wiretaps in 2013:

* In 2013 the liberal Washington Post expressed outrage after the revelation that the Justice Department had investigated the newsgathering activities of a Fox News reporter as a potential crime in a probe of classified leaks.  The reporter, Fox News’ James Rosen and his family, were part of an investigation into government officials anonymously leaking information to journalists. Rosen was not charged but his movements and actions were tracked.
* Also in 2013, members of the Associated Press were also a target of the surveillance.  The ultra liberal New Yorker even noted that “In moderate and liberal circles, at least, the phone-records scandal, partly because it involves the dear old A.P. and partly because it raises anew the specter of Big Brother, may well present the most serious threat to Obama’s reputation.”
* Reporter Sharyl Attkisson said in 2014 that her personal computer and CBS laptop were hacked after she began filing stories about Benghazi that were unflattering to the Obama administration.  A source who checked her laptop said the hacker used spyware “proprietary to a government agency,” according to an article in the New York Post.

 

[cupper]

Let's see your proof for your statements and where you draw your US political expertise from.

My so-called expertise in US politics comes from following US potilical affairs for the last 40 years since the post Nixon period. But that has as much cred as anyone else here. And I fully admit that there are things that are speculative, but with politics, speculation is sometimes all you have to go on.

As per your last couple and many previous posts. As bad as McCarthy? How do YOU know? As bad as Watergate? Again, how do YOU know.

It's well known that both McCarthy and Nixon were paranoid about their respective ghosts that they were chasing. McCarthy saw Communists every where he looked. And it reached a tipping point when He took on the Army in hearingd in 1954. McCarthy fell from grace and never recovered.

Nixon figured that everyone was out to get him, and used his position to attack his critics and seek revenge. Daniel Ellsburg is a good example of how bad things got. In an attempt to dig up dirt to use against Ellsburg, Nixon ordered the break in to the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist. It ultimately led to Ellsberg having the charges dismissed.

Seldom, or if ever, (I don't really pay much attention to politics here anymore) do I ever see you post anything to back your own statements, but you can't wait to jump out of your boots to demand the same from all others that are contrary to your views.

And any time I do post something to back it up, it is more than likely criticised for be from sources that in other people's opinions are pro Hillary, anti-Trump and contradicts what they believe to be true. Sources like The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the failing New York Times, The Atlantic, The National Review. All sources that are attacked for being fake news.

So, I challenge you to show me evidence - real hard proof - that these sources are any less credible sorces than Instapundit, Gateway Pundit, Fox News, Info Wars, Breitbart or any other source that is Pro Trump and attacks the lame stream media.

You've been going on, Trump this and Trump that, since before the election. You've totally discounted what others have said. Accused everyone, pro Trump< they don't know from where they speak.

Granted. (See the last couple of paragraphs below)

Then like the bit in yellow. After driving your outrage bus into the conversation and slamming anyone on the Trump side as being all wrong, you say "Nobody can see the obvious because nobody other than Trump knows what the F he's going on about. You can tell by the responses coming from the Administration that even they have no clue about Trump's latest trivle.

So, perhaps, maybe, you don't know what the F is going on either? Just guessing, because if, as you assert, nobody in the Trump administration, including himself, knows what is going on, how do you?

I never said or even implied that I knew what is going on. Which is exactly the point I was trying to make. No one knows what Trump means by his latest Tweet storm. No one, not his administration, Republican members of Congress, the Director of the FBI. No one knows where this accusation came from, or what it is based on. Speculation is that it may be related to an article from Breitbart that has been circulating, which claims that Obama is running a 'Silent Coup". The term "Deep State" is being tossed around through the inner circle and other levels, to describe Pro Obama career staff in various agencies and departments that are carrying out an anti Trump / Pro Obama agenda.

Here is something from a "credible" source to back up that last bit.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/

Opinion is great. Just make sure everyone knows that's what it is. Your opinion, not fact and certainly less credible than almost anything that has a reference.

[opinion]I will start usnig the HTML code for indicating opinionto make it clearer.[/opinion]

YMMV, it's Radio Chatter. Write what you want, I guess. Let's just have some balance is all I'm saying.

That's fair. But it goes both ways.

Since the election I was willing to give Trump a break, to show that he was capable of putting together an administration that was capable of governing and running the country. But there has been very little to give me the warm fuzzies. The criticism that Trump can't stay on message, and trips over his own male appendage anytime he starts having a good day is a valid one. And his inability to start meeting his policy goals is more to the fact that the people he has around him have little or no experience in governing. Things are being rushed through without being thought out and covering all bases. The EO banning refugees from 7 Muslim states is just one example. If it was vetted properly through the various departments it would have created less chaos, and maybe would have withstood the court challenges.

Can Trump pull it off? Maybe. But he needs to clean house within his own office, and take a serious look at his cabinet picks and cut loose the ones that don't know or aren't qualified to lead their respective departments. Get rid of the yes men and those that server only their own agenda. Mattis, Kelly and McMaster were good choices. DeVos and Sessions were dubious. And we all know how the Flynn choice worked out. And he needs to start working with the Dems to get some of the things done, like repeal and replace.

And he needs to put the smartphone down and stop tweeting.

So. Agree to disagree.

 

[Kirkhill]

OGBD - have you ever wondered why there are two lawyers at every trial?

Facts are always in dispute.  Otherwise lawyers would be out of work.

 

[mariomike]

Sources like The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the failing New York Times, The Atlantic, The National Review. All sources that are attacked for being fake news.

So, I challenge you to show me evidence - real hard proof - that these sources are any less credible sorces than Instapundit, Gateway Pundit, Fox News, Info Wars, Breitbart or any other source that is Pro Trump and attacks the lame stream media.

For credibility, I find this from Lumber helpful,

 

[a_majoor]

The evidence may only be circumstantial at this point, but given the already known MO of the Obama Administration and the fact that there was a request made to the FISA court to do surveillance on the Trump Tower (one apparently rejected by the court, followed by an amended request) certainly speaks to pretty shady goings on. And this is from opens source materials:

https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/03/05/obamagate-is-a-lot-more-than-a-hashtag/

#ObamaGate Is a Lot More than a Hashtag
By Roger L Simon March 5, 2017

If I were a Democrat, I'd be afraid.  I'd be very afraid.

Forget the usual smokescreen of hyper-partisan blather from Chuck Schumer on "Meet the Press" or the myriad calls for Trump's head from the usual press suspects and consider the situation:  Congressional committees, the FBI, not to mention numerous avid media organizations and who knows who else (NSA? CIA? ASPCA?) have been investigating putative Trump-Russia collusion for some time now and come up with... exactly nothing.

Are they likely to come up with something of significance at this point?  Almost certainly not.

So now we have Trump's bold, brash, "unhinged" Twitter accusations that Obama wiretapped him.  This came after Mark Levin, Breitbart, Andrew C. McCarthy, Louise Mensch and others I've forgotten about or am unaware of reported about two appeals to FISA courts (one denied last summer and one approved in October) for permission to tap phones in Trump Tower. Did they happen?

It seems that tapping of some sort actually occurred because it was virtually acknowledged  in tweets from Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau,  who sprang to action only hours after Trump tweeted, writing : "I'd be careful about reporting that Obama said there was no wiretapping. Statement just said that neither he nor the WH ordered it." Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for the former president, had almost simultaneously declared:  "Neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U. S. citizen."  Ordered?  That's what we used to call plausible deniability and now is known as a wiggle word.

Barack Obama's Trump Tower Wiretap Denial Reeks of Orwellian Doublespeak

Trump wants this possible surveillance to be investigated along with the rest of the supposed Russia mess -- the little that's left of it to be cleared up.  Meanwhile, that Democratic Party house organ The New York Times is reporting that James Comey himself wants the Justice Department to issue a denial that such a wiretap ever existed -- or so the paper's ubiquitous "sources" say.  Of course the Times itself saw it differently only a couple of months ago. Meanwhile, former DNI James Clapper -- who famously told all his fellow citizens a boldface lie about the NSA -- has assured the media regarding this particular tap, "I can deny it." (Yes, you can.)

All this while Barack and Michelle Obama, rather than graciously depart the D. C. scene in the manner of previous presidents, recent ones anyway, have moved into a local estate with their constant companion Valerie Jarrett in some kind of Ménage à Medici as if Barack never had an intention to leave and expects to serve a third term.

My guess is this will all come down to whether our former president knew about this wiretapping -- whoever authorized it and wherever it came from -- and, if so, when. And also how he reacted to it and what he did from there.  It's all, in the grand Clintonian tradition, about what the definition of "ordered" is.

Interviewed on "Fox News Sunday," Sen. Tom Cotton -- as close an approximation to "Mr. Smith" as we have in Congress -- was asked if the Senate Intelligence panel would address Trump's wiretapping claim and his answer was a Jimmy Stewart-like "sure."

Now to why, if I were a Democrat, I'd be afraid.  To explore that you don't need to be some super-experienced attorney like Andrew McCarthy, although that doesn't hurt.  Rusty old Occam's Razor will do -- just change the blade and ask some obvious questions somehow overlooked by the MSM in this weekend's chat shows.  These questions, needless to say, might best be asked under oath by a congressional committee. Later, they might even have to be dealt with in a court of law, as attorney Robert Barnes details well in this article.

Would an attorney general (in this case Loretta Lynch) normally inform the White House of a decision to go to a FISA court for approval of the tapping of a political presidential opponent?  Did Ms. Lynch so inform the White House?  Was there any discussion of this decision between the WH and the DOJ?  Why did the Justice Department decide to go back to the FISA court in October for a second try at approval? Whose idea was that? Did they did have additional information?  What was that?  Was Trump's name included in the brief the first time but omitted in the second?  Why?  If none of this happened, who made it up and why?  That makes no sense, considering how easy it would be to disprove. Unless, of course, although it's not supposed to happen, the NSA just regularly taps everything and everybody, including presidential candidates, the president elect, and the president himself.  But why then on Jan 12 of this year, again according to the New York Times, did the Obama administration suddenly broadly extend the powers of the NSA?

I could go on, but you get the point.  The possibilities here are endless. And WikiLeaks already revealed Obama's extensive use of wiretaps.  It's a long list.  Nothing particularly new here except this one, if it happened, was aimed at his most important adversary in our democratic republic, threatening the very underpinnings of our country and making Nixon seem like an amateur.  No doubt the Democrats will hide behind national security, but that can only go on for so long.  People in leadership positions like Sen. Cotton are entitled to the facts -- and they will get them eventually, perhaps quickly since this is a Trump administration finally, even if so many appointments are being held up.  Also -- and this is what the sleaze-artists like Schumer and my own Rep. Adam Schiff know well -- Trump has obviously been wiretapped up the you-know-what, probably from numerous sources.  If not, where have all these leaks come from?  Mars?

 

[Journeyman]

Let's just have some balance is all I'm saying.

This thread has never had a problem with balance.

The posts are equally from people who drool at every Trump move being a step closer to impeachment.... and from people who see Trump through Monica Lewinski eyes.

Both groups (and this thread) would likely benefit from both sides wiping off their chins and taking a deep breath.


But it's Radio Chatter, alt-fact away.  :boring:

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

OGBD - have you ever wondered why there are two lawyers at every trial?

Facts are always in dispute.  Otherwise lawyers would be out of work.

As a matter of fact (see what I did here!), you picked the wrong example here, Chris.

Been a lawyer for 30 years, and funny enough, I never wondered why there were two lawyers (at the very least - I've seen teams of 10 lawyers per side  ;D) at every trial: I have always known.

And it has nothing to do with "facts always being in dispute". Actually, Chris, it is a rare thing before the courts to have a dispute over the facts. You some times have disputes over a limited sub-set of the facts, and funny enough, it usually occurs over facts that were not witnessed directly and therefore require proof by way of presumption (i.e. nobody saw what happened but here are other facts that will let you make an educated and reasonably likely guess as to what happened, judge)  or by way of expert opinion testimony.

In fact, when we step in that court, Chris:

(1) in a criminal case, we have on hand on both sides all(or just about - the defence can have some up its sleeve) of the potential evidence that will be adduced at the trial and the only role of the lawyers are to present to the court the facts that are required for the applicable law to prove the breach, by the prosecutor, and to put the ones that may cause a reasonable doubt for the defence - but each single fact in and of itself usually established between the parties - and both sides are there to ensure that no witness, as much as possible, lies to the court.

(2) In a civil/commercial case, it's even more straight forward where facts are concerned. Through discoveries and examinations out-of-court, about 90-95% of the facts are known in advance of trial (each sides has about 75% of the facts known to it before we start exchanging info - by the end, 90-95% is then known to both; the last 5-10% somehow never seems to come out, loses in memory, lost documents, misplaced parts, etc.) and in most cases, about 80% of the facts are simply commonly accepted between the parties. In most trials (at least where professional law firms are concerned) a large portion of the facts are admitted by the parties right of the bat and the court doesn't have to hear them (which may be what confused you that the facts in court are all contested - as in many cases, only the few remaining contested facts are the object of the trial and would leave an observer thinking that all the facts are in dispute). In my career, you would be amazed at the number of trials I have fought where we filed a joint statement of the facts with the court and then fought over the applicable law or contract interpretation only.

So, no, facts are not always in dispute. In reality, facts are rarely in dispute. And as far as I am concerned, that holds true for real life. Opinions? Now that is a different matter altogether, and if you start from a personally biased viewpoint, the resulting opinion is even worse and usually that much further from the truth. And there is truth - a single one - that has to be found but can be determined objectively.

There are no "alternative facts" out there. Sorry all!

P.s.: I will, of course not dispute the old legal saying: "If you can't beat them on the facts, beat them on the law; if you can't beat them on the law, beat them on the facts; if you can't beat them on either, confuse the hell out of the case and hope the judge becomes mistaken in your favour".  ;D   

 

[mariomike]

:goodpost:

"You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts."

 

[Fishbone Jones]

OGBD - have you ever wondered why there are two lawyers at every trial?

Facts are always in dispute.  Otherwise lawyers would be out of work.

You say that like it's a bad thing. [lol: