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

[Fishbone Jones]

Boy, it sure would suck for all those that deride Trump at every opportunity, if Russia went in and smoked a shitload of foreign terrorists based on what Trump said.

Besides, what have we heard from Israel? Are they upset? Are they demanding an investigation? Have they said their assets were damaged?

This is just like the 'Trump got two scoops of ice cream and the unpaying, whiny Press Corps only got one scoop. As both CNN and Time Warner spent so much air time this week saying how unequal he treats people, over the incident. Oh, and he had a diet pop instead of like the unpaying, whiny Press Corps, who got water.

The bigger problem for the US is not Trump, it is the traitor(s), leaking info from the government, at all levels, to the press on a 24/7 basis, contrary to the law. If they have a news cycle where they can't pick flyshit out of pepper It is the lunatic left calling for Senate investigations and calls of impeachment over absolutely anything. Don't forget, these are the same people that screamed and yelled at Trump for keeping Comey. How vile he is. How traitorous he is. How the POTUS is risking everything by keeping him. Within minutes of the announcement about Comey's dismissal, all these same top democrats started howling about how unjust Trump was being, how much of a good honest guy the Dir FBI is. How non partisan. In less than 24 hrs these childish shit disturbers had gone from demonizing Comey, getting ready for tar and feathers, torches and pitchforks to canonizing him and putting him up for sainthood. These sore losers are instrumental right now for much of the reported turmoil in the government. They are impeding the will of the people and press and MSM, where you are getting your info, are complicit with those same spiteful democrat children.These are the people that need to be investigated, charged, convicted and thrown in jail for years for sedition and subversion.

 

[Altair]

Boy, it sure would suck for all those that deride Trump at every opportunity, if Russia went in and smoked a shitload of foreign terrorists based on what Trump said.

Besides, what have we heard from Israel? Are they upset? Are they demanding an investigation? Have they said their assets were damaged?

This is just like the 'Trump got two scoops of ice cream and the unpaying, whiny Press Corps only got one scoop. As both CNN and Time Warner spent so much air time this week saying how unequal he treats people, over the incident. Oh, and he had a diet pop instead of like the unpaying, whiny Press Corps, who got water.

The bigger problem for the US is not Trump, it is the traitor(s), leaking info from the government, at all levels, to the press on a 24/7 basis, contrary to the law. If they have a news cycle where they can't pick flyshit out of pepper It is the lunatic left calling for Senate investigations and calls of impeachment over absolutely anything. Don't forget, these are the same people that screamed and yelled at Trump for keeping Comey. How vile he is. How traitorous he is. How the POTUS is risking everything by keeping him. Within minutes of the announcement about Comey's dismissal, all these same top democrats started howling about how unjust Trump was being, how much of a good honest guy the Dir FBI is. How non partisan. In less than 24 hrs these childish crap disturbers had gone from demonizing Comey, getting ready for tar and feathers, torches and pitchforks to canonizing him and putting him up for sainthood. These sore losers are instrumental right now for much of the reported turmoil in the government. They are impeding the will of the people and press and MSM, where you are getting your info, are complicit with those same spiteful democrat children.These are the people that need to be investigated, charged, convicted and thrown in jail for years for sedition and subversion.

No one would care if Russia swept in and smoked a bunch of terrorists.

If Russia was able to discover the source of the information from what Mr Trump told them, and then shared said intel with one of their allies, like Iran, that would be troublesome.

The fact that the CIA was alerted that information was shared is a red flag to me. If nothing sensitive was shared, why involve the CIA?

I could never get around supporting clinton because of her careless use of private server. Now, if this is true, this is far worst.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Best to just sit back and enjoy the show.

If the sources - anonymous former officials who were not in the room - are wrong, media credibility takes a huge hit in addition to the impacts of all the other stories from the past few months in which they were burned by humbug sources.

If the sources are correct, the media are going to collect a huge bag: Trump, and the 3 officials who were in the room and issued various forms of denials.

 

[Kirkhill]

Sturm und drang? Oder nacht und nebel?  Alles gleich.

Where's the beer?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Boy, it sure would suck for all those that deride Trump at every opportunity, if Russia went in and smoked a shitload of foreign terrorists based on what Trump said.

We'll just have to wait & see - not to mention see what the Russian transcripts may have to say ...

... Besides, what have we heard from Israel? Are they upset? Are they demanding an investigation? Have they said their assets were damaged?...

Like Israel has always been big on airing its int affairs publicly?

... It is the lunatic left .... that screamed and yelled at Trump for keeping Comey. How vile he is. How traitorous he is. How the POTUS is risking everything by keeping him. Within minutes of the announcement about Comey's dismissal, all these same top democrats started howling about how unjust Trump was being, how much of a good honest guy the Dir FBI is ...

... just like Trump himself said at one point in the many news cycles in play before firing him, so I guess there's always swings and roundabouts on all sides.

Well put ...

Best to just sit back and enjoy the show.

If the sources - anonymous former officials who were not in the room - are wrong, media credibility takes a huge hit in addition to the impacts of all the other stories from the past few months in which they were burned by humbug sources.

If the sources are correct, the media are going to collect a huge bag: Trump, and the 3 officials who were in the room and issued various forms of denials.

:nod:

op:

 

[Rifleman62]

Milnews.ca:

... and the info-sharing conveyor belt is so much more efficient when there's a "media photographer"in the room working for an agency that, at least in the past, has been used as a cover for intelligence officers -- but I'm sure that's all changed now that The Wall is down and the KGB is history ...

Media photographers? Now soon we forget: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/us/politics/photographers-protest-white-house-restrictions.html

Photographers Protest White House Restrictions - By MARK LANDLERNOV. 21, 2013

WASHINGTON — A mutiny has erupted among photographers who cover President Obama over what they say is the White House’s increasing practice of excluding them from events involving the president and then releasing its own photos or video.

On Thursday, the White House Correspondents’ Association and 37 news organizations submitted a letter to the press secretary, Jay Carney, protesting what photographers said amounted to the establishment of the White House’s own Soviet-style news service, which gets privileged access to Mr. Obama at the expense of journalists who cover the president.

“As surely as if they were placing a hand over a journalist’s camera lens,” the three-page letter said, “officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the executive branch of government.”

The Obama administration has embraced social media as a way to get its message to the public beyond the traditional news media. Senior officials post tweets and blog items, while the chief White House photographer, Pete Souza, posts photos of the president on Facebook, Flickr and Instagram, often minutes after they are taken.

The White House defended its policy, arguing it is not logistically feasible to give photographers access to every event. The deputy spokesman, Josh Earnest, said, “We’ve taken advantage of new technology to give the American public even greater access to behind-the-scenes footage or photographs of the president doing his job.”

“I understand why that is a source of some consternation to the people in this room,” Mr. Earnest said during the daily White House briefing. “But to the American public, that is a clear win.”

Mr. Earnest faced persistent questioning from reporters who said the White House was setting a precedent on access and was substituting a government photographer for those from news agencies. Mr. Souza, a former photographer for The Chicago Tribune who became close to Mr. Obama when he was a senator from Illinois, referred questions to Mr. Earnest.

The letter cited seven recent examples of newsworthy events from which photographers were banned, including an outdoor lunch for Mr. Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, a meeting with Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, and a session in the Oval Office at which Malala Yousafzai, a young Pakistani human rights campaigner, spoke with Mr. Obama, his wife, Michelle, and their daughter Malia.

Administration officials have said these were private meetings. But in all of the cases, a White House photographer recorded the event and posted the pictures on Flickr or other social media sites. Major news organizations regularly publish the photos.

“They’re excluding photographers from events at the White House, which is a problem in and of itself,” said Steve Thomma, the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association. “But now they’re sending in their photographers and video crews and then releasing the photos and video. That sets up their own media operation.”

Tensions between the photographers and the White House have simmered for months. They flared during Mr. Obama’s visit to South Africa last summer, when photographers were allowed to take a single shot of the president in Nelson Mandela’s jail cell on Robben Island, but were excluded from the cell when he hugged his daughter Sasha. That moment was caught by Mr. Souza and widely distributed.

White House photographers have historically captured private moments of the president, with his family or conferring with advisers in the Oval Office or the Situation Room. During the debate over the civil war in Syria, Mr. Souza’s images of internal meetings provided a revealing account of the tensions felt by the president and his staff.

But the news organizations argue that the White House has expanded its restrictions to everyday activities, like the time when Mr. Obama went for a swim off Panama City, Fla., in 2010 to demonstrate that the water had been cleaned up after the BP oil spill.

“The way they exclude us is to say that this is a very private moment,” said Doug Mills, a photographer for The New York Times who has covered the White House since the Reagan administration. “But they’re making private moments very public.”

In a tense meeting late last month with Mr. Carney, Mr. Mills and other board members of the White House Correspondents’ Association showed a stack of photos that they said illustrated the problem.

“I said, ‘Jay, this is just like Tass,’ ” Mr. Mills said, referring to the Soviet state news agency. “It’s like government-controlled use of the public image of the president.”

 

[The Bread Guy]

Good catch, R62 ...

( ... )

“I said, ‘Jay, this is just like Tass,’ ” Mr. Mills said, referring to the Soviet state news agency. “It’s like government-controlled use of the public image of the president.”

... but not exactly the same situation:  domestic media may have barred, but how often did Obama let members of a group known to have shielded int agents into a meeting when, at the same time, domestic media was barred?

I'm sure there have been cases of POTUS's (POTI?) galore barring U.S. media from events (all, likely, with the same kicking and screaming from MSM), so to me, barring them to the exclusion of the other side's 'media' is more of an issue, just like recceguy's concern is leaks from the Whitehouse to MSM as opposed to (possible?) leaks to Tass/Russia.  That's what makes the exchanges interesting - wide-ranging opinions, with just enough truth on either side to keep things zesty - but still reasonably civil.

 

[Rifleman62]

Quote from: recceguy on Today at 12:11:11
... Besides, what have we heard from Israel? Are they upset? Are they demanding an investigation? Have they said their assets were damaged?...
Milnews.ca:

Like Israel has always been big on airing its int affairs publicly?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4514788/Trump-secret-phone-call-Netanyahu-not-Russia.html

At the bottom of the article of course after all the negatives by all the  "former" and unnamed.

Extract.

Israel's ambassador to the U.S., Ron Dermer, said in a statement that: 'Israel has full confidence in our intelligence-sharing relationship with the United States and looks forward to deepening that relationship in the years ahead under President Trump.'

 

[Rifleman62]

How soon we forget:

http://www.snopes.com/obama-more-flexibility-russia/

Is This Thing On?

In 2012, President Obama was overheard over a hot microphone telling President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia he would have "more flexibility" to negotiate with Putin after the election.

A hot microphone picked up President Obama telling Russian President Dmitri Medvedev he would have more flexibility to negotiate on issues like missile defense after the 2012 election.

RATING: TRUE

ORIGIN
In December 2016, amid reports that U.S. intelligence officials had determined that the Russian government purposely meddled in the 2016 presidential election to help Donald Trump win, partisan sources recirculated four-year-old stories about a 2012 incident in which President Obama was overheard whispering to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he (Obama) would have more flexibility to negotiate after the U.S. election that November.

Per news reports at the time, the incident happened as described. The occasion was a joint press opportunity with Medvedev prior to a global nuclear security summit in Seoul, South Korea. According to Reuters, snippets of conversation between the two were picked up by live microphones before the meeting got underway:

As he was leaning toward Medvedev in Seoul, Obama was overheard asking for time — “particularly with missile defense” — until he is in a better position politically to resolve such issues.

“I understand your message about space,” replied Medvedev, who will hand over the presidency to Putin in May.

“This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term.

“I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” said Medvedev, Putin’s protégé and long considered number two in Moscow’s power structure.

The exchange, parts of it inaudible, was monitored by a White House pool of television journalists as well as Russian reporters listening live from their press center.

The audible portions of the conversation were captured on video at link.

Issues surrounding a planned NATO missile defense system had been a sticking point in relations between the two nations for some time, the Telegraph reported:

Russia has been strongly critical of plans for U.S.-led Nato missile defense in Europe. Russian officials believe the planned missile shield would target Russia’s nuclear deterrent and undermine global stability, while the U.S. insists the planned missile shield is intended to counter threats from Iran.

Mr Putin said earlier this month that Washington’s refusal to offer Moscow written guarantees that its missile defence system would not be aimed against Russia deepened its concerns.

Obama’s intended off-the-record assurances to the transitioning Russian leadership were roundly criticized by his political opponents, who feared it signaled a lack of resolve on the president’s part. The Los Angeles Times reported:

Mitt Romney, the front-runner for the Republican nomination, accused Obama of “pulling his punches with the American people” and obscuring his plans for the missile defense system.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said “we look forward” to hearing what the president meant by “more flexibility” when he returns from South Korea.

John Bolton, ambassador to the United Nations during the George W. Bush administration, called Obama’s comments a “fire bell in the night,” which signaled not only that Obama would scale back the missile defense program, but also that he might be planning to give ground on a range of national security priorities.

“There’s huge cause for concern here,” Bolton said.

Obama is too much of “a politician to entirely show his hand in the first term, but it would be open season” if he is reelected, Bolton said.

Benjamin J. Rhodes, a White House deputy national security adviser, gave Obama’s comments a prosaic spin:

"Since 2012 is an election year in both countries, with an election and leadership transition in Russia and an election in the United States, it is clearly not a year in which we are going to achieve a breakthrough".

Obama was quoted the following day saying he wasn’t trying to “hide the ball,” and would carry through with negotiations with Russia. In May 2016, after nearly a decade of planning (and over the continued objections of Russia), the NATO missile defense system in Europe was finally launched.

Fast-forwarding to December 2016, it is unclear precisely what equivalence, if any, is supposed to exist between Obama’s 2012 vow of “flexibility” and claims that Russia took Trump’s side in the presidential election, but sources such as CNSNews.com emphasized Obama’s persistent criticism of Trump’s alleged closeness to Vladimir Putin:

While campaigning for Hillary Clinton in October, Obama criticized Republican Donald Trump’s “continued flattery of Mr. Putin and the degree to which he appears to model many of his policies and approaches” after those of Putin.

 

[The Bread Guy]

How soon we forget:

http://www.snopes.com/obama-more-flexibility-russia/

Is This Thing On?

In 2012, President Obama was overheard over a hot microphone telling President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia he would have "more flexibility" to negotiate with Putin after the election....

OK, you're right, you win -- anything Obama did has to be worse than anything Trump is doing, even though speaking near an open mike in a public forum is the same as inviting someone who may be a spy into the Oval Office.  #OneIsNeverRightOneIsNeverWrong

Or are you agreeing that Presidents shouldn't be leaking secret stuff, meaning Trump did a no-no too?   

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2017/2/24/14725732/table-tennis-world-record-766-shot-rally-video

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Snopes is a compromised source. It was proven at the end of the election that Snopes was manipulating stories to favour the democrats.

milnews. Looks like you've lost your objectivity. You're now attacking the right when they post something that doesn't fit your narrative. Welcome to being human.

 

[The Bread Guy]

milnews. Looks like you've lost your objectivity. You're now attacking the right when they post something that doesn't fit your narrative. Welcome to being human.

One man's "attack" is another's "pointing out discrepancies/the other side," , as you and others have been happy to do from the other side.

As for objectivity, I don't think I'm entirely unmovable -- I've been happy to say when Trump's been misquoted/misrepresented.  Tilted?  Perhaps.  More or less than others here?  I'll leave that judgement to others - just happy to share & learn.

And if I'm human, at least I'm in good company 

 

[FJAG]

Snopes is a compromised source. It was proven at the end of the election that Snopes was manipulating stories to favour the democrats.

milnews. Looks like you've lost your objectivity. You're now attacking the right when they post something that doesn't fit your narrative. Welcome to being human.

How about Anne Coulter, then?

Ann Coulter Is Worried The ‘Trump-Haters Were Right’

Alex Pfeiffer

Conservative author Ann Coulter was one of the most vocal supporters of Donald Trump during the presidential campaign.

She wrote “In Trump We Trust” and proclaimed that she worships him like the “people of North Korea worship their Dear Leader – blind loyalty.”

Coulter described herself as a single-issue voter during the election and was drawn to Trump due to his “Mexican rapist speech” and him calling for a border wall to be built.

In an interview Sunday with The Daily Caller, Coulter let it be known she still has hope in the Trump presidency, but is ready to jump ship.

So there’s no wall, and Obama’s amnesties look like they are here to stay. Do you still trust Trump?

Uhhhh. I’m not very happy with what has happened so far. I guess we have to try to push him to keep his promises. But this isn’t North Korea, and if he doesn’t keep his promises I’m out. This is why we voted for him. I think everyone who voted for him knew his personality was grotesque, it was the issues.

I hate to say it, but I agree with every line in my friend Frank Bruni’s op-ed in The New York Times today. Where is the great negotiation? Where is the bull in the china shop we wanted? That budget the Republicans pushed through was like a practical joke… Did we win anything? And this is the great negotiator?

You said during the election and in columns that if there is no wall it’s the end of America.

Trump was our last shot. I kind of thought it was Romney, and then lo and behold like a miracle Trump comes along. I still believe in Trumpism. I have no regrets for ferociously supporting him. What choice did we have?

We had no choice. Yeah, I mean, my fingers are still crossed. It’s not like I’m out yet, but boy, things don’t look good. I’ve said to other people, it’s as if we’re in Chicago and Trump tells us he’s going to get us to LA in six days. But for the first three days we are driving towards New York. Yes, it is true he can still turn around and get us to LA in three days, but I’m a little nervous.

What’s behind him driving towards New York?

If he grabs the steering wheel and turns around and takes us toward LA, then I’ll just put it down to him not being a professional politician and having to come into the presidency with no support network, with all of official Washington against him.

I have from the beginning been opposed to Trump hiring any of his relatives. Americans don’t like that, I don’t like that. That’s the one fascist thing he’s done. Hiring his kids.

But I understand if you’re in Washington you don’t know who to trust, the party was against you, the politicians were against you, the bureaucracy was against you, and by the way this isn’t to say anything bad about Jared. Everything I know about him, I think he’s doing a great job. But even if he is absolutely the best person for the job, I don’t like the hiring of relatives.

I could understand all that if he gets control of the steering wheel and turns around and starts going towards LA.

If we just keep going to New York. Well again, I’ll say we had no choice, but the Trump-haters were right…It’s a nightmare. I can’t even contemplate that. Right now I’m still rooting for him to turn around and take us toward LA.

Are you going to be apologizing to these Never Trumpers?

I don’t apologize for supporting Trump. He said all the right things and nobody else would even say it. I suppose it’s possible that another politician who really meant it would come along. There’s Kris Kobach, Tom Cotton, Jeff Sessions…there are probably a handful of politicians.

I got to tell you when I wrote “Adios America” I thought there was a 10 percent chance of saving the country. On the evening of November 8, I thought, “Wow we have a 90 percent chance now, this is a chance that comes a long once every thousand years, we can save America now.”

And now, I don’t know, I’m someplace between 10 percent and 90 percent.

How much blame does congressional leadership deserve?

I do, of course, blame Congress most of all. They are swine. They only care about their own careers. Who knows how much of it is corruption and how much of it is pure stupidity? People should start sending Paul Ryan bricks to indicate how much we want the wall.

They are the opposition party to Donald Trump. This is really something we’ve never seen before. The president stands alone, it’s his own political party, he’s Gary Cooper. All we have is millions of Americans behind him, but he doesn’t have anybody in Washington behind him.

During the campaign you said you would have to start writing mystery books if Hillary Clinton won. Are you preparing to start writing these?

No. But I must say I’ve been contemplating it a bit more. You can’t give up yet. We have to keep Trump’s feet to the fire. It’s weird because I really think in his heart he’s a genuine patriot.

It’s just that it has been such a disaster so far, and that General Kelly is so preposterous, and McMaster — did you see him at that press conference? I thought he was retarded. You have to link to that video.

I’ve never actually heard anyone other than liberals mocking their idea of a stupid Republican say, “Murica.”

[Trump] might not have realized how intense the opposition was going to be. Not on everything. Nobody else would have done the trade deals, that is to save American jobs. But they are not going to complain and massively resist on trade. They are not going to massively resist him on things like tax cuts. They are going to love for him to go to war, we have to try to resist him on that.

The one thing he will get massive resistance from every source in Washington including his “own party” is immigration.

What does your friend Matt Drudge think of all of this? Recently on Michael Savage’s radio show he seemed nervous about the Trump administration.

I’ll let him speak for himself, but I think all of the Trump true believers are petrified.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/14/ann-coulter-is-worried-the-trump-haters-were-right/

:cheers:

 

[Rifleman62]

Milnews.ca:

Or are you agreeing that Presidents shouldn't be leaking secret stuff, meaning Trump did a no-no too? 

I believe the disclosure of classified material was reference to the laptop ban (bombs) on commercial air which the Russians were a victim of 1 1/2 years ago over the Sini. That the location of the Int was disclosed may have gone to far. The WP disclosed that it was HUMINT, which added with the loc possibly compromised the actual human source.

Don't you think leaders of countries share Int/warnings/threats in their one on one meetings? Of course they do. The problem here is that someone leaked the info (a felony), and the WP published it all. As the Commander-in-Chief, the President can declassify anything. In this case, to answer your query, Trump didn't leak anything. What he probably did was give the Russians sensitive info on ISIS threats. The sensitive info was classified to be sure. Should he have done it? Don't know.

Personally, I think that Pres Trump DID ask Comey to give Flynn a break because he thinks Flynn is a good man.

My historical perspective re the President possibly passing classified secrets to the Russians: One of the greatest secrets in the 20th century was the successful development of the Atomic Bomb. Vice President Truman was not on the need to know list with regard to the Manhattan Project (Atomic Bomb) and was not informed until he became President in April 1945 upon the death of Roosevelt . At the Potsdam Conference, 24 July 1945, President Truman chose to tell Stalin only that the U.S. possessed “a new weapon of unusual destructive force.”. Although the USSR was a then war time ally, Churchill was already worried about post war Europe and did not trust Stalin. When Truman informed Stalin, Churchill watched for his reaction. It is believed that Soviet spies had already informed Stalin of the Manhattan Project. Events proved Churchill correct, hence his “Iron Curtain” speech, March 1946.

 

[Journeyman]

OK, I'm not looking for a pissing contest -- seriously.


I read news stories from sources around the planet.  Half of my family is American.  I personally think that Trump and Clinton were just as abysmal coin-toss options as Trudeau and Harper.

What news source should be read to not evoke a Pavlovian "FAKE NEWS" response?


I'm honestly interested, and I'm honestly baffled.  Seriously.

 

[Kirkhill]

OK, I'm not looking for a pissing contest -- seriously.


I read news stories from sources around the planet.  Half of my family is American.  I personally think that Trump and Clinton were just as abysmal coin-toss options as Trudeau and Harper.

What news source should be read to not evoke a Pavlovian "FAKE NEWS" response?


I'm honestly interested, and I'm honestly baffled.  Seriously.

For me, I don't believe any.  I read those that don't raise my blood pressure.  Scan those that do for verification.  Disregard anything that says "might" "could"  or makes any other prediction or statement of belief.

I am now reduced to - Something happened.  Probably.  Something will happen.  Probably.  The two events may, or may not be, connected.

And I expect the world to keep turning.

Insh'Allah.  And Auld Cloutie doesn't get me first.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It depends on what you mean by "news".  All I rely on traditional news agencies for is basic information: "X has happened".  Their analyses, commentary, and opinions are mostly useless (apply Gell-Mann Amnesia prophylaxis vigorously).

RealClearPolitics does a good job of aggregating stories and opinions on current issues, often in contrasting pairs (covering "red" and "blue" team perspectives).

Most of the writers at NRO (National Review Online; right-leaning) seem to be able to maintain objectivity.  Andrew McCarthy is particularly good on executive/legal issues.

Megan McArdle at Bloomberg View (left-leaning, with some right-leaning contributors) is reliable on the issues she covers.  Ramesh Ponnuru appears there, as well as at NRO, and is equally reliable.

Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic (left-leaning) is good.  He's the only one left there who writes on politics (much of his stuff focuses on civil rights) who hasn't descended into the fever swamp.

Reason.com (libertarian-leaning) has some good writers who cover health care and civil rights.

There's good stuff that comes out of a few economics blogs - Marginal Revolution, EconLog - when they touch on current issues.

The key is to focus on specific writers, not agencies.

 

[FJAG]

Interesting piece from the guy who wrote "The Art of the Deal" for Trump.

Tony Schwartz: I wrote The Art of the Deal with Donald Trump. His self-sabotage is rooted in his past

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/tony-schwartz-i-wrote-the-art-of-the-deal-with-donald-trump-and-none-of-his-behaviour-as-president-is-surprising

:cheers:

 

[Blackadder1916]

Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-investigation.html?_r=0

By REBECCA R. RUIZ and MARK LANDLERMAY 17, 2017

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department appointed Robert S. Mueller III, a former F.B.I. director, as special counsel on Wednesday to oversee the investigation into ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russian officials, dramatically raising the legal and political stakes in an affair that has threatened to engulf Mr. Trump’s 118-day-old presidency.

The decision, by the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, came after a cascade of damaging developments for Mr. Trump in recent days, including his abrupt dismissal of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, and the subsequent disclosure that Mr. Trump asked Mr. Comey to drop the investigation of his former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn.

Mr. Rosenstein, who wrote a memo that the White House initially cited as the rationale for Mr. Comey’s dismissal, had been under escalating pressure from Democrats, and even some Republicans, to appoint a special counsel.

By appointing Mr. Mueller, a former federal prosecutor with an unblemished reputation who once stood up to President George W. Bush on the legality of his domestic wiretapping program, Mr. Rosenstein could alleviate questions about the government’s capacity to investigate the swirl of questions surrounding the Trump campaign and the Russians.

(more at link)

Mr. Trump did promise, during one of the debates with Mrs. Clinton, that a special counsel would be appointed to investigate potential wrongdoing . . . well, a campaign promise kept.