Political Roundtable Part XX

[stilldropin20]

remember when everyone thought this was metaphorical? It actually aged quite well. Its a good day to remind everyone of her actual unfettered words in an email that she thought would just end up "acid washed" someday.

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

here you go. click and follow this entire thread on twitter. your welcome.

Read on Twitter

[gtn130]

SD20 sharing right wing fan fiction written on personal blogs at this point

[nate33]

SD20 sharing right wing fan fiction written on personal blogs at this point

Last Refuge is legit. They're THE blog for tracking the whole FBI scandal. They meticulously link to the original source material. You can be sure that everyone in DC who is paying attention to this stuff is reading Last Refuge.

[nate33]

Read on Twitter

The quick take on the 4,100-word opus is that the Gray Lady “buried the lede.” Fair enough: You have to dig pretty deep to find that the FBI ran “at least one government informant” against the Trump campaign — and to note that the Times learned this because “current and former officials” leaked to reporters the same classified information about which, just days ago, the Justice Department shrieked “Extortion!” when Congress asked about it.

But that’s not even the most important of the buried ledes. What the Times story makes explicit, with studious understatement, is that the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign.

That is, there was no criminal predicate to justify an investigation of any Trump-campaign official. So, the FBI did not open a criminal investigation. Instead, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation and hoped that evidence of crimes committed by Trump officials would emerge. But it is an abuse of power to use counterintelligence powers, including spying and electronic surveillance, to conduct what is actually a criminal investigation.

The Times barely mentions the word counterintelligence in its saga. That’s not an accident. The paper is crafting the media-Democrat narrative. Here is how things are to be spun: The FBI was very public about the Clinton-emails investigation, even making disclosures about it on the eve of the election. Yet it kept the Trump-Russia investigation tightly under wraps, despite intelligence showing that the Kremlin was sabotaging the election for Trump’s benefit. This effectively destroyed Clinton’s candidacy and handed the presidency to Trump.

It’s a gas, gas, gas!

It’s also bunk. Just because the two FBI cases are both referred to as “investigations” does not make them the same kind of thing.

The Clinton case was a criminal investigation that was predicated on a mountain of incriminating evidence. Mrs. Clinton does have one legitimate beef against the FBI: Then-director James Comey went public with some (but by no means all) of the proof against her. In is not proper for law-enforcement officials to publicize evidence from a criminal investigation unless formal charges are brought.

In the scheme of things, though, this was a minor infraction. The scandal here is that Mrs. Clinton was not charged. She likes to blame Comey for her defeat; but she had a chance to win only because the Obama Justice Department and the FBI tanked the case against her — in exactly the manner President Obama encouraged them to do in public commentary.

By contast, the Trump case is a counterintelligence investigation. Unlike criminal cases, counterintelligence matters are classified. If agents had made public disclosures about them, they would have been committing crimes and violating solemn agreements with foreign intelligence services — agreements without which those services would not share information that U.S. national-security officials need in order to protect our country.

In the scheme of things, though, the problem is not that the FBI honored its confidentiality obligations in the Trump case while violating them in the Clinton case. The scandal is that the FBI, lacking the incriminating evidence needed to justify opening a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, decided to open a counterintelligence investigation. With the blessing of the Obama White House, they took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans — Americans who just happened to be their political adversaries

Obviously, Russia was trying to meddle in the election, mainly through cyber-espionage — hacking. There would, then, have been nothing inappropriate about the FBI’s opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia. Indeed, it would have been irresponsible not to do so. That’s what counterintelligence powers are for.

But opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia is not the same thing as opening up a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign.

The media-Democrat complex has tried from the start to conflate these two things. That explains the desperation to convince the public that Putin wanted Trump to win. It explains the stress on contacts, no matter how slight, between Trump campaign figures and Russians. They are trying to fill a gaping void they hope you don’t notice: Even if Putin did want Trump to win, and even if Trump-campaign advisers did have contacts with Kremlin-tied figures, there is no evidence of participation by the Trump campaign in Russia’s espionage.

That is the proof that would have been needed to justify investigating Americans. Under federal law, to establish that an American is acting as an agent of a foreign power, the government must show that the American is purposefully engaging in clandestine activities on behalf of a foreign power, and that it is probable that these activities violate federal criminal law. (See FISA, Title 50, U.S. Code, Section 1801(b)(2), further explained in the last six paragraphs of my Dec. 17 column.)

But of course, if the FBI had had that kind of evidence, they would not have had to open a counterintelligence investigation. They would not have had to use the Clinton campaign’s opposition research — the Steele dossier — to get FISA-court warrants. They would instead have opened a criminal investigation, just as they did on Clinton when there was evidence that she committed felonies.

To the contrary, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation in the absence of any (a) incriminating evidence, or (b) evidence implicating the Trump campaign in Russian espionage. At the height of the 2016 presidential race, the FBI collaborated with the CIA to probe an American political campaign. They used foreign-intelligence surveillance and informants.

And there you have it. Andrew McCarthy lays it out in brutal detail. If this goes unpunished, there is no longer due process in this nation and our politics will be forever corrupted. The Obama Administration, lacking an evidence of an actual crime, spied on the Trump Administration in a "counterintelligence investigation" using the full powers of the FBI, CIA and NSA in an attempt to find a crime so that they could use it against him in an election campaign. These powers are not to be used on U.S. citizens unless there is evidence that they are acting as agents of a foreign power. Furthermore, any dirt on the Trump campaign that was dug up with this illegal spying was systematically leaked to the media in an attempt to undermine Trump the candidate and Trump the President. The FBI and DOJ took deliberate steps to make sure the information got leaked out (such as broadcasting that Comey briefed Trump on the Piss Dossier so that it was officially "news" and not "rumor", or unmasking the names of several people and disseminating that information throughout the government).

[closg00]

And there you have it. Andrew McCarthy lays it out in brutal detail. If this goes unpunished, there is no longer due process in this nation and our politics will be forever corrupted. The Obama Administration, lacking an evidence of an actual crime, spied on the Trump Administration in a "counterintelligence investigation" using the full powers of the FBI, CIA and NSA in an attempt to find a crime so that they could use it against him in an election campaign. These powers are not to be used on U.S. citizens unless there is evidence that they are acting as agents of a foreign power. Furthermore, any dirt on the Trump campaign that was dug up with this illegal spying was systematically leaked to the media in an attempt to undermine Trump the candidate and Trump the President. The FBI and DOJ took deliberate steps to make sure the information got leaked out (such as broadcasting that Comey briefed Trump on the Piss Dossier so that it was officially "news" and not "rumor", or unmasking the names of several people and disseminating that information throughout the government).

I'll trade you your opinion piece for my opinion piece (based on facts)

First, Russian intelligence hacked the email accounts of Trump’s political opponents. Then, the Russians told the Trump campaign that they had stolen the emails and could anonymously release them. Third, Russian operatives met with the highest levels of the Trump campaign in Trump Tower to discuss the “dirt” the Russians had on the Clinton campaign as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

After that meeting, Russia began using Wikileaks to disseminate the emails. Meanwhile, the Trump campaign began setting up multiple backchannels to Wikileaks, including through Roger Stone.

Wikileaks released emails at a time of maximum political benefit to the Trump campaign. They undermined the unifying message of the DNC with a release right before it started. And a scant 29 minutes after the Washington Post broke the news about the “Access Hollywood” tapes, which threatened to end Trump’s campaign, Wikileaks released a trove of Clinton campaign chair (and Center for American Progress founder) John Podesta’s emails.

This release was particularly odd, given that it was on a Friday afternoon and right after the biggest news story of the campaign to date; it was a release that made little sense from the perspective of an independent organization seeking to maximize attention, but was strategically brilliant from the standpoint of a campaign seeking to change the subject.

Lastly, Trump made the stolen emails a centerpiece of his final message, mentioning Wikileaks five times per day during the final month of the campaign and using specific emails — plucked out of Wikileaks’ massive data releases like needles in a haystack — to target key constituents.

Trump’s questionable ties to Russian oligarchs gave his campaign the means, motive and opportunity to collude. In fact, Trump and his team repeatedly demonstrated that they were a willing partner who would do anything to win the election. Given what we know to date, the question is not whether they colluded, but how deep the collusion went.

The Mueller investigation — now one year in — is seeking to answer that question, and it’s critically important that it be allowed to do so.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/year-mueller-case-collusion-article-1.3993794

[closg00]

What you will never see in ANY Republican talking point, article, or opinion piece, is ANY discussion about what the Trump people actually did. What did: Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Mike Flynn, Carter Page (and many others) do, what did they plead guilty to, and what are they going to testify to at these trials Nate? You guys have erected and torn-down a straw man while Mueller continues his work.

[dckingsfan]

should the working poor and working lower-middle class not get a tax break!!!??

they were "making" more money by NOT working and living off of entitlements for decades!! Is that a good thing??

come on. you have to incentivize them to work if you have any chance at fixing the cost drivers of entitlements. This IS how you fix the cost drivers of medicaid, HUD, planned parenthood (which is mostly tax dollars paying for abortions). You put this group TO WORK. You incentivize them to pursue the american dream of owning their own home, a good career (with their own employer paid health insurance-and 401K to fund their own retirement), 2 cars in the driveway, and 2 kids in good schools. Thats the whole point!!!! You miss this everytime. the tax code addresses this!!

Instead of having 2-3 children and living in section 8 housing and spending boat loads on medicaid.

Fact check:

they were "making" more money by NOT working and living off of entitlements for decades!!

Mostly false - they were not "making" any money at all while scraping by on our social safety nets.

Fact check:

This IS how you fix the cost drivers of Medicaid, HUD, planned parenthood (which is mostly tax dollars paying for abortions).

Mostly false - the cost drivers of healthcare have little to do with tax incentives.

Fact check:

You incentivize them to pursue the american dream of owning their own home, a good career (with their own employer paid health insurance-and 401K to fund their own retirement), 2 cars in the driveway, and 2 kids in good schools. Thats the whole point!!!! You miss this everytime. the tax code addresses this!!

Mostly false, a tax code doesn't incentivize those you describe - there are virtually no benefits for those in that category from the recently passed tax bill.

Overall statement posits that more are not working than in the past. Fact check: Mostly false, the 25 to 54 labor force participation rate is getting close to full employment. The barriers to increase the percentages are those that are incarcerated, those that can't get work due to their criminal records and those suffering from mental illness.

[verbal8]

So about that Nobel Prize...

Nobel Punked Prize

[verbal8]

just another reason why I'll never vote for a corporate democrat:

Read on Twitter

I'm sure resident Democrats in this thread will try and 'splain this one away.

While I'm sure it may seem that way at times, I'm not actually a Demecrat. That said, while voting for anyone in particular may or may not be a good idea, I'm not really sure what your point is. Given that tweet you cited doesn't talk about any particular positions or how the discussions went, I can only assume you mean that you'd only vote for someone who insulted the Prime Minister of Israel by refusing to speak with him? That doesn't seem like a particularly great strategy, but hey. Again, there are plenty of reasons to vote or not vote for anyone in particular, including Harris, but your point doesn't make any sense to me.

It can be argued that single issue voting(anti-abortion) got us into the Trump mess.

[TGW]

just another reason why I'll never vote for a corporate democrat:

Read on Twitter

I'm sure resident Democrats in this thread will try and 'splain this one away.

While I'm sure it may seem that way at times, I'm not actually a Demecrat. That said, while voting for anyone in particular may or may not be a good idea, I'm not really sure what your point is. Given that tweet you cited doesn't talk about any particular positions or how the discussions went, I can only assume you mean that you'd only vote for someone who insulted the Prime Minister of Israel by refusing to speak with him? That doesn't seem like a particularly great strategy, but hey. Again, there are plenty of reasons to vote or not vote for anyone in particular, including Harris, but your point doesn't make any sense to me.

It can be argued that single issue voting(anti-abortion) got us into the Trump mess.

I don't think that's the single issue that got trump elected.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

and here. we. go.............

Read on Twitter

[closg00]

Read on Twitter

I believe Sater is a cooperating witness with Mueller

[stilldropin20]

SD20 sharing right wing fan fiction written on personal blogs at this point

who knows more about basketball analysis, the best "bloggers" here on realgm or peter vescey and hannah storm?

[stilldropin20]

Almost half of US families can't afford basics like rent and food - CNN Moneyhttps://apple.news/ADInIw7_ZRFeiqN4zVJBX0g

@dckings, This article outlines the problem with the so-called "obama economy." That trump now has on growth hormone and in over drive. Its clearly NOT enough for the working poor and working lower middle class.

IMO, we need to:

-- put these people back to work.

--Increase their wages.

and decrease their taxes.

ideally we also pass legislation to attack the cost drivers of their health care.

and create an "atmosphere" of hard work, "dream" pursuit, and living more humbly within their means.
. instead of champagne popping and clubbing.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[TGW]

just another reason why I'll never vote for a corporate democrat:

Read on Twitter

I'm sure resident Democrats in this thread will try and 'splain this one away.

While I'm sure it may seem that way at times, I'm not actually a Demecrat. That said, while voting for anyone in particular may or may not be a good idea, I'm not really sure what your point is. Given that tweet you cited doesn't talk about any particular positions or how the discussions went, I can only assume you mean that you'd only vote for someone who insulted the Prime Minister of Israel by refusing to speak with him? That doesn't seem like a particularly great strategy, but hey. Again, there are plenty of reasons to vote or not vote for anyone in particular, including Harris, but your point doesn't make any sense to me.

Netanyahoo is a crazed, maniacal liar and a zionist. The Democrats, the so-called "opposition party", should reject him and his politics wholeheartedly.

I don't know why, under any circumstances, would Harris meet with that individual.

[gtn130]

Read on Twitter

Look at this Deep State Hillary plant lying about the Witch Hunt. It’s no surprise that yet another Democrat appointed by *checks notes*

....

.....

.......

NO COLLUSION!!! WITCH HUNT!!!

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[gtn130]

Read on Twitter

Yet another fake news Democrat jealous of MY President Donald J Trump