Skip to content

Baby Boomers

Righty: I’m a Baby Boomer myself, but I blame my generation for virtually all the cultural evils that have spread like some insidious virus throughout the Western world since the 1960s: drugs, permissiveness, crackpot “liberation” movements, chronic self-absorption, political correctness and some of the ugliest music in history. We’re still paying for those excesses today. What happened to all those wild, long-haired, pot-smoking rebels who came of age in the late sixties? They’re either acquiring million-dollar vacation homes or buying their wheat-free organic granola at the local food co-op. Rich or poor, the common thread here seems to be pathological self-indulgence. Most Boomers can’t see beyond their own navels. We have yet to produce a single writer, artist, composer or statesman of genuine greatness. Even our generation’s culture heroes (think of Dylan, the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, the Rolling Stones, Jane Fonda, Woody Allen) are pre-Boomers to a man (or woman). Well, at least we can claim George W. Bush as one of our own.

Lefty: Maybe we Boomers haven’t produced many cultural giants of our own, but we’ve produced an incomparably more just and progressive culture than the one we inherited from our parents. Look at the strides we’ve made in improving life for women, gays and people of color. Look at the extended lifespans, the loss of rigid class divisions, the world-changing brilliance of our technology. (You wouldn’t be posting your opinions here, Righty, if you hadn’t been standing on the sturdy shoulders of farsighted Boomers.) I guess the common thread here is an all-encompassing sense of community; instead of the individual genius, we’ve produced a democratic culture that cherishes contributions from ordinary people like you and me. Can’t you take generational pride in an achievement like that? Oh, and don’t forget that the Clintons are Boomers, too.

The New Moderate:

Let me confess that I never took to the streets with the scruffy collegiate revolutionaries of my generation. My parents had decent values and generally lived up to them; I didn’t feel the need to act out my adolescent angst in the form of political rallies, psychotropic drugs or excessive cranial foliage.

Years later, I used to lament my abstention from the woolly excesses of sixties culture. Why couldn’t I have lived in a commune or at least enjoyed a few wild weeks of free hippie love? Why did I hold fast to buttoned-down bourgeois values, when everyone around me was letting it all hang out? But now I think I was wiser than I thought, if that makes any sense.

What I loathed about the Boomer counterculture was its inordinate love of bad-boy, in-your-face, confrontational behavior coupled with belligerent left-wing fanaticism. Granted, the revolutionaries never succeeded in storming the barricades; they simply hunkered down on campus, where they now enjoy life as comfortably tenured radicals who reject all ideas that grate against their ideological agendas. And of course, our culture is still hopelessly smitten with bad boys (even when those bad boys happen to be girls).

What began as a healthy skepticism toward corrupt authority degenerated into a generalized contempt for all authority: religious, political, social, moral, cultural, parental. We toppled ancient idols and gloated over the wreckage. We still dwell amid those ruins today, but we haven’t erected anything more impressive in their place.

What I liked about the Boomer counterculture — its playful spirit, its freaky humor and expressiveness, its love of adventures both physical and intellectual — seems to have died a slow death as the working world purged us of our romantic inclinations. Most of us seem to have sold out without the least whimper of regret; we became militant moneymakers. And so our Boomer playfulness eventually found expression in more mundane outlets: the cultivation of rarefied restaurant cuisine, a quirky preoccupation with lifestyle (there were no “style” sections in our newspapers before 1970), an obstinate refusal to age on schedule, and of course, a never-ending preoccupation with our own feelings. No other generation ever took to therapy with such enthusiasm, or needed to.

Why, then, has so much of Boomer culture tended toward anti-playfulness? Consider the Boomers’ transformation of parenting into a joyless science, the rampant careerism, the intrusion of work into personal time, the rejection of goofy fun and games in favor of dinner-party correctness, the unhealthy obsession with health and fitness. It all confirms my suspicion of a strong fanatical streak in the Boomer psyche.

In the end, after the last Boomers have turned to sawdust, how will history look upon us? I suspect we’ll be known as the Peter Pan generation. We attacked life with all the gusto and petulance of children, we believed the world revolved around us, and we despised old age. (The Baby Boomers will probably gain distinction as the first generation in history to advance from adolescence to old age without an intervening interval of maturity.) If we never achieved greatness, or even goodness, at least it can be said that we expanded our horizons beyond our parents’ humble meatloaf and mashed potatoes. That appears to be our legacy, for better or worse, and it looks as if we’ll have to be satisfied with it.

Summary: With their self-absorbed view of life, the Baby Boomers have done ample good and probably more harm. In the end, they renounced greatness for the comforts of their self-made lifestyles.

Advertisements
278 Comments leave one →
  1. August 30, 2017 8:12 pm

    There are two groups of Boomers. The first wave born after 1945 were blessed to live during the Fabulous Fifties (and do the duck and cover) and most sailed into the early 60s fueled by the bank of dad as self-entitled prince and princess with some addiction problem , most were 18 years or older by ’68. The Second wave of Boomers peaked in 1958, there was a bridge group of low birth rates between 1952 to 56 then a huge peak in 58 which rolled off the economic high of 1957 straight into a recession which lasted into 1963. The size of US cars 1960 to 62 tells all (all small ). By 1963 the 2nd boom was over and the size of cars increased. These 2nd wave boomer folks lived a happy early child hood until from 1957 to 1965 then by 1968 after 22 of the major cities in the USA suffered race rioting and huge fires, these 2nd wave boomers went straight into an oil crisis sandwich (72 and 79) as teens between 1972 and 1979, the 2nd peak graduated high school in 1976 and 1977, with no or few jobs and poor prospects of employment up to 1984, then they lived high carefree and unmarried for the most part until Black October in 1987, three short years of fun and prosperity in that short boom. We were your little brothers and sisters, and for the most part it sucked and still sucks today…and some of us that still have a soul are still looking to clean up the ’68er mess. 😉 The rest of us 2nd wave boomers aged 62 to 55 are either unemployed, foolishly faking early retirement or scraping by as self employed, or we are locked up, all of us without the big pensions and benefits of the 1st wave boomers and our shared parents who enjoyed long self centered careers or single family income life as most of the 1st wave enjoyed… and that’s life!

  2. Dennis Gauss permalink
    September 3, 2017 4:49 pm

    “The Clintons are boomers too”….So is trump !!

  3. Jay permalink
    May 18, 2018 4:02 pm

    Balanced and objective analysis.
    https://www.lawfareblog.com/sure-sell-to-zte-just-dont-buy-from-them

    • dhlii permalink
      May 18, 2018 5:10 pm

      For something you have linked the article is pretty good.
      That does not mean I agree – just that it is not left wing agit prop.

      American buying decisions are complex – and the article glosses over alot of that.

      It is wise to think carefully about buying critical governmnt infrastruction from a foreign source.

      But the most wise choice is to design to avoid single points of failure.

      The internet as an example was designed to allow communications to work even after a nuclear attack.

      We can and are slowly altering our infrastructure to be more resiliant. alot of that means making it less top down and more web based.

      What I found most interesting was YOUR authors effective demonstration that this really can not be bribery – the connection to Trump is too atenuated.

      • Jay permalink
        May 18, 2018 8:21 pm

        You were being sensible, until the end.
        He didn’t say that.
        He said this:
        “It’s not clear whether Trump really made this decision based on what would be in the best interests of the United States versus what would be in the best interests of his companies. And that we even need to contemplate the possibility that the Chinese government indirectly bribed the President of the United States is frankly terrifying.”

      • May 18, 2018 10:22 pm

        Trump or no Trump, there is nothing good that can come of this. His son managing Trump business interests can sign a deal with anyone and it will be questioned. Now if Pelosi was to ever become president, her husband could continue running their Financial Leasing business, sign deals, and no one would say a thing except for maybe Limbaugh and Hannity.

        But the real issue is anyone in business with a thought of running would have to be crazy after what Trump is going through. Even without the Russian connection, the media would find this stuff and beat him up on it. Why would anyone want to go through this?

      • dhlii permalink
        May 19, 2018 2:45 pm

        You have to read this carefully as the entire claim is decieptful.

        If you do not read carefully you would assume that Trump’s pockets were lined to the tune of 500m for this deal.

        This is a LOAN – and NOT to trump. There is no indication it has any connection to anything.
        Any financial gain from the loan must be from better than normal terms – which no one has actually claimed. Regardless, a 500M loan at %0.125 lower than the normal has a value that is a tiny fraction of 500m So it is highly unlikely there is anything untoward here.

        Further the loan is not directly or indirectly tied to Trump.
        It is for a project ADJACENT to a project that Trump is looking to develop.

        The actual claim here is that Trump’s potential project is more valuable if theis other project also goes through.

        That might be true. But Trump’s project is no certain.
        I would imaging the Trump’s have 10-15 projects under consideration for every one that went through.

        We had this discussion relative to the Trump tower project in Moscow – which fell through.

      • May 19, 2018 8:31 pm

        My point was missed. My point is anything Trump companies do is going to be criticized by the media no matter what. Trump, Trump Jr and anyone else related. Likewise, anything a democrat, no matter the position, relative does will be ignored. I have no idea what took place in the far east and could care less. Not following anti Trump s@$& on the news, internet or whatever. Just noticed the comment here and made my comment.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 19, 2018 10:56 pm

        Both sides play games.
        Both sides have credibility issues.

        But the game playing and lies are NOT perfectly balanced.

        Nor are they in the same relation all the time.

        The left has become increasingly radical, and increasingly illogical.
        It is also a bit bifurcated.

        Democrats at the momement are seeing something similar to what Republicans did in 2009 with the Tea Party.

        One portion of the party is on fire and going at directions at odds with the rest of the party.

        For republicans MOSTLY that worked. The TP harmed the GOP in a few elections, but mostly significantly helped them.

        But My guess is this is not going to work the same way for Democrats.

        38% of the country is willing to consider impeachment.
        But 71% of democrats are.

        That is just one example, but the point is that more than half of democrats are going where far less than half of the country is.

        Many pundits on the left are concerned that Tuesdays primaries were good for Republicans and bad to democrats.

        Republicans mostly got the candidates most likely to attract the center.
        Democrats got the candidates most likely to attract their left flank.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 19, 2018 10:59 pm

        The media has tended to favor the left all of my life.

        But one way or another if there is a story – they are going to follow it – even if it favors Trump and harms democrats.

        The problem is not what will get covered, but how it will be spun.

        WaPo is now trying to sell “Yes, CIA/FBI spied on Trump – for his own good”

      • Jay permalink
        May 20, 2018 10:06 am

        They didn’t ‘spy on Trump.’

        They investigated people working for the Trump campaign who may have been working with foreign agents.

        See the distinction..?

        Hypothetically, let’s say Trump was innocent of direct involvement, unaware of their activities. Are you idiotic enough to say the FBI/CIA/DOJ shouldn’t investigate that kind of foreign infiltration into the heart os a Presidential campaign?

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 12:36 pm

        “They didn’t ‘spy on Trump.’”

        They investigated people working for the Trump campaign who may have been working with foreign agents.

        See the distinction..?

        Hypothetically, let’s say Trump was innocent of direct involvement, unaware of their activities. Are you idiotic enough to say the FBI/CIA/DOJ shouldn’t investigate that kind of foreign infiltration into the heart os a Presidential campaign?”

        So it was OK for AG Mitchell to tap the DNC phones at watergate – because someone at the DNC might have been doing something wrong (there is some credible evidence that the target was not the DNC, but a single person who was running a prostitiion ring).

        No Jay – there is no distinction here.

        We do not have sufficient evidence TODAY for the surveilance that was occuring two years ago.
        We certainly did not at the time.

        The requirements to start an investigation – are very low, but what can be done is very limited – much less than deploying an operative to target specific people.

        You repeatedly call Halper an “informant”.
        Lets be clear – Halper was a govenrment agent – I mean that in the law enforcement sense.
        He was acting at the direction of law enforcement.
        The government may not circumvent the law but using agents rather than law enforcement.
        Though Halper is more than just an agent.
        He is even more than just an Off Book CIA Spy.
        He is an off book CIA operative – he was ACTIVELY engaged. He initiated actions against a target.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 19, 2018 2:24 pm

        I do not know what “that” is.

        This is mind reading and irrelevant.
        “It’s not clear whether Trump really made this decision based on ”

        You and your sources constantly attempt to make some action vile or wondorous based on your telepathic grasp of the motives of those involved.
        The merit of an act is rooted in the act, not your guesses as to the intentions of the actor.

        It is a standard patter of criminal prosecutions to establish a motive – BECAUSE motive makes it easier to beleive that the accused committed the crime.
        NOT because motive has anything to do with whether the act is a crime or no.

  4. May 18, 2018 5:28 pm

    Dave “You do not combat obesity by shooting the cook.”
    Taking this to a new thread. Other one takes too long to post comments.

    AH, but this is what some on the left would do. Not shoot them, just fire them. They almost do that with with bans on fat and sugar. Like guns, the cause of obesity and gun violence is not the food or the gun. Its ones brain that either puts the mouth in gear or the fingers in gear.

    The issues with the cause is not being identified nor is it a priority to determine the cause and find a response and prevention that only affects those that overeat or shoot others. The easy response is to limit access for everyone, even those that are underweight and can use the extra pounds.

    What does this have to do with shifting government philosophies. Everything. More government “protecting us” because that is what the far left and far right believe in.
    We now have SCOTUS ruling that sports gambling in states is legal. All we hear now is how the feds need to step in and make laws regulating it before is happens.

    What needs to happen is the sports leagues creating their own oversight commissions and regulate themselves. I dont have issues with state laws that ban certain gaming if that game is found to be screwing the public, but the oversight needs to be the games themselves.

  5. dduck12 permalink
    May 18, 2018 7:28 pm

    Ah, the smell of Mucus in the morning of the Baby Boomers. But, space for a while, until the grazing peters out, and then the exodus to a new promised thread. 🙂

  6. dduck12 permalink
    May 18, 2018 8:31 pm

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/trump-organization-indonesia-project-will-benefit-from-usd500-million-chinese-government-loan-report-says.html
    Only 500 mil., “what cheap bastards, I bet I can get more from Vlad”.
    I know, just a coincidence and they (anyone) has a right to invest in anything at any time. Besides, the laws are silly, business should be able to do anything.

    • dhlii permalink
      May 19, 2018 2:37 pm

      From your own sources – you have an action that is at best coincidental in time,
      where a private chinese actor, LENDS money to a private indonesian actor who is constructing a theme part adjacent to a location that Trump’s enterprise may also build at.

      And this you think is evidence of WHAT ?

      This is one of those bizzare six degrees of separation things – give me another Hopp and I bet I can connect Putin. I can probably also connect Bill and Hillary.

      These arguments are both stupid, boring and demostrate the bias of those making them.

      If you are looking for political corruption – a loan is one of the least likely financial transactions for corruption. Unless the loan is forgiven – in which case it becomes a gift and an enormous tax problem, then the only possible “benefit” is in the terms of the loan.
      i.e. if the terms are more favorable than normal.

      In this instance we have the loan going to a third party.
      So now any claimed benefit has to be from some hoped for personal gain that is a twice removed indirect consequence of an small or non-existent benefit to a third party.

      When Bill Clinton received speaking fees – he personally received actual money.
      The clear benefit was the entirety of what he was paid.

      When CF received money from Oligarchs the benefit was a single level of indirection.
      The Clinton’s lavish lifestyle is to a large extent paid for by the CF.
      Further the primary purpose of CF was as a sinecure for Clinton Alcolytes – so any benefit to CF enhances the Clinton’s power – their ability to offer sinacures to loyal followers.

      Further the quid-pro-quo was also CLEAR – the CF contacted SGE’s in State and expedited the requests of donors.

      • dduck12 permalink
        May 19, 2018 4:18 pm

        “These arguments are both stupid, boring and demostrate the bias of those making them.” That’s you.
        BTW: I think many foundations are crooked, and the CF is among the worst, but we are talking Trump right now.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 19, 2018 8:24 pm

        Just to be Clear – I do not like the CF.
        But it is not the CF that is the problem.

        It is Sec. Clinton and those in state who gave preferential treatment to CF contributors.

        If you wish to give hundreds of Millions to CF – It is your money I do not care.
        If you do so in the hope of some future benefit – It is your money. your gamble, I do not care.

        If AT&T gave money to Cohen in the hope of influence in the WH – I do not care.
        If Trump gave AT&T favors because they gave money to Cohen – I care alot.

        We know that special favors were granted to CF contributors by State.

        We do not have Trump giving government favors to anyone.

        When you actually have something real on Trump – we can talk.

  7. May 18, 2018 11:04 pm

    If this is true, what the hell is going on with our schools and law enforcement. Florida the law ignores reports and now this? I know Dave hates common sense, but common sense tells me that when you receive a report you do something. And after Columbine where the shooters wore trench coats all year, is that not an indication that something will happen?

    As reported:
    “Bryton Sumbles, a former football player for the school(Santa Fe High), told ABC News that he reported Pagourtzis (the shooter) to teachers in the past because he thought it was odd that he would wear trench coats in 97-degree weather, and he thought it would be easy to hide a gun under the coat. Nothing seemed to come from the report, Sumbles said.”

    We will hear cries for gun control once again, but WTF is that going to solve when we have law enforcement and school officials walking around with blinders on. And reports indicate this was a result of a shotgun and pistol, not an AR15, although the first reports from NBC had him carrying an AR 15 along with the other two.

    • dhlii permalink
      May 19, 2018 2:48 pm

      Shotguns and handguns are the most commonly used weapons for shootings inside of public buildings.

      These guys tend to be mentally disturbed – not stupid.
      An AR-15 is a poor choice for inside a public building.

      • dduck12 permalink
        May 19, 2018 11:03 pm

        “When you actually have something real on Trump – we can talk.”
        When you actually make sense- you can talk.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 1:18 am

        ““When you actually have something real on Trump – we can talk.”
        When you actually make sense- you can talk.”

        In other words you have nothing.

        There is no reason to talk when you have nothing to argue that is more than an insult.

  8. Jay permalink
    May 19, 2018 9:27 am

    3rd try:I’m having problems posting this, re Ron above

    • May 19, 2018 10:54 am

      basically the same info I had posted from another article. I just tried to keep my comment short. One comment that was left out of this one was the key info I saw and that was he wore trench coats in 97 degree weather, another student had reported his behavior to the school and he had not seen or heard anything happening. Wonder why NYT decided to skip that information while reporting other kids saying he was not showing signs of anger. Wonder which side is right? One said they saw something and why would the kid reporting him be lying or if this kid never showed signs of anger? Probably never know.

      There is a key to this behavior in all these shootes. People have not found it yet. What makes a young man have so much anger that we singles out certain individuals at a school and then decides to shoots them? In the article I read one student said this young man was looking for specific kids, while he walked right past him and did not shoot. The kid said he would have been dead had he been one targeted.

      Hard to understand. Hopefully the attention will be directed to the cause and not buckshot and shot guns.

    • dduck12 permalink
      May 20, 2018 5:51 pm

      “There is no reason to talk when you have nothing to argue that is more than an insult.”
      An insult is all you have earned.

      • dduck12 permalink
        May 20, 2018 5:53 pm

        “There is no reason to talk when you have nothing to argue that is more than an insult.”
        An insult is all you have earned.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 10:41 pm

        No, Insults are all you have.

  9. May 19, 2018 12:18 pm

    Jay, this was from out paper. These are the type of articles I follow as they give facts to the readers and nothing more. I think this was most honest article in their voews of Burr and the actions of that committee, along with their vies of the house committee.

    (You may need to answer an advertising question to access.)

    http://www.journalnow.com/opinion/editorials/our-view-senator-burr-s-committee-did-well/article_895932ea-3705-5235-b969-18e880f69fdf.html

    • Jay permalink
      May 19, 2018 2:52 pm

      I agree, it’s an honest appraisal, reflecting my own conclusions that Russian interfearance was primarily to benefit Trump in the election.

      Which John/Dave nitpicked with nonsensical immoderation.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 19, 2018 7:43 pm

        You are overloading a Burr’s off the cuff remarks with meaning the do not have.

        While I have already repeatedly stated – that I do not give a damn if Putin actually favored Trump and put $1T behind him – so long as they did not use force – which no one has claimed.

        That said – we have FACTS regarding Russia’s actual activities.

        A tiny amount of money, a tiny amount of activity, Over 3 months less than the total adds on facebook in a few seconds, mostly after the election, and not obviously favoring either candidate.

        We have numbers for all these things.

        But like the typical left wing nut you repeatedly claim you are not – FACTS do not matter, if you can twist what someone else has said to vaugly resemble what you want.

      • May 19, 2018 8:41 pm

        “Which John/Dave nitpicked with nonsensical immoderation. ”

        Well the difference is the senate committee decided that there was Russian involvement in the election, but found no evidence of collusion. That is what Dave has been saying in some of his comments.
        The difference is you have found Trump guilty of collusion and a host of other unrelated issues. That is what Dave has been debating and I have been ignoring for the most part.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 19, 2018 11:13 pm

        Much of my disagreement with Jay is over the difference between what we actually know,
        and dome misrepresented version.

        I could be wrong, but I do not beleive the Senate Report is out.

        Sen. Warner made one statement – which is just a pile of Schiff so to speak.
        Sen. Butt made another that MIGHT mean what Jay claims but does nto clearly mean what Jay says.
        Regardless neither is the Senate “report”.

        Next we actually do know much of what the senate knows and the FACT is that the IC quite clearly DID NOT know even the tiny bit of russian election activity we know now at the time the ICA was written. There is no actual official IC sources that had the information to support the ICA.

        There appear to be only TWO sources at the time – the Steele Dossier, and the CIA Contract spy.

        There is really not much more today – but that was ALL there was when the ICA was done.

        Before you can say the ICA was properly done (and it was not, it too was done outside normal channels), you have to come up with a better source.

    • Jay permalink
      May 19, 2018 2:56 pm

      Here’s another honest evaluation of Trumpian distortions about the Mueller/FBI investigation I hope you will read with an open mind:

      http://theweek.com/articles/773685/irredeemable-irresponsibility-federalist

      • dhlii permalink
        May 19, 2018 8:06 pm

        Mr. Linkers story would be interesting EXCEPT:

        The purported misconduct of Trump and the Trump campaign remains without any evidence.
        Purportedly enourmous efforts – Steele, one or more spies, The FBI/CIA, Mueller, Blumenthal, Shearer, ……. have as of yet yeilded absolutely nothing.
        We have had myriads of leaks that have nearly all been from those inside the Trump investigations intended to make the investigators look good and Trump look bad – and yet, there still is nothing, and we are still told – trust us, the proof is yet to come.

        Yet the very people promising proof have over and over been found to be liars – many of them lying under oath.

        While despite the vigorous efforts we have nothing on Trump after two years.

        Yet, hardly a day passes when we do not get more FACTS.

        We were told that Trump lied and Trump and the Trump campaign were NOT wiretapped – until it was undeniable they were.
        We were told The Steele Dossier was a Republican product – until subpeoned records proved that Clinton and the DNC paid for it.
        We were told The Steele Dossier was not used by the FBI to get warrants on Trump’s campaign – until it was undenable that it was
        We were told the Steele Dossier was verrified – yet not a single consequential claim has any evidence.
        We were told Trump was lying when he said he and his campaign were spied on.
        Now the very same people who were saying that was a lie are now saying that the spying was for his own good.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 19, 2018 8:12 pm

        What is the distinction between the stories in the Federalist ? And those of Andrew McCarthy or Kim Strassel or Byron York that Linker is not prepared to challenge ?
        The differences is that York, and Strassel and McCarthy are too credible to attack – and much of Hemmingways reporting is coming from them.

        What is the difference between the Federalist stories and those in WaPo and NYT ?
        Thus far the Federalist has not been proven wrong,

        The Federalist and NYT and WaPo are reporting almost exactly the same things – only with different spin.

        Though we do not yet have FACTS to confirm it, the media – left and right are now ALL reporting that the Trump campaign was SPIED on from atleast early July forward and possibly from the start of 2016.

        The “spin” form WaPo is that everything in the Federalist is true – but it was really for Trump’s own good.

        Really ? That is the best you can do ?

      • dhlii permalink
        May 19, 2018 8:14 pm

        Please – what has been “distorted” ?

        It is now evident that many of the Trump Tweets that were previously condemned as “lies” are obviously TRUE.

        So the one you called the lying jester, turns out to be the speaker of Truth.

      • May 19, 2018 9:02 pm

        I was good with most of this until his comment:
        “Republican James Comey, who was intensely concerned about the appearance of propriety and professionalism. ”

        Anyone that covers up criminal activities due to politics is not concerned about appearance of propriety and professionalism. If you or I did what The Bitch did with her servers and data stored on that and her subsequent actions to delete that data, you and I would be looking out through bars from prison tonight.

        Since he referenced Whitewater, I suspect the same outcome with Russian collusion. Many minions charged like friends of Clinton, but no Clinton charges. Many Trump friends charged, but not Trump.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 19, 2018 11:20 pm

        Everything associated with Comey has TWO huge problems.

        The first is that Comey has clearly lied and contradicted himself all over,

        The 2nd is that Comey by his own admission has no integrity.

        Integrity means
        Fiat justitia ruat caelum
        “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”

        Comey has repeatedly made clear that he factored politics into pretty much every decision abour justice he made.

        While he did NOT factor in traditional right/left politics – that is irrelevant.
        He wet his finger and put it up to see how what he might do would effect the wind, and then acted accordingly.

        Justice is blind. It does not care what effect doing justice might have on the election.
        Comey rejects that openly.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 2:34 pm

        Aparently HFA and DNC are not the only ones paying for the Steele Dossier,

        OFA – Obama for america paid almost $1MK towards the Steele Dossier
        Oops.

        http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/29/obamas-campaign-gave-972000-law-firm-funneled-money-fusion-gps/

  10. dduck12 permalink
    May 19, 2018 4:14 pm

    Agree with both articles, but more Winston-Salem.

  11. Jay permalink
    May 19, 2018 6:16 pm

    The collusion data points keep accumulating.

    • dhlii permalink
      May 19, 2018 8:34 pm

      This NYT story is behind the paywall and even though I have an account I can not get to it.

      Regardless – does the story have any evidence of the Saudis actually doing anything ?
      Did they hack the DNC ? Did they rig voting machines ?

      Can you even say they ran Twitter or FB adds ? Did they have immans at all the US mosques they control get out the Trump vote ?

      Did the majority of US muslims vote for Trump ?

      I have no idea whether there were meetings about the election.
      We know that Trump has alot of mideastern ventures and connections – as does Clinton.
      We know that the CF got huge amounts of money from mideast despots.

      I am not aware of any evidence that Trump had anything but good business releations.

      It is undoubted that Trump had connections to the mideast – and that those connections are reflected in his policies – The Iran Deal is DOA not merely because it was a bad deal, but because Obama pissed all over the Saudi’s to get it.

      If you were to argue that the Saudi’s favored Trump over Clinton – that is a case you might be able to make. The Obama administration spent 8 years dicking with the Saudi’s and they were pissed.

      I do not wish to make the Saudi’s into some stellar nation.
      They are not particularly enlightened. But they are the lessor evil to the Iranians.
      And they were and once again are an allie.

      • Jay permalink
        May 19, 2018 9:37 pm

        It’s illlegal to confer to conspire with foreign governments/agents to effect a US federal election – nothing has to be done in the future, it’s still a crime to do it.

        Maybe the Trump’s were too stupid to know that.
        But ignorance of the law is no defense.

        Your ignorant response to that is a another sign of your own ignorance.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 19, 2018 11:33 pm

        “It’s illlegal to confer to conspire with foreign governments/agents to effect a US federal election – nothing has to be done in the future, it’s still a crime to do it.”

        Actually no – that is not the law.

        No conspiracy becomes a crime until
        a separate criminal act takes place.
        HOWEVER, once a criminal act takes place – all participants in the conspiracy are THEN guilty of conspiracy – even if they were not serious.

        And Finally – the conspiracy itself has to be specific.

        It is not enough for conspirators to gather and discuss a desirable outcome.
        They must actually discuss committing a crime, and then someone must actually commit that crime.

        You lefties keep trying to make the law infinitely broad.

        If you and a bunch of your friends gather and make rude sexual comments to each other about some woman – saying what you would like to do, and then one of you goes out and sexually assaults her – that is NOT a conspiracy – though you all all repugnant.

        Finally, there have been so many false rumors I have no clue what you THINK you have.
        There is a reason no one beleives much of what you say – because you keep selling Loius. Mensch crap that proves to be garbage.

        That Said – I would be surprised if during 2016 at some time Kushner or other Trump people did not meet with the Saudi’s – of course they did, they do alot of business with the Saudi’s.

        Your garbage Emoluments claim openly admits Trump has pre-existing business relations with the Saudi’s.

        I would also be suprised if the election was not discussed – though I would be thoroughy shocked if anyone could prove that.

        I would not be surprised if the Saudi’s offered assistance.

        But to get what you want – you have to PROVE – not merely claim, that Trump and Co AGREED,

        AND you must prove that the Saudi’s ACTED/

        You constantly confuse what you beleive Trump WOULD do, with what was done.

    • dhlii permalink
      May 20, 2018 2:31 pm

      And here we have the UAE colluding and PAYING Clinton during to 2016 Election
      Oops!

      https://theintercept.com/2017/07/30/uae-yousef-otaiba-cnas-american-progress-michele-flournoy-drone/

  12. dhlii permalink
    May 19, 2018 8:48 pm

    Glenn is a very left wing reporter.
    But he also has integrity.
    The amount of spin he puts into his stories is LOW.
    Glenn is not a Trump fan.

    https://theintercept.com/2018/05/19/the-fbi-informant-who-monitored-the-trump-campaign-stefan-halper-oversaw-a-cia-spying-operation-in-the-1980-presidential-election/

    Glenn is correct the use of “informants” by the FBI is not unsual.

    But placing informants when there is no crime alleged is deeply troubling.
    Placing them to spy on a political campaign is Watergate.

    Lying about them is consciousness of guilt.

    • Jay permalink
      May 19, 2018 9:58 pm

      “placing informants when there is no crime alleged is deeply troubling.”

      Another statement expressing your own ignorance.
      Don’t you have at least a rudimentary understanding of the purpose of the
      Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act?

      It’s to enable the collection and investigation of ACTIVITY of “foreign intelligence information” between “foreign powers” and “agents of foreign powers” suspected of espionage or terrorism.[1]

      If you’re suggesting they didn’t have sufficient reason to dispatch a confidential informanent to investigate Trump campaign advisors Page and Pappadopolus as the FBI began its investigation into possible links between his campaign and Russia, you’re dumber than dirt.

      THEY WERE DOING THEIR JOB!

      Dave, really, you are a jerk.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 19, 2018 11:52 pm

        FISA – as you raise – REQUIRES a FISA COURT WARRANT to target US Persons

        And A WARRANT requires PROBABLE CAUSE that a crime was committed.

        The actual Process – which was NOT followed here, is that you can surveil/Target NON-US Persons, If in the course of doing so you encounter US Persons, there identities must be MASKED – no one outside the observing agents and their immediate supervisors can reveal the identities of the US Person – without following procedures that were not followed,
        It is likely even a crime to unmask a US Person caught up in a foreign intelligence operation.

        Having followed all of the above – IF and ONLY IF, information indicating that a crime has been committed by a US Person is uncovered THEN that information – and only that information can be passed through a chinese wall to completely separate criminal investigators, who then open their own separate criminal investigation, and when they have probable cause they can seek a FISA warrant.

        This is also one of the deep flaws in the Mueller authorization.

        Counter intelligence and Criminal investigations in the US are radically different.

        The former has nothing to do with crimes, and when a crime involving a US person appears, the criminal investigation of the US person becomes a separate investigation, with no contact with the original.

        Presuming that the press stories are correct – Brennan started a CIA operation targeting the Trump campaign.
        That is absolutely illegal.

        If as you claim Brennan had the basis to investigate the Trump Campaign – then Brennan would NOT have been permitted to send an informant.

        I would also note you have the cart before the horse.

        What is increasingly evident is that Brennan’s operation targetting the Trump campaign PRECEDES any “evidence” of contract between the Trump campaign and Russia.

        The informant Contacted Papadoulis and offered him a post in the UK.
        The informant – BEFORE the DNC hack informed Papadoulis of the Clinton Emails.
        The informant setup the meeting between Papadoulis and Downer.

        The informant invited Carter Page to Rome.

        All of this took place BEFORE either Page or Papadoulis had any contact with any Russians.

        You should note I keep identifying this as a CIA operation – not survelance – though even the later would be illegal.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 12:05 am

        “In its 1947 charter, the CIA was prohibited from spying against Americans, in part because President Truman was afraid that the agency would engage in political abuse. But the law didn’t stop the CIA from spying on Americans. During the 1960s, in clear violation of its statutory mission to co-ordinate foreign intelligence operations only,”

        “The National Security Act of 1947 contained a specific ban on intelligence operatives from operating domestically. In the 1970s, America learned about the extensive domestic political spying carried out by the FBI, the military, the CIA, and the NSA, and Congress passed new laws to prevent a repeat of those abuses. Surveillance laws were debated and modified under presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton.”

        “The law on surveillance begins with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which states clearly that Americans’ privacy may not be invaded without a warrant based on probable cause.”

        From the ACLU’s website.

        Absolutely the law is flaunted – quite often. But the fact that the law is broken does not alter the fact that it is still the law.

        I would say that Never before has the FBI/CIA spied on a US political campaign but Apparently Stefan Halper – the “informant” aka Spy, actually spied on the 1980 Carter Campaign.

        And Just to be clear, Though I think it is real clear this was a CIA operation at the start,

        Neither CIA nor FBI are permitted to “spy” on US persons. Not in the US, not outside.

        The very FISA act that you cite precludes warrantless surveilance.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 12:05 am

        “THEY WERE DOING THEIR JOB!”

        No they were breaking SEVERAL laws.

      • Jay permalink
        May 20, 2018 1:15 am

        You are confused and bewildered.
        (Calling you dumb at this point is redundant)

        To initiate an investigation you don’t need to ALREADY have the evidence of the crime. You need Probable Cause. The investigation is to determine if there is evidence to charge a crime.

        And there is no law against using ‘informants’ to assess if crimes are being or have been committed. That’s standard investigative procedure across all US law enforcement agencies

        The FBI’s domestic operations guide authorizes agents to use informants, even when they’re conducting PRELIMINARY assessments. Warrants are not required to determine if there are factual predicates for a formal investigation.

        There is no right to privacy to hide or conceal criminal activity. And to prove conspiracy, all that’s required is the recruitment, not completed acts.

        “On the criminal side, the word that would best describe an agreement between the Trump campaign and Russia to commit any number of crimes (say, election fraud) would be “conspiracy”—something that the recent release of Donald Trump Jr.’s email chain might support.

        On the counterintelligence side, collusion is best described by the word “recruitment.” The aim of a foreign intelligence service is to find and convince individuals to help them achieve intelligence objectives. In the case of the election, the question is whether Russia was able to recruit American citizens, including people in the Trump campaign, to help them sway the outcome in Donald Trump’s favor. “

        https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 11:23 am

        “To initiate an investigation you don’t need to ALREADY have the evidence of the crime. You need Probable Cause. The investigation is to determine if there is evidence to charge a crime.”

        You are incorrect – the standard of evidence to start and investigation is LOWER that probable cause.

        But the standard of evidence for surveilance IS probable cause.

        As you have not been following things – the review of the FISA Warrant on Carter Page has demonstrated that there was not PROBABLE CAUSE.

        Probable cause is not “that sounds good enough to me”.

        Lets address some things.

        Probable cause means there is EVIDENCE that a crime has been committed.
        If you are seeking to spy on people – it requires EVIDENCE that they are criminals.
        An allegation is NOT sufficient.
        Unverified claims such as in the Steele Dossier are not sufficient – though you have a further problem with the Steele Dossier – as it is now evident that this started BEFORE the Steele Dossier was available to the FBI.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 11:36 am

        “And there is no law against using ‘informants’ to assess if crimes are being or have been committed. That’s standard investigative procedure across all US law enforcement agencies”

        Horribly incorrect.

        Your first problem is that you are using “informant” broadly.

        First – the government/law enforcement may not do through a third party what it can not do directly.

        Next Halper was not an “informant” he has a paid operative. He did not come forward and say I have this information. He initiated contage with Papadoulis and Page, he hired them, he got them into conferences and arranged contacts for them and fed them information.

        These are all things that even an undercover FBI agent can not do.

        Next, all of this took place in the UK – not domestically.

        Warrants are required for ALL Surveilance – though the majority of modern Surveilance cases have to do with “electronic surveilance” Surveilance is not limited to Electronic Surveilance.
        And you will find NUMEROUS supreme court cases requiring a warrant for surveilance.

        So that you are clear – the government or an agent, can observe the actions of someone in public for as long as they wish. But they may not invade their privacy – that means there is very little they may do that involved engaging the party being observed.

        If you are being paid by the government – you are an agent – that is the law.
        Even unpaid informants who are acting at the direction of law enforcement are agents.

        Regardless, Halper was not even close to being a mere informant. Halper was more than even a Spy, he was an operative. He sought out his targets, and he engaged them.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 11:45 am

        “There is no right to privacy to hide or conceal criminal activity. And to prove conspiracy, all that’s required is the recruitment, not completed acts.”

        Bzzt, wrong.

        No where in the 4th amendment is there any condition expressed saying.

        Put more simply – the 4th Amendment does NOT say – if government beleives a crime is being committed the 4th amendment disappears.

        Rights particularly our criminals eights apply ESPECIALLY if law enforcement beleives we are criminals.

        I would note that by your definition of conspiracy – it is Halper that is the criminal.
        Halper Recruited Page and Papadoulis.

        Regardless, you are still wrong. – the conspiracy must be too a crime.
        The act is nearly always required to prove there was a conspiracy to a crime.

        “Federal statutes, and many state statutes, now require not only agreement and intent but also the commission of an Overt Act in furtherance of the agreement.”

        What was the crime ?
        Do you have evidance that the purported conspirators all agreed to that crime ?
        What was the overt act in furtherance of that crime ?

        Put simply you do not have ANY of the elements of a conspiracy.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 11:50 am

        “On the criminal side, the word that would best describe an agreement between the Trump campaign and Russia to commit any number of crimes (say, election fraud) would be “conspiracy”—something that the recent release of Donald Trump Jr.’s email chain might support.”

        Not even close. If the effort to get dirt on Hillary was a crime – then Steele, Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS, Perkins Coi, Sidney Blumethat, Shearer, the DNC, Downing, HFA and Hillary are all in a huge criminal conspiracy.

        One far more signifcant that you are claiming regarding Trump.

        In the case of Trump Jr. there is no evidence that Trump Jr. initiatiated anything.

        Algorov brought Natalia to Goldenstein who brought her to Trump Jr.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 12:02 pm

        “On the counterintelligence side,”

        And there things end – the FISA law that you cite REQUIRES a Warrant even to engage in a counter intelligence operation against a US person.

        This requirement is to protect our constitutional rights.

        A Russian has no constitutional rights. Government may spy on Russian’s without warrants.
        It can surveil them.

        But a warrant is required where a US person is involved specifically otherwise that persons rights would be violated.

        “collusion is best described by the word “recruitment.”

        Halper “recruited Papadoulis and Page.

        “The aim of a foreign intelligence service is to find and convince individuals to help them achieve intelligence objectives. In the case of the election, the question is whether Russia was able to recruit American citizens, including people in the Trump campaign, to help them sway the outcome in Donald Trump’s favor. “

        Halper was not targeting Russia or Russians – he was targeting US Persons and as such required to have a FISA Warrant.

        What you constantly gloss over is this was not an operation targeting Russia.
        This was an operation targeting the Trump Campaign.

        It has been noted for a long time that the only Russians Papadoulis was in contact with were “fake russians” indirectly through Misfud. It increasingly appears that Misfud was an MI-6 operative working with Halper and Dearlove.

        The only recruiting being done here was by the US and UK governments.

        You keep glossing over the fact that Papadoulis’s job in the UK appears to have been arranged by Halper. Page’s trip to Rome appears to have been arranged by Halper. Both were PAID by Halper.

        Halper is NOT an informant from inside the Trump campaign he is an Off Book CIA/MI6/FBI operative, working OUTSIDE the Law, and OUTSIDE the agency.

        His connections to the US government appear to be exclusively through Brennan.

        Except for the fact that he was paid by the US government this increasingly looks much like watergate.

        Where the US AG ran a group of off the Books CIA operatives to Spy on the DNC.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 12:06 pm

        Think about this Jay.

        The arguments you keep making allow the government to spy on, entrap, setup, investigate, anyone they want, without evidence, without any crime.

        In your desire to “get Trump” you are destroying EVERYONE’s rights.

        Please explain to me based on your arguments what prevents the CIA/FBI from engaging in surveilance, and spying of you ?

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 1:16 am

        Is there any point at which you would find the actions of the CIA/FBI offensive ? Illegal ?

        We all know excactly where that would be – if the CIA/FBI were doing exactly the same thing to anyone but Trump.

  13. Jay permalink
    May 19, 2018 11:23 pm

    Everything this guy does smells bad.

    • dhlii permalink
      May 20, 2018 1:14 am

      If you actually follow the story – Trump urged the Postmaster to raise package rates on numerous companies that are getting good deals from the Post office.
      The Law requires that the Post Office can not charge anyone rates that are below its costs.

      USPS is losing money on the Amazon deal – as well as several others.

      The Postmaster has resisted – because there are contracts in place.

      There is actually a compelling argument that USPS should be allowed to sell serivces at below cost. And the Amazon arrangement is actually a good example of why – the USPS apparently loses about 2.6B/year on Amazon’s business – on a strictly cost basis. But the USPS would lose more money each year Without Amazon’s business.

      I had to deal with a version of this in a business I was a part of.
      There were three major “profit centers” to our business.
      One was small and made almost 200K a year. the other was about 1/3 of the business and made about 100K/year, the last was 2/3 of the business and lost over 100K/year.

      But the other two units could not have profited if the money losing part of the business was not covering 2/3 of the total business overhead.

      Trump appears to be right on the law. But he is wrong as a matter of good economics.

      The right solution is to sell the USPS.

      Separately Treasury has been directed to put together a committee to look into postal rates.

      I am not happy about this. I am not happy about what just about all of us recognize as targeting Bezos – even though there is no actual evidence of that.
      At the same time Bezos is a big boy, and can buy the USPS if it ever was offered to the public – or Fedex or UPS if that is what he needs.

      • Jay permalink
        May 20, 2018 9:48 am

        You lead off with this:

        “If you actually follow the story – Trump urged the Postmaster to raise package rates on numerous companies that are getting good deals from the Post office.”

        And wait till the end of your tedious ‘hear yourself pontificate’ post to contradict yourself and admit this:

        “I am not happy about what just about all of us recognize as targeting Bezos – even though there is no actual evidence of that.”

        If you had placed them together to start, you would have sounded like a reasonable person in accord with my post, and not your annoying tendentious rambling self.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 12:15 pm

        I have argued – and continue to argue – because it is the truth, the law, and a fact,

        That we may not as a matter of law guess at the intentions of another, and convert a legal act to a crime because of those guesses.

        In this peraticial case, Trump’s intentions are pretty transparent.
        But his actions remain legal.
        If you do not like that change the law.

        Personally I would pitch the USPS from government. Libertarians have been arguing for that since Lysander Spooner in the 19th century. We came close in the late 60’s.

        Regardless, I have asserted MANY times, I am not happy with everything Trump does.

        I did not vote for him specifically because of his attitudes towards women.
        Nothing has changed to improve my view of him in that regard.

        But the fact that I do not like his attitude towards Women does not mean that everything else he does is inherently evil. But that standard few of us would be out of jail.

        I am not happy with this latest USPS incident.
        I am assuming of course that the stories are true – which in the last has too often proven to be wrong.

        But from what I is being reported Trumps actions were legal. But they were not something I approve of.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 12:15 pm

        So now you are insulting me for not making my arguments in the order you would prefer ?

      • May 20, 2018 12:11 pm

        I believe I am correct in this comment.
        The postal service is not losing money from operations, Amazon or other.
        The postal service is losing money from retirement costs and retirement benefits, given to workers by officials with no skin in the game years ago.. The last number I saw 60 billions unfunded liability.
        A change in accounting by congress required the postal service to basically account for cost from a cash basis accounting to accrual accounting. In 2014, the last number I found, operations resulted in a 1.1B income. Coupled with a 5.4B retirement accrual, they lost 4B (rounded).
        Since 90% of my mail is advertising, how about adding a surcharge on that and leave Amazon alone. Amazon has better alternatives than junk mail.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 1:02 pm

        Ron.

        You may be correct, but I do not think you are.

        As this involves government everything is messy.

        As I noted – there are often excellent reasons to engage in business that will lose money.
        The post office should NOT be part of government, so that it can try to make such decisions wisely rather than trying to conform to an attempt to make a business rule subject to judgement into a law.

        The stories on this are claiming that the USPS is losing 2.6B on its business with Amazon.

        I suspect that is true – atleast as true as anything involving government and money.
        I do not beleive those numbers include the pension liabilities.

        BTW that exclusion is stupid. There are good reasons for a business to distingusih between cost of gods sold and total cost including profit and overhead,
        But that should not get incorporated into law,

        This entire issue with USPS points out the stupidity of government running anything.

        We properly have laws like this as an anti-corruption measure.

        But we fail to grasp that what is corrupt when government is involved is not and even sometimes good business in relations between private actors.

        We had a version of this stupidity in the Standard Oil garbage.

        Rockefeller contracted with the railroads. He GUARANTEED specific amounts of cargo (and therefore profits) for specific trains. He supplied his own tanker cars, he dictated the routes and the times and in return he got a guaranteed very low cost – but one that would make those trains profitable. I return Rockefeller demanded that no one else whose cargo was carried on the trains that he arranged for and paid for was to be charged the same low rates he was.
        There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

        But it would be a crime – it the government did it.

      • Ron P permalink
        May 20, 2018 3:48 pm

        http://www.prc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/Financial Report 2014.pdf
        I think this was the one I referenced. Page 7, col 1

      • dhlii permalink
        May 24, 2018 2:38 am

        Here is what former Pakistan Station Cheif under Bush has to say about Brennan and Mueller.

        Former CIA Officer John Kiriakou: John Brennan and Robert Mueller “Set Out To Ruin People”

        Kiriakou was investigated by Bush and it was determined that he had done nothing wrong.
        Even though nothing changed he was re-investigated At Brennan’s request for “leaking’ in 2009 after Obama became president.

        Like Flynn he was driven to near bankruptcy and ultimately plead.

        He is now hoping for a pardon, and looks like a really good witness for those Mueller is prosecuting.

        https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/05/23/former_cia_officer_john_kiriakau_john_brennan_and_robert_mueller_set_out_to_ruin_people.html

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 1:06 pm

        How about getting the USPS out of government where they can figure our how to best conduct their own business.

        This entire debacle exists because we have politicians trying to decide who should be charged what. Rather than the business trying to figure out what it needs to do to survive and thrive.

        You want to charge advertisers more – how is that different from Trump wanting to charge Amazon more ?

        It is all just a business judgement. The objective is for the post office to make all its clients happy – those who send and those who receive mail, while profiting.

        There is no objectively correct charge for advertising or for packages.

        There should be no law, and the USPS should not be part of government.

      • May 20, 2018 4:00 pm

        I agree completely that it should not be run by the government.

  14. Jay permalink
    May 20, 2018 9:57 am

    “FISA – as you raise – REQUIRES a FISA COURT WARRANT to target US Persons”

    How do you think they get evidence to present to the FISA judge?

    Pay attention: a warrent isn’t necessary to use informants to gather preliminary information to construct a case against a ‘suspect.’

    • dhlii permalink
      May 20, 2018 12:27 pm

      ““FISA – as you raise – REQUIRES a FISA COURT WARRANT to target US Persons”

      How do you think they get evidence to present to the FISA judge?

      Pay attention: a warrant isn’t necessary to use informants to gather preliminary information to construct a case against a ‘suspect.’”

      Circular reasoning.

      This is quite simple.

      First using the term informant is deliberately misleading.

      Halper was not a passive insider, providing the government information that he encountered through the normal course of his job or life.

      He was more than even a Spy, He was an operative.

      Regardless, he was at the bare minimum an “agent” – in this context an “agent” is a legal term.
      An informant or another acting at the direction of government is an agent.
      An “agent” must meet the same legal requirements as law enforcement.

      i.e. a warrant is required for them to surveil or actively engage a target.

      Further the FISA law requires a warrant for ALL surveilance targetting US Persons.

      There is ZERO doubt that the Trump campaign was the target here.

      You say a warrant is not necescary to “gather preliminary information”

      That depends on what you mean by “gather”.

      There is no warrant requirement for an ACTUAL informant, coming forward voluntarily from inside the Trump campaign.

      With care information gathered about US persons in the course of surveillance of foreigners can also be used – but there are a lot of rules regarding that. You can not as an example pretend to surveil Russians in order to surveil US persons. And just because you think you have something as a result of Surveilance of Russians, does not mean you can automatically use it.

      Your argument ultimately boils down to “because I am suspicious of Trump/Russia” I can run a operation against the Trump campaign.

      No you can not.
      Your way there is absolutely no limit to the surveilance power of the US government.

  15. Jay permalink
    May 20, 2018 11:37 am

    There have 75 contacts and 22 meetings reported between Russia-linked operatives and the Trump campaign.

    Why did Trump administration members (and Trump himself) cover up and/or lie about them?

    If nothing unseemly or illegal was going on, why the extensive cover up?

    Rudy Giuliani now says that Trump shouldn’t talk to Mueller without knowing more about the FBI informant. In an interview Giuliani claims Trump could be “walking into a trap” unless the FBI makes clear whether the person compiled any “incriminating information.”

    “INCRIMINATING INFORMATION.”

    Doesn’t that allow you ‘to recognize’ that Trump did something criminal?

    • dhlii permalink
      May 20, 2018 12:49 pm

      “There have 75 contacts and 22 meetings reported between Russia-linked operatives and the Trump campaign.”

      Reading more Louis Mensch I see.

      We dealt with this “russia linked” garbage with the NRA idiocy.

      I would bet I can find 75 “Russia linked” things in your life – using this defintion of “russia linked” that means – any american who has gone to Russia, or any Russian who lives in america.
      Or anyone once or twice removed from the above.

      I bet I can find thousands of “russia linked oepratives” and myriads of meetings that involve Clinton.

      Almost every single thing about the Steele Dossier – including Steele himself, as well as Glenn Simpson, and Sidney Blumenthal is “russia linked”

      You need to actually be specific.

      “Why did Trump administration members (and Trump himself) cover up and/or lie about them?
      If nothing unseemly or illegal was going on, why the extensive cover up?”

      What cover up ? Because you do not like the answers people have given, you call that a cover up ?

      “Rudy Giuliani now says that Trump shouldn’t talk to Mueller without knowing more about the FBI informant. In an interview Giuliani claims Trump could be “walking into a trap” unless the FBI makes clear whether the person compiled any “incriminating information.””

      No reputable defense attorney would recommend Trump sit for an interview with Mueller.

      Mr. Mueller has thus far charged 3 people with lying in an investigation.

      Two for minor errors in the recall of the time of emails or phone calls they received.
      And one for failing to mention a topic that the other party in a call raised that was NOT discussed.

      To me that sounds like an excellent reason to NOT talk to Mueller.

      Further Mueller has a LONG reputation for persecuting innocent people.

      I have absolutely NEVER thought it was wise to sit down with Mueller.

      I think that Papadoulis, Van der Zwaan, and Flynn wish they had not.

      My advice to you is that if you are pulled over by a police officer that you do NOT answer any questions of facts, you do NOT give them permission to do anything.

      Why would I give Trump different advice than I give you ?

      • Jay permalink
        May 20, 2018 5:05 pm

        “Why would I give Trump different advice than I give you ?”

        Think that through and see if you can glimpse the obvious reason.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 8:46 pm

        ““Why would I give Trump different advice than I give you ?”

        Think that through and see if you can glimpse the obvious reason.”

        I have thought it through – you are the one pushing law that varies with the person.

        That is called the rule of man, not law, or lawlessness for short.

      • Jay permalink
        May 20, 2018 5:16 pm

        Two questions for you Dave, that require only a yes or no reply. Nothing more. If you answer per my request, I will respond further, and you can reply as volubly as you want,

        1-Did Russia interfere in the last presidential election? Y/N

        2-Is it reasonable to assume they were trying to recruit Trump campaign personnel to provide them access to stregic information? Y/N

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 10:40 pm

        1. Yes – just as they have every election for decades.
        2. Technically no, because you asked the question wrong.

        That said Yes, Russia tries to recruit people – Trump people, Clinton people.

        Russia’s economy and government are quite small compared to ours.
        There 2016 GDP was 1.2T – about 1/15 of the US.
        China is 10x that of Russia.

        Within the constraints of what they have the resources to do, Russia is always going to seek ot “influence” our elections, and to recruit americans.

        As to the specifics –
        There is a reasonable amount of evidence that Putin sought a meeting with Trump.
        That never happened – because the Trump campaign declined.

        There is no evidence that Page was in contact with actual Russian agents after 2013.
        In 2013 the Russians attempted to recruit him, and he reported it to the FBI,
        The FBI tried to use him, but the Russians ultimately decided he was useless.

        There is ZERO reason for the FBI to beleive that the Russians would subsequently try to recruit Page again or that Page would not notify the FBI if they did.

        The Papadoulis story is still muddy and there are conflicting public stories.

        Halper recruited Papadoulis – not the Russians. I am getting conflicting stories about when,
        Regardless, Halper paid Papadoulis to do a “report” on Turkey, Cyprus, Israel and a natural gas field.

        Halper also contacted Page – with a similar deal – paying him to come to rome and write a report.

        Misfud who is purportedly the channel by which Papadoulis was connected to “russians”, and the person who told Papadoulis that the Russians had thousands of Clintons emails in april ?
        Appears to be an MI6 operative.

        It appears likely that Halper Misfud – as well as Dearlove (Former head of MI6) and several others were working together – as well as possibly Downer – feeding Papadoulis, Page, and possibly Gates and Manafort “russia” information, while at the same time reporting their “contacts” to Steele.

        It is increasingly looking like not only was the Trump campaign spied on, it was actually setup.

        As I noted the first time I posted about this – this all seems like a tinfoil hat conspiracy – except that with every day – more and more is confirmed.

        When I first posted – even the spying claim was speculative. But since than DOJ/FBI have been leaking to NYT and WaPo the very information they remain unwilling to give to Congress.

        The Halper identity is just about 99.99% certain at this point. The use of Halper by the CIA/FBI/MI6 is particularly troubling – as Halper has a past record for pretty much exactly this kind of campaign political spying.

        Halper is strongly tied to both Brennan and Dearlove.

        Mifsud is definitely Papadoulis’s contact in Britain, what remains to be established is who he actually is working for.

        He has never made sense as a Russian operative. and there are a number of stories circulating that Mifsud is a cover for an MI-6 agent associated with Dearlove.

        There are still alot of speculative elements in this. The reporting is providing dates for Halper’s contacts with Papadoulis that vary from early 2016 to September 2016.
        It is likely they met several times. Some of the stories seem to confuse Mifsud and Halper.
        The Page contacts are better defined. Halper contacted Page once or twice – likely in early july likely in rome for a conference.

        Assuming that you trust NYT and WaPo – who are doing little beyond confirming Strassel’s WSJ story, there are several things that are increasingly certain.

        CIA and possibly FBI were running an op against the Trump campaign.
        That Op appears to have started Before the FBI investigation, and Before much of the Steele Dossier. How much before is still not established.

        This creates a NEW problem – before you did not have probable cause to get a FISA warrant on Carter Page, but now you need the same probable cause – that is the standard for CIA/NSA/FBI to target a US person in a counter intelligence operation, but you have to do it without the Steele Dossier as it did not exist yet – and certainly CIA/FBI did not have it.

        Fusion GPS was hired to get dirt on Trump during the primary.
        In april 2016 Elias hired Fusion to get dirt on Trump for the Clinton Campaign.
        In June 2016 Steele was hired by Fusion.

        Steele did NOT provide the Dossier to the FBI until weeks before the election.

        So in July of 2016 which is the LATEST the Halper operation could have begun – it more likely started in March, there is no way CIA/FBI had the Steele Dossier.

        While they could have recieved the same information independently – that is what Nunes’s queries of FVEY’s are about. There is no on the record intelligence from any intelligence agency part of FVEY’s that is ca, uk, au, nz, and us regarding the Trump campaign and Russia.
        Put simply that means the ICA is a sham and brennan is lying – or FVEY’s is lying. Take your pick.

        Everything about the DOJ/FBI/CIA “investigation” of Trump was done completely outside of normal channels or procedures. It was all handled by a very small number of people in CIA/FBI/DOJ – and NOT the normal counter intelligence groups.
        As best as can be told Strzok is possibly the lowest ranking member of CIA/FBI that participated in this and Strzok is the only one who is an “agent” and even that is a diminutive description – he was at one time the #2 person in the FBI in counter intelligence.

        The only time that you see things like this being run at the TOP of agencies – is when they are illegal.

  16. Jay permalink
    May 20, 2018 12:24 pm

    • dhlii permalink
      May 20, 2018 1:09 pm

      And what EVIDENCE would that be ?

      You keep getting the cart before the horse.

      BTW there wre plenty of allegations that Clinton was in secret communications with Russia, the Ukraine, ….
      And many of these were true – yet there was no investigation.

      No the government is not “derelict in its duty” if it does nto chase down every screwball allegation, and run a covert operation against a political campaign based on an allegation.

  17. Jay permalink
    May 20, 2018 12:33 pm

    There have 75 contacts reported and 22 meetings between Russia-linked operatives and the Trump campaign.

    Why did Trump administration members (and Trump himself) cover up and/or lie about them?

    If nothing unseemly or illegal was going on, why the extensive cover up?

    Rudy Giuliani now says that Trump shouldn’t talk to Mueller without knowing more about the FBI informant. In an interview Giuliani claims Trump could be “walking into a trap” unless the FBI makes clear whether the person compiled any “incriminating information.”

    “INCRIMINATING INFORMATION.”

    Doesn’t that allow you ‘to recognize’ that Trump did something criminal?

    Next time you see Rudy Giuliani ask him if when he was a federal prosecutor did he always turn over information on confidential informants to witnesses he was questioning?

  18. Jay permalink
    May 20, 2018 12:51 pm

    Dave/John.

    Explain again why it isn’t illegal for Americans to conspire with foreign nations to interfere in an American election.

    “Trump Jr. and Other Aides Met With Gulf Emissary Offering Help to Win Election”

    NYT: “WASHINGTON — Three months before the 2016 election, a small group gathered at Trump Tower to meet with Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son. One was an Israeli specialist in social media manipulation. Another was an emissary for two wealthy Arab princes. The third was a Republican donor with a controversial past in the Middle East as a private security contractor.

    The meeting was convened primarily to offer help to the Trump team, and it forged relationships between the men and Trump insiders that would develop over the coming months — past the election and well into President Trump’s first year in office, according to several people with knowledge of their encounters.

    Erik Prince, the private security contractor and the former head of Blackwater, arranged the meeting, which took place on Aug. 3, 2016. The emissary, George Nader, told Donald Trump Jr. that the princes who led Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were eager to help his father win election as president. The social media specialist, Joel Zamel, extolled his company’s ability to give an edge to a political campaign; by that time, the firm had already drawn up a multimillion-dollar proposal for a social media manipulation effort to help elect Mr. Trump.”

    • dhlii permalink
      May 20, 2018 1:15 pm

      I have addressed your first issue REPEATEDLY.

      You continue to use words badly – what is “influence”.

      So long as “influence” means persuade – then absolutley posititively the US Government has ZERO business involving itself in any way in the efforts to PERSUADE voters.

      That is both a losing game – it is outside of the ability of govenrment to control,
      and a dangerous game. If government is permitted to control PERSUASION than you might as well skip the election entirely and just have the govenrment appoint its own successors.

      • Jay permalink
        May 20, 2018 3:02 pm

        Dave, you sap, you’re so easy to manipulate into false assumptions that makes your head spin like a wobbly top.

        That Federalist Article is Bullshit propaganda of the most deceptive kind, and you swallowed it like a fish swallows a hook.

        There was ZERO evidence in the article that ANY Obama money went to pay for (the mostly accurate, reliable, prescient) Steele Dossier.

        “Perkins Coie is counsel of record for the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Leadership Council, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Other political clients include nearly all Democratic members of the United States Congress. It has also represented several presidential campaigns, including those of John Kerry,[2] Barack Obama,[3] and Hillary Clinton.[2] ”

        Money CONSTANTLY goes from Democrats to Perkins Coie.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 7:52 pm

        OFA paid Perkins Coi – just as the DNC and HFA did.
        This is in FEC records.

        Perkins Coi paid Fusion GPS – just as DNC and HFA did
        Fusion GPS paid Steele.

        As to the particulars – if I recall Steel only got a couple of under thousand.
        While Fusion got a more than a million and Perkins Coi got 7 or 8 million.

        All this went through Mark Elias – the DNC money, the HFA money and the OFA money.

        Your remarks about Perkins Coi are correct – but they also apply to the money from the DNC and from HFA.

        What is DISTINCT – is that the HFA and OFA money ALL came through Mark Elias,
        and all the money to Fusion GPS went through Mark Elias.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 7:59 pm

        While I find the OFA money interesting – just as HFA paying for the Steele Dossier is not a crime – neither is OFA paying for the Steele Dossier.

        I would note that Perkins Coi is a LAW FIRM and Elias is a LAWYER/Lobbiest.

        Though on a grander scale – there is nothing here different from Cohen.
        Yeu you are absolutely fascinated by the money passing through Cohen.

        How is using Cohen to pay for things that Trump wants different from using Mark Elias and perkins Coi to pay for things Obama, or Clinton or the DNC wans done ?

        You opperate on the assumption that if it involves Trump and Money no matter how remotely it is illegal but if it involves any Democrat it is just the norm.

        I am sure far more money passed through Perkins Coi from Democratic sources than passed through Cohen.

        If paying for an NDA from Daniels is sufficient to raid Cohen – why is paying for the Steele Dossier not sufficient to raid Perkins Coi ?

        The answer is that there is not anything wrong with either.

        The flow of money might be interesting, but it is not a crime.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 8:01 pm

        Money CONSTANTLY goes from Trump to Cohen

        Same difference.

        You are the one who presumes that anywhere there is money and politics there is a crime.

        Or is that only true if it involves Trump ?

        And that is the point – that is my point, that is really the federalist point.

        When you make thes overly broad legal arguments – you make EVERYONE a criminal.

        Are you prepared to Jail obama to get Cohen ?

    • dhlii permalink
      May 20, 2018 1:29 pm

      With respect to the NYT article and its claims.

      While the press has an absymally bad record of accuracy on all of this.
      Last I heard this particular meeting occurred in the Seychelles, not Trump tower.

      Regardless, I am going to assume – which is highly unlikely, that the story is actually true.

      So your argument is that people MIGHT have been persuaded by Trump’s efforts on Facebook.
      So ?

      Clinton spent almost double what Trump did. Are you saying she spent nothing on Facebook ?

      If so – isn’t that just a political error on her part ?

      All you have is a meeting between a bunch of people you do not like to think about ways to aide the candidate they would like to see win.
      What is wrong with that ?
      Do you think Hillary did not have myriads of such meetings ?

      Clinton purportedly got $20M for her campaign through Downer – the AU diplomat.

      I would further note that aparently Trump was engaged in bringing peace to the mideast – bringing together arabs and jews BEFORE the election.

      BTW Zamel is an Austrilian – like Downer and his company is a US company headquartered in DC.

      Nader BTW is a US Citizen and Mideast policy expert.

      In fact all the people at your meeting share one thing in common – they are all tied to anti-terrorist efforts.

      So why are you presuming this was an election meeting about social media ?

      Not that I care.

    • dhlii permalink
      May 20, 2018 1:45 pm

      One of the problems with all of this election collusion narrative,

      Is that it presumes that something occurred that was so massive it altered the out come of the election, and concurrently so secret that no one knew about it, and left so little evidence that it has taken two whole years to find.

      You are absolutely correct – Hillary lost the election because she failed to PERSUADE voters, and Trump won because he succeeded.

      Both candidates had huge social media efforts.
      Both candidates put massive resources to winning.

      Though AGAIN Clinton had nearly twice those of Trump.

      Anyway – what is it that Trump GOT from this meeting that altered the outcome of the election ?

      Did Trump conspire to WIN the election – I would be shocked if I found he did not.
      Do you think Clinton did not conspire to WIN ?

      You keep bandying about terms like russia linked or influence of collusion or conspire.
      as if the mere use of those words creates an actionalble crime.

      What you are really saying is that Trump was not allowed to win.
      That no republican is allowed to win.

      One of the things I pointed out on this blog a long time ago is that the Russia Collusion narrative is going to fail – because at the end, it is a claim that voters were PERSUADED in a way that you find unacceptable.

      You can toss about collusion and russian linked, and you can cause people to be suspicious for a while.
      But because ultimately this is about PERSUASION, you will never produce the “smoking gun”.

      There is not going to ba a Trump voter who hears your story and says But for the Russians on Social media – or Wikistra or whatever, I would have voted for Clinton.

      The strongest case you were ever going to get was that Trump has something to do with the DNC hack. Even that is weak.

      Your own argument for spying on Trump is an argument supporting the DNC hack.

      Clinton and the DNC WERE actively engaged in improperly disadvantging Sanders.

      Where was the FBI ? Why wasn’t CIA/FBI/DOJ digging into the DNC manipulation of the convention ?

      There was a credible allegation there from near the begining of 2016.

      The point I am trying to make is that you do not get to have government run an operation against anyone – much less a political campaign merely because you think they are doing something you do not like.

      I am not happy with what was going on at DNC. I am sure – using your expansive interpretation of the law, I could call it a crime – Clinton COLLUDED with the DNC to harm Sanders.

      • Jay permalink
        May 20, 2018 3:29 pm

        The amount of Russian social media meddling WAS MASSIVE.
        Aren’t you following the news reports over that last few months from Google and Twitter?

        All the meddling required to help tip the win to Trump was a tiny percentage shift of the overall vote in 5 States. The media manipulation by Russia (and possibly other foreign actors) may actually be a lot more significient. How else do you explan the HUGE shift in the polls away from Clinton in so short a time frame. In all of those swing states the polls showed Clinton In the lead in the last two weeks of the election.

        The TRUTH is we don’t yet know how successful the Russian interfearace was in the election. Or if yet undiscovered other interfearance was at work. Just as we don’t yet know how serious the new Russian ultrasonic weaponry will be as a threat to our safety.

        If you weren’t a blind partisan with your head firmly ensconced up your butt you’d be concerned about the possibilities that future elections can be manipulated by them, and DEMANDING bipartisan support for investigations into it.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 8:11 pm

        “The amount of Russian social media meddling WAS MASSIVE.”

        First – I do not actually care.

        Second – no it was not. We already have the records.

        Did you see any of these Pro-Trump adds ?

        I didn’t. Do you know anyone who did ?

        I so far far more Clinton adds than Trump adds – which /makes sense – Clinton spent far more money than Trump.

        And I am in a state Trump won that he was not supposed to.

        We already have the people from Twitter on video noting that they see russian bots everywhere.
        Go look at the video of Twitter engineers talking about how they identify and flag russian bots, and after that tell me that you beleive anything that engieers from Silicon Valley say about politics.

        You have a HUGE problem.

        You are trying to argue that there was an elephant so large that it altered the outcome of the election.

        Though Trump’s victory in those 4 swing states was only by about 70.000 votes The polls had him 2 points down in the closest state and 6 points down in the worst.

        There is an editorial elsewhere warning republicans that though it is possible using the Trump model they could win elections through 2036, that it is unlikely they will get a popular vote victory in the presidential race following that model.

        Trump flipped something like 5M voters in the rust belt.
        But Clinton flipped about the same number in CA, AZ, TX and GA.
        She was going to win CA no matter what, and she was going to lose GA and TX no matter what.

      • Jay permalink
        May 20, 2018 9:42 pm

        “First – I do not actually care.”

        The indifference of a traitor to the nation.
        Dave, GFY.
        DD is right about you.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 10:54 pm

        What has been coming out this past week has all kinds of downstream consequences.

        Just about everyone’s testimony and public comments will have to be re-examined.

        NYT and WaPo are reporting Halper as an FBI operative. But his connections are to Brennan and the CIA, and FBI has not authority to run spies in the UK.

        Regardless, it is likely that all that testimony is going to be scrutinized – because some of these people knew about Halper and and almost certainly lied to the congress about it.

        You have been hoping that Manafort and Flynn and … would flip on Trump.

        Now you have half the upper level of the Obama administration who is going to be seeking to cover their own asses.

        We also know from Strzok’s texts that the WH was briefed 3 times a week on the Trump/Russia investigation starting in July 2016 – again before the FBI had the Steele Dossier – so we have the WH in this now too.

        We already have AG Lynch, Comey and McCabe in a circular firing squad,
        Clapper and Rogers have thrown Brennan under the bus.

        One of the things you have not grasped from the begining – is that it is very hard to roll someone on another person that has done nothing wrong.
        You can make things up to try to save your own skin – but that is a losers game as made up stories do not hold up.

        Put more simply no one is going to roll on Trump unless they actually know something.

        You have assumed from the start that they know something – because it has never crossed your mind that there is nothing to this.

        At the same time – there is going to be no problem for Comey, McCabe, Yates, Powers, Rice, Brennan. Clapper, Rogers and the score of so of others to start rolling on each other.

        The leaks we are getting now are the start of that.
        Just like McCabe leaked a false story to make himself look good, the rest of these are all trying to cover their ass.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 8:32 pm

        There are only a few ways to win an election – and that is your fundimental problem.

        The first is to actually alter the voting records – find that any you have an issue.
        I am absolutely positively supportive of efforts to secure our voting better.
        The best way is to get rid of computer voting terminals. They are not and really can not be made transparent enough. It does not matter how you count the ballots – so long as the ballots themselves are presserved so that others can count them later. So long as the ability to verify the count exists, the incentive to “hack” the counting does not.

        The second is to get people who are not allowed to vote to vote.
        Voter ID is one means to prevent that. 70-80% of the country supports that – including super majorities of all racial and ethnic minorities. Only the far left does not.

        The next way is to persuade people NOT to vote. This is the primary purpose of negative campaign adds – to reduce the votes of your opponent. None of us like it. But it is still resuasion and it is legal.

        The final way is to persuade people to vote for your candidate. Again – the means is persuasion.
        All forms of persuasion either are or should be legal. And even if they are not – you are not going to subsequently persuade Trump voters that they were improperly persuaded by Russians or Saudis or .

        Democrats are NOT arguing either of the first to. They are argument that Trump “cheated” by getting help with the last two – mostly #4.

        This is not an argument that is ever going to fly. Because you do not have the right to tall ANOTHER Voter – now wait a minute – you are being persuaded by Russian Bots.
        Because it is just persuasion.

        The last fact is that of the last two approaches – both have rapidly diminishing returns.

        If elections were determined by money – Clinton would be president – she nearly doubled Trump.

        Even if Trump got 100M or assistance EACH from the Saudi’s the UAE and Russia – and lets throw Qatar in for good measure – if Money = votes, Clinton would still have won.

        Trump did not win by spending more money.
        As important as the social media effort was – that is not why he won either.

        He won because his message resonated with more voters than Clintons.
        Because more voters were affraid of 4 more years.
        Because Clinton was a poor choice – even worse than Trump.
        Because Trump voters were tired of being told they are hateful, hating haters.

        If you actually find a real crime – great, impeach Trump, I do not care much.
        But I doubt you will.
        Further you are not going to find something that Trump did that was not something Clinton did too.
        And you are not going to find something that changed the outcome.

        In Mid October, Trump made some claims about a “rigged election”.
        Those claims were mostly targeted at the second reason above – and it is near certain that Trump lost NH because of about 6000 non-residents of NH who voted in the NH election rather than in their home state. Most of these were likely college students.
        It is even more certain that Alloyette lost to Hassan for exactly that reason – as Alloyette only lost by 2000 votes and there are over 6000 votes in NH from people who turned out not to be NH residents.

        Regardless Obama responded that everyone knows it is not possible to “rig” a US election.
        Obama was wrong – however it is difficult and it can only be done using the first two approaches
        Obama’s claim that US elections are not rigged rests on the fact that the last two ways to get votes are 99.9% of elections.

        Your entire Trump/Russia argument rests on the claim that YOU get to tell someone that YOU think they were improperly persuaded.

        That is never going to fly.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 8:40 pm

        With respect to future elections:

        End the FEC – they serve absolutely no purpose.

        Beyond that amount necescary to get broad name recognition money does nto decide the outcome of elections. Trump absolutely proved that.

        Regulating political spending and contributions is an improper infringement on peoples rights.
        Further the actual regulation is corrupting.

        Let go of this nonsense that the US owns the internet, and that other nations and people are not going to express their oppinions on US elections.

        It is ludicrously stupid to pretend that anyone should have the power to silence the efforts of anyone else – even russians at persuasion.
        You can not succeed, you should not try.
        As I repeat over and over – are you going to jail John Oliver for having an oppinion and arguing it publicly ?

        Of course not.

        People you like and people you do not like are going to try (and fail) to influence elections.
        So long as they do so through persuasion – It is not a matter for the law. or government.

        No I am not concerned about the same things you are.

        Ultimately my goals have little to do with who is elected.

        I want government disempowered so that I need not worry who is elected.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 8:41 pm

        Still lobbing stupid grenades – AGAIN I did not vote for Trump.
        I probably will not in 2020.

        Not pertisan – your the one that claims to be a republican – not me.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 20, 2018 8:44 pm

        The only investigations I want right now are of Clinton, the FBI/DOJ/CIA and Obama administration.

        I am far more concerned about the abuse of power than meaningless claims that the election was stolen in a way that just means the other person did a better job of persuasion.

        I am always going to be more concerned about the misconduct of those in office than or private citizens – even ones running for office.

  19. dduck12 permalink
    May 20, 2018 5:59 pm

    “So the one you called the lying jester, turns out to be the speaker of Truth.”
    Funniest (probably unintentionally) comment this month.

    • dhlii permalink
      May 20, 2018 10:42 pm

      And yet True – here we are over a year after Trump’s wiretapped and spied on tweets and what do you know – Trump was wiretapped and spied on.

      So who was lying ?

  20. dhlii permalink
    May 20, 2018 11:29 pm

    There will be an IG investigation into the political spying regarding the Trump Campaign.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/rod-rosenstein-asks-doj-inspector-general-to-review-possible-trump-campaign-infiltration

  21. May 20, 2018 11:59 pm

    Dave/Jay, after probably 50+ comments about what Trump is guilty of and what he is not, do you all like the feeling of beating your heads against the wall. Neither of you are going to give an inch in your beliefs, no matter if you all post 1000 messages in a day.

    Is there someway we can get away from this subject until the reports are in and if and when Trump faces impeachment, then some comments can be made. We all know where we all stand and that is why I stopped commenting about Trump and Mueller for the most part. I wont change my mind about waiting and you know what I think of Mueller. So why continue the debate?

    • dhlii permalink
      May 21, 2018 12:57 pm

      Everything is NOT a question of beleifs and all beleifs are not equal.

      I do not expect that Jau will change his mind.

      Jay is going to beleive that anything that touches Trump is evil no matter what.
      He is going to beleive that the same speach of conduct by clinton or others is good – not matter what.

      I really do not overall care that much about Trump.

      I am offended by the recent story regarding the USPS. To this point Trump has tweeted inappropriate threats to retailiate, but he has not acted on them.

      Given the repeated misrepresentations of the Press I would like more confirmation that Trump has actually acted.
      The actions he is claimed to have taken fall into a gray area – USPS is not allowed by law to provide services below cost. Trump appears to have cover in that.

      I have constantly noted that guesses as to peoples motives DO NOT transform a legal act into a crime.

      They do however sometimes make a legal act offensive.
      But that should require a high degree of certainty in assessing motives.
      I think it is no secret that Trump and Bezo’s loath each other.

      I care a great deal about lawlessness.

      We are all patiently awaiting the IG’s report on the Clinton email investigation.
      I am reluctant to bet on rumours and leaks, but the claim is that it is scathing.
      IT should be. Not merely Clinton but myriads of her associates acted with deliberate criminal recklessness. When we whitewash that conduct we can expect to see it repeated.
      I had a TSC for many years. Proper handling of classified material was driiled into us in yearly briefings.

      From both the Clinton email investigation and the Trump investigation – we are learning that classified information system is being badly mis-used that information is over classifed or classified to hide embarrassing information rather than to protect national security.

      That needs to be addressed. But it will be an ongoing temptation, and a hard one to overcome.
      Government actors will ALWAYS over react in favor of security – to our real detriment.
      The same is true of the FDA and even of local building code enforcement.
      That will always be a never ending battle.
      The best solution is to get government out of as much as possible.

      The stonewalling of congressional oversight is more acts of government malfeasance. Nor is this unique to the moment. To some extent it is true in every administration. But it was rampant during Obama and has continued with DOJ/FBI under Trump despite the President and AG demanding cooperation.

      The Clinton Foundation Investigation was ALWAYS Stronger than the Trump Russia collusion claims – it even has hundreds of millions of dollars from Russians in it.
      But the issue is NOT the Clinton Foundation, or the monies paid to it.
      It is the use of the Clinton foundation as a means of getting expedited service from the State department.

      The lying of ranking government officers – whether in this or the past administration – sometimes under oath is huge.

      The pre-Mueller conduct of the Trump/Russia investigation is appalling.

      I would ask Jay if this is acceptable – what is not ?
      I can not find in Jay or other anti-trump zealots any standards, any moral foundations.
      “If it is Trump it is wrong. Trump must be destroyed by any means necescary. ”
      Is not a principle any decent person should hold.

      • May 21, 2018 2:18 pm

        Dave, two comments:
        One, even with all your comments that many I agree with concerning the treatment of Trump, has your repeated comments made a difference in Jay’s thinking or has his hatred kept him from accepting anything you have posted. As my mom would say when alive, “are you just pissing in the wind”?

        Two “The actions he is claimed to have taken fall into a gray area – USPS is not allowed by law to provide services below cost. Trump appears to have cover in that.”
        One has to be careful when analyzing postal service results. They identify their revenues by service category, much like the hospitals identify their revenues by service line. Hospitals also identify service line costs and profit by service line. In 2014, the postal service cost were $74B. In 2017 their costs were $72B. In 2014, they generated$13.7B in package revenues. In 2017 they generated $19.4B in package revenues. So for $2B less, they generated about $6B more in revenues just for packages. That increase coincides with the rapid increase in Amazon sales.

        Doing a search on USPS and Amazon in different ways only results in pages of crap about Trump complaining about Amazon, so I gave up. But there needs to be a much closer look at the numbers because an entity that increases revenues by $6B IN ONE SERVICE LINE over a period where they reduce total cost of $2B and all other revenues stay about constant would indicate to me that the increased revenues would be profitable.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 21, 2018 4:00 pm

        Trying to effectively analyse any highly regualted business is incredibly difficult – the regulatory effects dwarf everything.

        Trying to analyze a goivernment owned business is worse.

        As I said – just send USPS out into the compettitive world absent the protection and regulation of government.

        I beleive that on the whole Amazon’s business is very good for USPS.

        I also think it is arguable that the USPS loses money on Amazon’s business.

        Both can and likely are true.

        I am more interested in the Trump aspect.

        Presuming the stories are true – and they seem to have died quickly so I am starting to get skeptical, Trump overstepped.

        Unlike Jay I do not have a black and white relationship to Trump.

        If he did this he was WRONG.

        He appears to have sufficient ambiguity that he was not impeachably wrong – in my view, but still wrong.

      • May 21, 2018 4:41 pm

        If you were in power and could privatize USPS, would you give the new company a clean slate to compete with. UPS ,FedEx and others, or would you saddle them with the $60B retirement costs from years past and the federal workers salary contracts and benefit package.

        Makes a huge difference in competitive environment.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 21, 2018 6:56 pm

        I would sell the USPS.

        Whether I sold them with or without pension obligations is not a question of principle.
        There is not a “right” answer.

        I would try to sell them with Pension obligations, but likely would have to sell them without to get a good price.

        There is already a government insurance program that takes over in the event of pension defaults or similiar situations.

      • May 21, 2018 10:33 pm

        “I would try to sell them with Pension obligations, but likely would have to sell them without to get a good price.

        There is already a government insurance program that takes over in the event of pension defaults or similiar situations.”

        Good answer. Most likely few takers if they came with the liability because it will be almost impossible to make them profitable AND competitive with that governmental boondoggle around its neck. They might be able to live with the current salary contracts and benefits by reducing cost other places, but $60B in just pension liability and unknown health benefit cost (my unknown) makes profitability difficult regardless of the business model.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 22, 2018 12:53 am

        The “principled” part of the answer is Get USPS out of govenrment – and BTW do NOT set them up as a private protected monopoly.

        The other issues such as pensions are a detail. The only principle involved is that we should keep the promises that we make to each other.

        But that one is going down the tubes no matter what.

        We are ultimatley going to have to try to figure out how to keep the promises our government has made – as best as possible, without bankrupting the country and saddling our children with impossible debt.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 21, 2018 6:58 pm

        The primary effect would be on the price.

        I would further note that not only is it likely that government would have to hold onto past pension obligations, unions would likely demand it.

        If a private company bought USPS with pensions with some legal effort they coudl get out from under them.

    • dhlii permalink
      May 21, 2018 1:08 pm

      You will find a theme to most of my posts.

      The conduct of those with power – i.e. the ability to use the force of government is more serious and demands much higher scrutiny than all other conduct.

      Demonstrate that Trump actually worked with foreign governments to persuade voters, and I probably would impeach Trump. That is conduct I do not like.
      But it is not conduct that should be illegal. I would never support a prosecution.
      Not even after impeachment.

      I am prepared to jail those you can prove were involved in hacking the DNC.
      Thus far that is no one. You can not even tie the russians to it to a standard of more likely than not.

      With respect to all this assorted financial garbage. I would prefer a greater separation between President Trump and CEO Trump. But the financial actions I see are no more or less troublining that everything involving the Clinton Foundation.

      Find evidence that those doing business with Trump are getting special treatment – and you have my ear.
      The evidence in the CF cases is abundantly clear – employees of the CF were also on Clinton’s staff at state. There is an extensive record of CF asking for favors for donors, and State granting them.

      All such claims regarding Trump involve less evidence and are more indirect.

      But past Trump we get into the conduct of DOJ/FBI during the obama administration and subsequently. And that I find criminal.

      The CIA/FBI/DOJ are far more dangerous than any political canditate.
      They are government, they have actual power, the power of a political candidate is a hope in the future.

      The rule of law requires that the government itself follow the law.

      • Jay permalink
        May 21, 2018 9:55 pm

        “You will find a theme to most of my posts.”

        That theme is your SUBJECTIVE opinions are objectively factual.
        But they’re not.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 21, 2018 11:34 pm

        Nope, it is called reality. It is also the entirety of western history.

        And again – subjective or not – oppinion or not, everything is not equal.

        We have tried the other ways – they do not work.

        Regardless, if you think that you get to use force aka government absent actual force or the threat of force – try it. That is what broaught about the American revolution.

        That is also what brought about Trump.

        You keep trying to play this stupid game.

        The system we have is not perfect – it has been poluted far too much by the idiocy you are selling.

        By the nonsense that all oppinions are equal by the garbage that the absence of absolutes means the absence of error.

        But that pollution is not the system as a whole, it is just drek along the edges that we will work to get rid of.

        You do not have the right to impose your will on others by force – that is the obverse of the role of government is to punish the initiation of force.

        They are mirrors. When you use force against another without justification – you have justified their use of force against you.

        You can pretend otherwise all you want, but it is the core to civilization.

    • dhlii permalink
      May 21, 2018 1:18 pm

      Just to be clear.

      I have FAR more problems with the pre-mueller conduct of the investigation.
      That is just entirely lawless.

      The most majro flaw with the Mueller investigation – has nothing to do with Mueller, it has to do with his appointment, his scope and his oversight, and that problem is with Rosenstein not Mueller.

      There are some issuses specific to Mueller – he was painted as this white knight and he has a more checkered past,

      With respect to the actual Mueller investigation the problems are much smaller.
      He is NOT mostly repeating the errors of the prior investigation.

      I am disturbed by the breadth of his indictments – they are not supportable by any facts we know, and they often involve ridiculously expansive reads of the law.
      I am disturbed by the pre-dawn guns drawn raid of Manafort – who was producing what Mueller requested at the time.

      I am disturbed by the highly partisan nature of the attorney’s appointed.
      While I want pit bulls in an investigation, I do not want people with an axe to grind or who will stretch the law.

      Here is an op ed by Michael B. Mukasey – one of the most honorable AG’s we have had in a long time.

      https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/05/20/end-robert-mueller-investigation-michael-mukasey-editorials-debates/35157745/

    • Jay permalink
      May 21, 2018 9:57 pm

      Trump sucks.
      Silence to that is complicity to destructiveness.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 21, 2018 11:36 pm

        “Trump sucks.”
        True
        “Silence to that is complicity to destructiveness.”
        False
        Also several fallacies,
        False dilemma,
        Binary fallacy.

        Aslo factual error – Trump as presidents go has not been particularly destructive.

  22. dhlii permalink
    May 21, 2018 12:36 am

    Jay, dduck;

    How long ago was it that you and the left and the MSM were telling us that Obama did not spy on the Trump campaign.

    Now spying is OK ?

  23. dhlii permalink
    May 21, 2018 3:10 am

    Except that the author misses that The Clintons have far more conflicts than Trump, otherwise this is good.

    But this is typical of the left – when we do it , it is OK when anyone else does it, it is wrong.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-hillary-clinton-normalized-trump-2018-5

  24. Jay permalink
    May 21, 2018 9:22 am

    • dhlii permalink
      May 21, 2018 1:26 pm

      Halper is not an “informant” he is not even a spy, he is an operative.

      Regardless the law regarding the use of informants, operatives, and spies in counter intelligence operations against US persons imposes the same requirements as for a FISA Warrant – probable cause that a crime has been committed.

      I am sure that informants are used regularly in counter-intelligence – but NOT against US persons.
      Follow the law.
      The 4th amendment does NOT have a counter-intelligence exception.
      And even a preliminary investigation requires a crime.

      I do not care about claims one way or the other about motive.
      Have I not made that crystal clear myriads of times, Nor should you.

      I am first and foremost interested in “the rule of law”, and then the actual law.
      “motive” is useful if it can be demonstrated, but good motive does not make bad conduct good, and bad motive does not make good conduct bad.

      I have some interest in overt bias – Strzok and page have demonstrated that.
      But it is reason to preclude someone from involvement.
      Even the appearance of bias is sufficient in some instances.

      The standard is DELIBERATELY “the appears” – where that applies the standard is not what ARE a persons motives, but is there even the appearance of bias.

      https://theintercept.com/2018/05/19/the-fbi-informant-who-monitored-the-trump-campaign-stefan-halper-oversaw-a-cia-spying-operation-in-the-1980-presidential-election/

      • Jay permalink
        May 21, 2018 4:27 pm

        “Regardless the law regarding the use of informants, operatives, and spies in counter intelligence operations against US persons imposes the same requirements as for a FISA Warrant – probable cause that a crime has been committed.”

        Wrong.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 21, 2018 6:37 pm

        Do I have to find you the actual law ?

        I would suggest checking the quotes I provided from the ACLU web site. Those specifically cite the laws that apply. and specifically stated that the government can not spy on a US person without probable cause.

        Regardless the 4th amendment has applied to spying.

  25. Jay permalink
    May 21, 2018 9:47 am

    Conservative Joe Walsh @WalshFreedom is talking about you too Dave

    “. It’s really wrong that Russia screwed with our election, and it’s really, really wrong that Trump doesn’t give a damn about that.”

    You don’t give a damn about it either.

    • dhlii permalink
      May 21, 2018 1:35 pm

      I do not care very much at all about efforts to persuade people to vote for or against on candidate or another.

      I do not care if the persuasion is from the left or the right, from the NRA or labor, from the rich or community groups, foreign or domestic.

      I do not care if someone spends a trillion dollars trying to persuade people.

      Attempting to persuade someone should NEVER be illegal.

      Quite often bad people try to persuade people.
      It is still persuasion.

      We are each responsible for what we do.
      We are responsible for our vote.

      No one has yet demonstrated that anyone used force to alter someones vote.

      Your whole russian influence claim ends badly.

      If you accept this stupid claim that some forms of persuasion should be illegal.
      How do you make that work ?

      Are you going to bar russians from the internet during US elections ?

      Are you going to war with Russia ?

      And what of americans expressing their views of foreign elections ?
      Must we all keep our mouths shut about brexit or Venezeula ?

      If we can bar Russians – why not the NRA or the AFL-CIO ?

      Who is going to be allowed to persuade and who is not ?

      • Jay permalink
        May 21, 2018 4:30 pm

        “Attempting to persuade someone should NEVER be illegal.”

        Wrong!

      • dhlii permalink
        May 21, 2018 6:44 pm

        Because you say so ?

        Please identify a single instance in which is it obviously criminal to do nothing more than attempt to persuade a person to vote for a specific candidate ?

        Is it illegal for communists to attempt to persuade people to vote for a candidate ?
        Is it illegal for minorities, for women, for gays, for union members for rich people, for john Oliver, for the british, for the british government, for russians, for the russian government ?

        And why so and how are you going to enforce that ?

        I would like to further ask you about purported Trump/Russia collusion.

        What collusion with Russian can you establish that was not done far more egregiously by the Clintons.

        Page Talked at a symposium in Russia and got a small speaking fee.
        Bill Clinton got 500K for a short speach in Russia.

        The Clinton foundation received a couple of HUNDRED Million from Russians – out of the goodness of their hearts.

        I guess Trump should argue that about all the money you think he has somehow received from Russia – it was out of the goodness of their hearts.

      • Jay permalink
        May 21, 2018 7:25 pm

        1-the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

        2-It’s a federal crime to conspire with anyone, including a foreign government, under US Fraud Laws (18 U.S. Code § 1346) to ‘deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.’ That would include trying to fix a fraudulent election.

        3-Collusion in a federal election with a foreign entity could fall under anti-coercion federal election law:

        4-And of course The Federal Election Campaign Act, which states in unambiguous terms that “any contribution by a foreign national to the campaign of an American candidate for any election, state or national, is illegal. Likewise, anyone who receives, solicits, or accepts these contributions also violates the statute. “

      • dhlii permalink
        May 21, 2018 8:28 pm

        1) The many parts of McCain Feingold have been found unconstitutional.
        No court has EVER found any government restrictions on political speach legitimate.
        Political persuasion is a subset of political speach – constitutionally protected.

        2). No that is NOT what that means.

        You continue to try this the law is infinitely broad garbage.

        Further by you calim you are literally saying that NO ONE can attempt to persuade anyone else
        The law you cite is note restricted to foreign govenrments.

        Your interpretation would mean that if Joe and I both agree to post messages on facebook supporting Clinton – that we are both criminals – because we have – according to you fraudulently conspired to “fix an election”

        The term “honest services” essentially means what you are entitled to from a contract.
        The law you cite is about interfering with one parties efforts to provide the services they have contracted to.

        Voting and elections are not a natural right. Voting is not even inherently a constitutional right.
        Presidents as an example are elected by the electoral college which is only tied to voing by state laws.

        3). There is no crime of collusion anywhere in the US Code.
        Conspiracy is the actual crime you are looking for.
        A conspiracy requires an underlying crime.
        Any law that tried to criminalise conspiracy or collusion without an underlying crime would be an unconstitutional violation of your right to free association.

        Coercion is the use of threat of the use of force. Persuasion is most emphatically NOT coercion.
        As of yet I have heard no one claim they were forced to vote for Trump. I have heard no one say they were coerced to vote for Trump.

        I have repeated endlessly the requirement that law – particularly criminal law be about the use or threat of force. That is the sole legitimate justification for government, that is the social contract.

        While we have far to many laws – including criminal laws that are removed from the use or threat of the use of force. The overwhelming majority of criminal laws are about the use of force or the threat of the use of force. Those that are not are highly suspect.

        4). So when Obama said on an open mike that he would be more flexible after the election – which can only be understood as a request for russia to accomidate him during the election cycle – he was colluding with Russia by your definition.

        So when Clinton received OPO research from Steele she was colluding with a foreign government ? So when Clinton received information from Downer – she was colluding with a foreign government ? So when Clinton received political donations through Downer – she was colluding with a foreigner or a foreign government ? So whe Clinton received political assistance from the Ukrainian embassy in DC – she was colluding with a foreign government ?
        So when Bill Clinton received 500K from Russian Oligarks during the election – that was collusion with Russians ?

        I can go on for ever. The fact is the law you cite is stupid and improper.
        But regardless of that it is not nearly as broad as you are trying to make it.

        To ensnare Trump for foreign political contributions your interpretation would have to be so broad as to catch Clinton 1000 times over.

        What about the FBI working with MI-6 to investigate Trump during an election – wouldn’t that be collusion of the type you are claiming is illegal ?

        BTW – if you are going to cite statutes – actually state them – the actual words matter, not what someone says they say.

        You bandy words like influence, collusion, interferance – broad words without clear meaning.
        And pretend that these are the words of our laws.

        There are forms of influence that are crimes,. most are not.
        There are forms of collusion that are crimes, most are not.
        There are forms of interference that are crimes, most are not.

        Even conspiracy which has a more precise meaning, is not a crime absent an act in furtherance of the conspiracy AND an underlying crime.

        You can not illegally conspire to do something legal.

    • dhlii permalink
      May 21, 2018 1:37 pm

      I give a damn about free speach – and persuasion is just a form of free speach.

      Free speach is an actual right – both natural and constitutional.

      Voting is not an actual right.
      Nor is it infringed by free speech.

  26. May 21, 2018 11:26 am

    This is not a Trump issue, although it involves Trump.

    There have been comments made about FBI spying on the Trump campaign, starting way back when he said his campaign was wiretapped. He has demanded in tweets that the DOJ open an investigation and so far nothing happening.

    So the question is…..Does the president (any president) have the authority to direct the DOJ to open investigations when sufficient (key requirement) evidence is present to warrant that investigation.

    Seems to me that there is as much evidence of campaign tampering as their was campaign influence that led to Mueller, but The Weasel is ignoring calls for investigations of domestic spying.

    Please answer based on presidential authority and not support or hatred for Trump!

    • dhlii permalink
      May 21, 2018 1:42 pm

      Rosenstein announced that the IG will be investigating the initial investigation of the Trump campaign.

      As to the question you asked.

      The president or AG, or any US Attorney has the power to open an investigation into anything at all.

      There is no evidentiary requirement.

      But the conduct of that investigation is determined by the available evidence.

      Spying, wiretap[ing, surveilling, searching. and an assortment of other investigative acts have evidentiary standards that must be met before they can be used.

      • May 21, 2018 2:23 pm

        If you are correct, and I am in agreement you are, then I do not understand why the hell the Weasel has not directed his AG staff to begin looking into this campaign stuff unless this is the conservative presses form of fake news.

        And I would not put it past them to be as bad as the left with their fake news.

        But my thought of Sessions he needs to be fired by tweet and sent packing back to Alabama!

      • dhlii permalink
        May 21, 2018 4:08 pm

        The Sessions Recusal has created a mess.

        Rosnestein improperly appointed Mueller, failed to properly constrain him and is providing incredibily poor oversight.

        The result is that Mueller is a “loose cannon” outside of executive, or congressional control, and that is a very bad thing.

        There is a Neil Kaytal interview somewhere – he participated in the administrative review of the IC law that lead to allowing it to sunset and to creating the new SC law.

        One of the points he made was that Starr had inadequate oversight, supervision and constraint.

        What we have now is worse – Starr was atleast answerable to congress.

        Regardless, I do not think that the executive branch can and should investigate the president.

        I also do not think the president can nor should be prosecuted for anything that occured before he was in office.

        I spoke out on specifically that when SCOTUS allowed the Jones case to go forward – I was sympathetic but SCOTUS was wrong. I hated and still do Bill Clinton,
        But that does not make what was going on proper.

        The way to deal with a rogue president is impeachment.
        The oversight of the executive is the role of congress – not the DOJ.

        The SC law was intended to be weaker than the IC law, it is proving to be much worse.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 21, 2018 4:10 pm

        Trump’s reticence to make demands regarding any of these investigations is driven by the fact that he is essentially a target – atleast politically.

        So long as so many on the left continue to argue that doing his job is obstruction, he can not do his job without risk of giving Mueller more room to dig in.

      • Jay permalink
        May 21, 2018 10:03 pm

        Blah fucking blah.

        Trump IS using his office to obstruct the investigation into Trump.
        Are you too dense not to see that?

        He is a cancer on the body politic.
        He needs to be incised or the cancer will destroy the government.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 21, 2018 11:51 pm

        Of course I do NOT see that.

        I see an investigation that was criminal and corrupt from the start.
        I see an subsequent investigation that is both unconstitutional and illegal.

        The only thing stoping Trump from shutting it down entirely is the possible political backlash – because there would be NO constitutional backlash, it is fully inside his powers.

        I see idiots who seem to think that the DOJ/FBI can investigate anyone for anything and that even questioning that is criminal.

        Can you say “police state” ?
        Can you say “Idiot” ?

        Please tell me when EVER the DOJ/FBI have spied on a political candidate ?

        This has never happened before – that alone should give you a clue how WRONG it is.

        It is irrelevant whether you or I like Trump.

        If you want an investigation – do it constitutionally. Do it legally.
        That would be through congress. They are the only body with the constitutional authority to investigate the president.

        If the left wants Mueller to continue – change the law to bring him under Congress. Then let congress determine his scope.

        Right now his investigation is lawless.

        As to your “cancer” references – Trump is not even close to the most offensive president we have ever had.

        I would greatly prefer a president with better character.
        But the electorate spoke otherwise.
        Between elections the constitution, and congress are the constraints on the president.

        I do not think I can vote for someone whose with bad character.
        But we have had lots of presidents with bad character before.
        And contrary to how I beleive the world should be some of those with bad character have actually been good presidents – Bill Clinton comes immediately to mind.

        Whatever is wrong with Trump – is wrong with Bill on steriods.
        But whether I like it or not – and I really don’t, he was actually a good president – not perfect, there is alot that he failed at. But overall pretty good.
        Far better than Obama who unless you manage to tie him personally to this mess, clearly has the best character of any president in a long time.
        Unfortunatly he was still a poor president.

        Trump appears to be very similar to Clinton – bad character, good president.
        Not perfect, plenty to disagree with.
        But not the end of the world, and not as bad for the country as Obama.

        Like I said before – I really want to beleieve that good character and good presidents are traits that go hand in hand. But history tells me that is not true.

        Trump is unfortunately NOT going to destroy the government – though it is doing a pretty good job of destroying itself

      • Jay permalink
        May 21, 2018 10:20 pm

        Could be he hasn’t been fired because he has info that would sodomize Trump’s asshole and Trump knows it.

        trump is a dishonorable shady creep who has collaborated with gangsters, mobs, crooks, thieves his entire business career. Don’t you think an AG would have access to that info?
        Wouldn’t you think he’s had Trump’s hidden taxes evaluated?

      • dhlii permalink
        May 22, 2018 12:37 am

        “Could be he hasn’t been fired because he has info that would sodomize Trump’s asshole and Trump knows it.”

        You really are an idiot.
        Trump can fire Sessions any time he wants.
        And that will not have huge political fallout.
        But it is unlikely that he can get someone better confirmed without a horrible political fight.
        Further it will have a huge cost in time in the Senate.

        “trump is a dishonorable shady creep who has collaborated with gangsters, mobs, crooks, thieves his entire business career. Don’t you think an AG would have access to that info?
        Wouldn’t you think he’s had Trump’s hidden taxes evaluated?”

        No the AG does not have the “dirt” on Trump – it is illegal for the IRS to share tax returns – even with DOJ – well except in the Obama administration where no one seems to know how that happened.

        You really have this entirely warped view of the world.
        If you think Sessions has access tot he information needed to blackmail Trump – then why not Rosenstein ? Why not Comey, McCabe/ Mueller ?

        Why not Lynch during 2016 ?

        Why couldn’t Lynch call up DT and say – we got all your dirty laundry – drop out or through the election ?

        Do you ever think the things you say through before writing them ?

    • dhlii permalink
      May 21, 2018 1:50 pm

      I think Mueller was a poor choice of SC.
      I think that he has used an overly expansive interpretation of the law,
      and I think that he has been overly agressive in prosecuting where the law and the facts are not there.
      I think he has been overly agressive in techniques.

      And I think he should be honest and report that he has found nothing and close this.

      I have questions about his character, but I would not call him a weasel.

      Mueller did not appoint himself, he did not determine the scope of his investigation.

      I do not think there is a basis for an SC to have been appointed – but that is not Mueller’s fault – that is Rosensteins.

      I think there is a basis for appointing an SC to investigate the misconduct of the intiial investigation.

      I think that Rosensteins, game playing using the IG is wrong as a matter of law.
      That the DOJ/FBI can not investigate themselves.

      But I am not that concerned about it. Thus far Horrowitz – an Obama appointee has proven thorough. Further he has been provided with US ADA Hunt out of Salt Lake City to permitt Grand Jury and Subpeona’s and the investigative and prosecutorial powers that reach beyond an IG
      Thus far they appear to be behaving lawfully.
      We get very little in the way of leaks, and that is mostly coming from the rest of DOJ and from targets – which must review preliminary versions of Horowitz’s reports atleast a month in advance.

    • Jay permalink
      May 21, 2018 3:08 pm

      What youre asking is does a President have the right to interfere in an investigation where he himself is being investigated. Conservative Republican Joe Walsh coincidentally just said that on his Twitter feed:

      “So, here’s the deal: When you cut thru all the bullshit, here’s what Trump is doing: He’s demanding we investigate the people who are investigating him.

      I wish he cared as much about America as he cares about himself, and had demanded an investigation into what Russia did to us.”

      • dhlii permalink
        May 21, 2018 4:17 pm

        “What youre asking is does a President have the right to interfere in an investigation ”

        I am not asking – and aparently Hamilton already answered it in Federalist 69.

        A president may excercise any of the powers of the executive branch – within the constraints of the constitution and constitutional laws.

        The only body that can investigate a president is CONGRESS.

        If the president has engaged in unlawful conduct – impeach first, prosecute second.

        The right of the president to direct the DOJ – including “interfering” in investigations, is established atleast as far back as Jefferson.

        Yes, the president can “interfere” in an investigation of himself – so long as that investigation is conducted by the executive branch. Which is why the SC should be under congress not the executive.

        It is also improper to have unchecked authority and power – and that is what we currently have with the SC

        The president is checked by congress, the DOJ is checked by the resident.
        Mueller is checked ONLY by Rosenstein and Rosenstein with respect to the Trump investigation is answerable to no one – not Trump and clearly not congress.

        That is wrong.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 21, 2018 4:20 pm

        “So, here’s the deal: When you cut thru all the bullshit, here’s what Trump is doing: He’s demanding we investigate the people who are investigating him.”

        While not technically correct – lets assume it is.

        So ? If those investigating him have violated the law, which is pretty apparent at the moment, then they are subject to investigation, arrest and prosecution.

        If you say anything else – then you are saying that a criinally lawless prosecutor needs only to open an investigation of his supperior to be protected from prosecution for his own misconduct.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 21, 2018 4:25 pm

        “I wish he cared as much about America as he cares about himself, and had demanded an investigation into what Russia did to us.”

        Muellers charge is to investigate that.

        That was a huge mistake – you can not combine a counter-intelligence and criminal investigation.
        That is essentially what FISA is all about and what all these unmaking rules and laws that you keep ignoring.

        Thus far with regard to Russia Mueller has found a tiny amount of money being spent on internet adds and posts

        That is a non-issue.

        While all of us care about “russian interferance” in our election – outside the left this – they dicked with the election using facebook adds meme is not flying. No one cares, even if we do care it is very little and we know there is nothing to be done about it.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 21, 2018 4:32 pm

        As others have noted – everything continues to revolve arround the same relatively small cast of characters.

        With a few additions – the Mueller investigation is the same people who were part of the Comey Investigation of Trump, who were the same people part of the Investigation of the Clinton emails.

        This goes one through to atleast the Scooter Libby investigation – yes, we see the same names in that.

        In fact nearly every botched high profile investigation for decades mostly has the same people.

        Comey had Rosenteins role in the Libby mess, Mueller had Comey’s and Fitzgerald had Mueller’s current role.

        When you say Trump is investigating his investigators – that is solely because despite having 35,000 FBI agents and enough lawyers to populate San Francisco, the same people are part of the Clinton, Comey/Trump and now Mueller/Trump investigations.

        Mueller was perfectly capable of starting fresh with new people, the fact that his own people are being ensnared in a separate investigation of criminal conduct is his problem.

      • May 21, 2018 4:35 pm

        I had to wait awhile before replying or I would have been as insulting as others when finding disagreement. So here is my more calm reply.

        I dont give a fuck who is the president. I dont give a shit what Trump is doing. I ASKED IF A (ANY) PRESIDENT COULD ASK FOR AN INVESTIGATION!!!!! I ASK TO LEAVE TRUMP OUT!!!!

        But your incomprehensible hatred for Trump drove your answer. I really wanted to know since Trump keeps bitching about spying but nothing gets attention from DOJ.

        I can make up my own mind about Trump. I dont need your incessant retweets of other peoples tweets.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 21, 2018 6:51 pm

        What has just surfaced has never happened before.

        The two closet past approximations are Watergate, and the 1980 Reagan Campaign Helper targeting of Clinton.

        Neither of those were done by FBI or CIA.

        I beleive we MIGHT have some instances in the distant past where the FBI targetted the Communist party – but I do not think specific to an election.

        Nixon wanted to use the FBI in this way. Hoover refused.
        The Plumbers came into being specifically because Nixon could not get the FBI to spy on political enemies.

        BTW there is a perfectly credible claim that someone in the DNC was running a prostitution ring from the Watergate offices. The Plumbers bugged the phone of a secretary – not of any of the key people.

        Nor is this the only time that the Obama administration has used the power of government against political enemies.

        The entire IRS targeting of conservatives is pretty close to the same thing – again no other administration has ever done that before. Again Nixon is the only president that has ever tried.

        Obama == Nixon.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 21, 2018 6:53 pm

        With respect to your question, I would further ask,

        Is a Prosecutor barred from demanding an investigation of a crime committed by people who are also investigating them ?

        If you say no – you are saying that the best way to avoid being prosecuted is to file charges against the person you committed the crime against

  27. Jay permalink
    May 21, 2018 3:12 pm

    This is provocative. Worth contemplating.
    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-do-mass-shootings-happen-best-explanation/

    • dhlii permalink
      May 21, 2018 3:46 pm

      David French is excellent on Free Speech.

      The article is interesting and some of his ideas sound plausible.

      But reality – facts are the test for ideas.

      Mass shootings, school shootings, violence of all kinds are down dramatically since their peak in the 80’s and 90’s.

      School shootings are 1/4 what they were at the time of columbine.

      I think the threshhold/riot thesis is valid – meaning we see that behavior in other events.

      But do not think the evidence backs up the thesis that it is a significant factor.

      Not just with school shootings but with all forms of violence – rates, locally, nationally, and globally are declining. With very few specific exceptions – recent increases in a few US cities, Increases in knife violence in the UK and particularly london.

      What is most different today is that the media are going farther and farther to cover violence.

      The recent shootings in TX and FL probably would have gotten a big mention on one days news 40 years ago. Today they dominate the news for a week.

      Today if a black person gets service they think is poor at Starbucks it is a national news story.
      Blacks had to be killed or beaten severly to garner national attention in the 60’s.

      The US paid almost zero attention to the mideast through to carter – except when the Arabs went to war against Israel. Today if someone is sentenced to a flogging in Saudi Arabia – it makes the news.

      I am not BTW carping at the news – they job is to attract eyeballs.

      It is out job to recognize that even though the news gets ever darker, the world continues to get ever safer.

      • Anonymous permalink
        May 21, 2018 7:35 pm

        Two points. I AM NOT A LEFTY. A Rep for over 50 years. Get that straight.
        You are a pompous ass and waste space.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 21, 2018 8:28 pm

        If it quacks like a duck.

  28. dduck12 permalink
    May 21, 2018 9:30 pm

    Rather be a duck than an ass.

  29. Jay permalink
    May 21, 2018 10:12 pm

    I told you evidence would keep accumulating that Russian election interfearance had effect on the outcome. You have to be retarded to believe the Russians are spending so much time money resources for a strategy that doesn’t produce results:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-21/twitter-bots-helped-trump-and-brexit-win-economic-study-says

    • dhlii permalink
      May 22, 2018 12:32 am

      We are back making this stupid argument again.

      First – I greatly tire of the stupid bot argument.

      Have you ever personally received a twitter bot post or add ?

      I haven’t. I have received a few adds – not all that many. They have not changed my mind on anything. My twitter feed is entirely human.

      Regardless, we already know that the idiots at Twitter are clueless and label anything they do not like as a “bot”.

      And that is just the attack on the stupidity about “bots”.

      But lets go one step further – if someone wishes to attempt to persuade humans with messages posted by bots – and they manage to succeed – I am perfectly fine with that.

      No force involved.

      You are still pushing this idiocy that there is some forms of persuasion absent force that you are allowed to constrain – you are not. Get over it.

      I do not personally think that much of what goes on, on twitter or facebook is very effective.

      As Ron just pointed out – I am a real human posting well constructed and well thought out arguments, and I do not stand a chance in hell of persuading you.

      You think that “bots” or even live russians are more effective ?

      As to your last nonsense – no the Russians are NOT spending huge amounts of resources.
      Total Russian spending on elections – that is ALL elections – including their own, is just a bit more than the illegal campaign contributions that the FEC has found to HFA.

      Total Spending on the US election in 2016 was 7B – do you think Russia has that kind of money to spend ? The entire Russian Government spending – military and all is less than 1/3 of the US MILITARY Spending. The US election cost is almost 5% of the entire Russian Government budget, it is almost 1% of Russian GDP.

      It is about what americans spend on nuts last year – the entire government budget of Russia is about what americans spend on snack foods.

      You are bemoaning a paper tiger.

      Get over yourself.

      Why are the russian spending on something that does nto get results ?

      YOU have given Putin results beyond his wildest dreams.

      He spent next to nothing and he hit the jackpot in 2016.
      The entire political left has completely whigged out.

      You cite some study – the mere existance of such a study proves the russian effectiveness – not in effecting the outcome of the election but in buying space in your mind.

      I can not beleive that you buy this kind of garbage.

      Do you understand if it was so easy to persuade people – 5th Avenue would have made puppets of us all.

      Do you honestly think Putin and a bunch of Russian hackers are smarter than the collective wisdom of the US marketting establishment ?

      Or than an army of US political consultants ?

      Do you really beelive that between the Russians and Saudi’s and whatever other mythical creatures you think “influenced” the US election – that they contributed the equivalent of the 500M in spending that separated Clinton from Trump ?

      Were you watching the election – did you see more Trump adds than Clinton ones ?

      There is so much stupidity in your argument it is beyond beleif.

      There is only ONE Germ of truth in it – Trump won the election on the cheap.
      The election did not tipp because of ANYONE’s spending. No matter how large of from where.
      Clinton could have doubled her spending again and not changed the outcome.

      Among other reasons because money beyond in election terms a relatively low threshold does not persuade people – nor to Facebook and twitter adds. Nor television adds.

      People were persuaded by the differences in MESSAGE – and that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the Saudi’s or Russians. To the small extent they russians added their vote to the US election they were completely tone deaf.

      MAGA was absolutely brilliant – it was as good as Reagan’s Morning in America.
      It is what Trump voters wanted to hear.

      Much of Trump’s message is what his voters wanted to hear.

      I do not like some parts of his message – such as the anti=-trade stuff – but it was STILL what voters wanted to hear

      They also WANTED (and still do) someone to bitch slap the MSM.
      The Trump pummelling CNN at a WWE event works for many Trump supporters.

      From the begining of the election Trump TARGETED the Rust belt.
      There was no secret in that. Nearly everything he said was aimed at PA, MN, WI, OH
      Again zero secret in that.

      Trump did not need any Russian help. Hr quite Obviously did this on his own.

      He grasped that a huge body of people – and not just republicans and conservatives were tired of being called hateful, hating haters.

      He used the Lefts own attacks against them.

      And Clinton was a horrid candidate. It would be hard for democrats to come up with a worse choice. But she was the annointed, it was her turn, she was to be the historic first female president.

      Well if she wanted that she should have done a good job at state – more work, less corruption.,
      Maybe accomplish something – like bring the North Koreans or even the chinese to the bargaining table ? Like spend less time lining her pockets and more time doing her job. Like not lying to us about a terrorist attack. Like not violating the law and violating the espionage act to hide her official Emails from FOIA requests – which BTW is the repeatedly admitted reason for the basement server, like not destroying evidence.

      Bernie Sanders was an absolutely abysmal candidate – yet he gave clinton a run – why ?
      Because even democrats do not like Clinton.

      Trump won despite high negatives – because people loath Hillary more – even to this day.

      If Democrats wish to blow any chance they have in 2018 – just keep pushing Hillary

      Cassius:
      “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
      But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
      Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141)

    • dhlii permalink
      May 22, 2018 12:03 pm

      I beleive I asked you this before, but I am going to try again

      What is it that you think is sufficient basis for the government to take interest in someone ?

      I would not that the principle that is supposed to under pin our law is that government investigates crimes not people. i.e. When there is an allegation of a crime – the government investigates the crime, and looks at those people who are connected to that crime in relation to that crime, until further evidence connects them to other crimes.

      That means that if government is investigating a hit and run murder, where you are a suspect – they are not free to explore your sex life, or your investment history – unless some evidence related to the hit and run connects to sex or investment.

      As noted – we investigate crimes and follow them where they lead. Not people.

      But I am asking YOU – what is it that you think about how things SHOULD be – not how they are.’

      Fundamentally, my question is what rights of privacy do you think people have.

      I ask this because as we debate the Trump investigation – you appear to me to be arguing that Mueller/DOJ/FBI/You are entitled to know whatever you wish to now about another.

      I would assume that you understand that however little privacy you allow Trump or those related to him – that is the most you can assume to have yourself.

      Can the government investigate a person rather than a crime ?

      What is necescary in your view to start an investigation ?

      What activities are permitted when that minimum bar is met to begin an investigation ?

      What is sufficient justification to surveil someone in public ? In private ?

      What is sufficient justification to go beyond surveilance – to engage someone to lead them, to mislead them ?

      From your remarks I have the sense that so long as the target is Trump, you do not think that any justification is necescary at all.

  30. May 21, 2018 10:25 pm

    Well I’ll be danged! Hell must be freezing over because this is written by a Democrat, a former President Clinton pollster and adviser as well as the chief strategist and pollster for Hillary Clinton in 2008. He is a centrist Democrat much like Doug Schoen who thinks the democrats are moving too far left, but they are still Democrats.

    Nice to see that I am not nuts like Jay would want everyone to think based on my thoughts about Mueller. Much of this duplicates my thinking.
    http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/388549-stopping-robert-mueller-to-protect-us-all

    • dhlii permalink
      May 22, 2018 12:50 am

      There are some offitities in the politics of the moment.
      This is not the first editorial by Mark Penn about this.

      Just as there are a number of Republicans attacking Trump there are a number of democrats defending the process.

      Penn is good but Michael Mukasey is better.
      He is responsible for the rules that SC are supposed to follow that Mueller is not.
      And he is calling for an end to this.

      In a prior post I have distinguished between teh Comey phase of theis and the Mueller phase.

      While I have problems with Mueller – he is wrong and he is doing things he should not do,
      The most fundimental problem with the Mueller SC is that it is improperly authorized, and that is not his fault.

      But the pre Mueller investigation is quite obviously corrupt – from start to finish.

      One of the problems with the Halper revelations is that it blows the time line.

      The Steele Dossier did not get to the FBI until October.
      The Downer story about Papadoulis did not get tot he FBI until August.

      At the very latest – Halper started in very early July –

      News of the DNC hack was barely public at that moment.

      In other words the FBI/DOJ/CIA did not even have what was not good enough to get them a warrant 4 months later and yet they deployed a Spy on the Trump campaign.

  31. dhlii permalink
    May 23, 2018 3:02 am

    McCarthy has peiced together a few more bits and has moved the Start of the Obama Administration investigation to “late spring” – probably March.

    And the triggering event is likely Trump’s WaPo interview identifying Carter Page as an advisor.

    There is no Steele Dossier at this time, there is no Page Trips to Moscow, there is no Papadoulis remarks to Downing, In short – there is NOTHING!

    BTW – some of the sources that McCarthy is using are from the House DEMOCRATIC Memo by Schiff.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/trump-russia-investigation-obama-administration-origins/

  32. dhlii permalink
    May 23, 2018 2:20 pm

    More Trump Campaign officials are coming forward reporting inappropriate contacts with people claiming to have clinton emails or dirt on clinton that appear to actually be connected with the Obama Intelligence operation against the Trump campaign.

    It is possible these are innocent – as someone said – just cocktail party talk.

    But all the insinuation and buying that the least suggestion of impropriety reflects the truth – works both ways.

    Papadoulis’s conversations with Downer – were at one point claimed to be the basis of the investigation. That is now clearly impossible as they did not reach the FBI until long after the investigation started.

    Regardless, apparently Mueller was told about all these inappropriate contacts with Trump Campaign people – i.e. they reported them to FBI and later to Mueller, and told those trying to provide them with Clinton’s emails to “got through the right channels within the government”
    Mueller’s team never investigated, and never questioned them further.

    Apparently Mueller has no interest in uncovering the fact that the purported “russian influence” in the US Election was being directed by the WhiteHouse.

    Which BTW is where this is leading. There are numerous reports that there may be more than one “spy” now, and that this activity started prior to early July 2016, that it atleast goes into early may, with some stories from april and march now.

    We also now know – I beleive from the Strzok/page texts, that there was a “sensitive matters” committee meeting regularly starting in mid march that includes high ranking members of the administration – Biden, Lynch, Comey, Clapper, Brennan, specifically discussing the Trump campaign.

    I would suggest – specifically that Jay, and other frotheing anti-trumps, think about the fact that you have been selling alot of claims that have little or no evidence, that you have tried to make hay of anything vaguely Trump and anything vaguely russian having even the vaguest nexus.

    If some low level Trump staffer is in a bar, and someone of russian descent orders a drink – it is proof of collusion.

    Now the tables are turning – anyone vaguely related to Trump can report some mysterious contact with someone claiming to have dirt on hillary and many people will immediatly perceive that as absolute gospel evidence that the Obama administration was spying on Trump.

    The case against Trump is based entirely on rumors and speculation. There is nothing that is damning proof, and what few facts exist have reasonable explanations. But the left has been weaving them into a claimed conspiracy.

    But the same works backwards.

    We know actually KNOW that the Obama administration spied on Trump,
    and we KNOW that the Obama administration at the highest levels was fixated on Trump from the beginning of the campaign.

    As I said – now every “rumor” or coincidence will be perceived by large numbers of people to be as credible if not more so that the lefts claims against Trump.

    This is what happens when you divorce yourself from proven facts, When you pretend you can read the minds of others. When your guesses at the intent of other becomes the crime you beleive they have committed. This is why we MUST follow the rule of law.

    BTW what we now KNOW as FACT, regarding Halper and the mid march 2016 “sensitive matter”
    committee, means that a whole Raft of upper level Obama administration members have lied many under oath.

    The Left wishes to prosecute and jail Van der Zwaan, Papadoulis, and Flynn, for failing to recall, precisely meetings, emails or minor details of conversation,

    If that is what we are going to do – fine, we can jail half the Obama administration.

    • May 23, 2018 4:31 pm

      Dave, I have not been following this closely, but from what I know I wonder how some people reconcile a civilian group of individuals associated with Nixon breaking into the Democrat headquarters to find information on the opposing candidate to the intelligence division of the Justice department (FBI) investigating (spying) on a candidate prior to the election without the proper warrants that seem to be required.

      I have little legal knowledge, but if breaking and entering eventually required a president to resign then would the FBI embedding themselves into a campaign without specific reasons be worse?

      No wonder the Justice department (Sessions) is doing everything they can to block congress and maybe the president from getting information that should be available under the articles of the constitution.

      Seems like they have forgotten they are answerable to the people, congress and the administration. Congress should never have to go to court to get permission to have information they have.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 23, 2018 4:58 pm

        Watergate was not exactly “civilian”.

        As in this there was a murky overlapp between govenrment and private.
        all the burglars, their supervisors, etc. were either govenrment employees or government contractors. Right through to AG Mitchell.

        The plumbers only came into existance – because Hoover would NOT do for Nixon what Comey/Brennan did for Obama – spy on a political enemy.

        I would note that the Watergate burglars bugged the phone of a secretary – not anyone highly placed. The unconfirmed story is that she was running a prostitution ring from the DNC offices.

        That is what the burglars were after – if True – we actually have MORE basis for the action.

        Regardless, atleast the Watergate burglars had an actual crime they were dealing with.

        There is yet to be a crime in this mess, and worse it is increasingly apparent that app PURPORTED contact was SETUP.

        Papadoulis’s email story was peddled to him by Misfud – who is NOT a Russian agent, and likely an MI6 aperative.

        Halper told the same story to multiple Trump campaign people, with the objective of getting them to repeat it, Halper appears to have setup the meeting with Papadoulis and Downer,
        There is no way in the world Downer would ordinarily have met with someone at Papadoulis’s level – and the meeting was purportedly “social”.

        Other Trump campaign people have come forward – and apparently LONG AGO told Mueller, they too had been approached by US government contractors with claims of Clinton’s top secret emails from Russia.
        None of them took the bait.

        Natalia is strongly connected to Fusion GPS, her meeting with Trump Jr. Screams SETUP.

        Some of the above is certain. All fo the above is MORE certain than the claims of collusion.

        As I noted in a prior post, when you relax your standards of evidence and spend two years converting salacious rumors into fake truths. You invite your enemies to do the same.

        I think there is ample evidence of Obama administration misconduct.

        But beyond that there is room to speculate – in exactly the way Jay has been doing, and tie 2/3 of the top of the Obama administration to a worse than watergate crime.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 23, 2018 5:08 pm

        Watergate did not hinge on “breaking and entering”.

        Everyone knew that before the election.

        The reason it resulted in threats of impeachment and resignation, was that the President participated in the coverup of spying on his political opponents, that was atleast partly run from within government.

        There are only a few distinctions between this and watergate.

        The most fundimental is that Obama got the FBI to do what Nixon could not.

        I would also put this in context with other Obama administration misconduct.

        The IRS was politically targetting enemies.
        Tax returns of “enemies” were being leaked – probably from Lerhner to DOJ to the press.
        Possibly involving the white house.

        The FBI and possibly the CIA were spying on Journalists.

        With Nixon you have raiding Elsberg’s psychiatrists office and bugging a secretary at the watergate.

        Nixon purportedly Tried to get Hoover and the IRS to help him, but he could not.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 23, 2018 5:19 pm

        The fight between congress and the executive is ages long.

        Nor is it inherently simple.

        Congress does have oversight of the executive. There is almost nothing they can not demand constitutionally.

        There is actual executive priviledge that is recognized – but it
        Has to be raised and is specific to exchanges involving the president.
        It is much like attorney client privildge. The president and his advisors may consider all options without fear of being second guessed. We only get to judge the president on what he DOES.
        Not what he and his advisors talk about.

        National Security is NOT a bar to providing congress information.
        Many members of congress and all members of intelligence committees have security clearances – as well as many of their staff.

        Even information regarding sources and methods is not exempt from their oversight, It is just convention not to provide it, it is rarely needed and the most damaging information that could be leaked.

        Further as we are gathering nearly all “highly classified” information – is stuff you hear on CNN
        Finally if Congress leaks classified information – they too can be prosecuted.

        Rep Nunes made an interesting point over the weekend.

        He and Rep. Gowdy were scheduled to meet with DOJ/FBI last thursday. But they canceled becuase the prior meetng had been unproductive and DOJ/FBI was not offering anything new.

        Then the details of Halper broke in stories in the NYT and WaPo.

        Nunes beleives had the met, they would have been blamed for the leak.
        He believes it is possible the leak was a deliberate attempt to frame him for leaking sources and methods.

        I forgot in my list of Obama malfeasance – that Brennan was caught spying on Congress.

  33. dhlii permalink
    May 23, 2018 2:23 pm

    President Obama on Gun control

  34. dduck12 permalink
    May 23, 2018 7:25 pm

    Michael Cohen gets dirtier and dirtier: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44215656

    • Jay permalink
      May 23, 2018 8:33 pm

      The President of the US’s long time personal lawyer/fixer is a scuzbucket.
      Like lawyer like client.
      Two shady slimy shitheads.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 24, 2018 1:50 am

        The left whigged out over Pruitt’s 44K phone booth.
        And some smaller amount that Carson paid to refurbish his office.

        Strzok’s texts now reveal that McCabe replaced the conference table in his office – for $70K

        Oh, and the message about the conference table was one of the things that DOJ/FBI redacted.

        I presume that is an obvious matter of executive priviledge ? Or did it reveal sources and methods ? Did it leave expose a spy and pose a threat to a spy ?

        Or is it just a corrupt DOJ/FBI hiding the dirt from congressional oversight ?

        Another redaction of the Texts ?

        :Strzok: And hi. Went well, best we could have expected. Other than [Liz’s] quote, “the White House is running this.”

    • dhlii permalink
      May 24, 2018 1:43 am

      Wow! A whole lot of nothing.

      The Ukrainian president could not get through the State department – so instead he goes through Cohen. Didn;t we have that going on with the Clinton Foundation and The state Department ?

      Didn’t you tell me there was nothing wrong with it ?

      Regardless the reporting claims Trump was unaware of the payment.
      Further your reporters can not make up their mind how much cohen was paid.

      And isn’t Ukraine the people who are litterally FIGHTING with the Russians ?

      So much for Trump Russia Collusion.

      Whoever leaked Treasury information to Avantti is in deep trouble – that is a felony.
      Further Avantti is a lawyer not the press, he too may be in trouble.
      But then Avantti seems to be up to his ears in trouble – he seems to owe people more money in more ways than Hillary has in illegal campaign contributions.

      Regardless as I have said myriads of times before – if you reduce the power of government, you reduce the desire of people to pay for access to that power.
      Nothing else is going to work.

      As best as I can tell you are freaking out because Cohen did not file some paperwork.
      That appears to be all he did that MIGHT be illegal.
      That is the same problem that Tony Podesta has – for the same reason – Manafort paud Podesta to Lobby for the Ukrainians.

      It is not illegal to lobby for anyone.

      I perosnally think the “registration” laws are stupid – why is it relevant ?

      If I call up my Representative or Senator and ask them for help with a government problem, how is that different ? Do we all need to register ?

      Again it is ACTIONS that are what is or should be illegal.

      But if you want to hound Cohen to the end of the earth – go ahead.
      But if you want me to join you with the frothing at the mouth – come up with something important.

      • dduck12 permalink
        May 24, 2018 2:50 pm

        “But if you want me to join you with the frothing at the mouth – come up with something important.”
        I wouldn’t want you, or anyone like you, joining sensible people.
        Nope, deep rationalizers, not needed, frothing or not, they belong with Trump’s more extreme partisans (not the moderate kind, which I respect).

      • dhlii permalink
        May 24, 2018 3:58 pm

        Be as sensitive as you want – in your own life.

        You may not make choices for others based on emotion.

        Being rational is a compliment.

        Guesses as to the motives of other people have no place in law or government.
        But they often are a significant factor in private conduct – I would be careful entering a business deal with Trump. I would not even consider it with most of the Obama people who have lied under oath.

        Provide evidence that Trump or his campaign participated in hacking the DNC or the attempts to access voting machines and voting records – and I am for impeachment and trial.

        My interest in russian “collusion” is curiosity at most. We should no ever criminalize efforts to persuade – not even by foreign countries.
        I just linked to a massive CIA effort to “influence” the French election – should Brennan, Clapper, Obama be prosecuted for that ?’

        Conversely I am very interested in the CONDUCT of government.
        I am interested in Trump’s CONDUCT – his efforts regarding postal package rates are disturbing if true.
        I am interested in the long list of people associated with the Trump/Russia probe who have been lying under oath and abusing their powers.

        I would ask you and anyone else who is defending any of this – if what occured is permissible, what is not ?

        What stops president Trump from spying on his political opponents ?

        Regardless, what is it that you think would be going too far ? Because short of actual violence there is little left that the Obama administration could have done to the Trump Campaign.

  35. Jay permalink
    May 23, 2018 8:34 pm

    • Jay permalink
      May 23, 2018 8:36 pm

      Sorry to rub your nose in Twitter Truth, Ron, but Trump and his people are FUCKING UP AMERICA

      • May 23, 2018 10:27 pm

        Who is Max Boot?

      • dhlii permalink
        May 24, 2018 2:11 am

        A Neo-con never Trumper.

      • Jay permalink
        May 24, 2018 12:03 am

        Boot is a traditional ideologically Conservative, who like so many other ideological conservatives has been shoved out of a Republican Party taken over by a right-wing populist movement that espouses none of the core principles of traditional conservatism.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 24, 2018 2:18 am

        Boot is a Neo-Con – like the Chenney’s.
        He shares SOME values with traditional conservatives.
        But neo-cons are heavily prone to foreign adventurism, and throwing our military weight arround.

        If that is really what you want to hold up as an example of how we should government. – you can make that argument.

        But I am very happy at the diminished role of social conservaitves and neo-conservatives in not only the GOP but politics as a whole.

        Good ridance.

        As I keep saying the CURRENT threat to our country is from the LEFT,
        The most danagerous elements on the right are greatly diminished in power.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 24, 2018 2:03 am

        How so ?

        The Atlanta Fed is predicting 4.1% growth for 2Q 2018
        It is possible that the North Korean deal will fall through – but atleast there is an effort to reign in a serious threat.
        And we are no longer ignoring another serious threat – Iran.
        There is no Islamic state.

        The Saudi’s and Israel are talking.

        Wages are slowly rising again.

        What is wrong with the country at the moment is those on the left are not able to be happy.
        They want to be miserable.
        Worse they want every one to be miserable.

        Trump is not perfect, america is not perfect,
        But we are doing fine.
        And the real problems we have are not the ones that you want to deal with.
        You are busy fixated on fake nonsense.

    • dhlii permalink
      May 24, 2018 1:53 am

      Has Trump sold automatic weapons to drug cartels and then covered it up ?
      Has Trump used the IRS to go after political enemies ?
      Has Trump made the tax returns of his enemies public ?
      Has Trump spied on Senators ?
      Has Trump spied on Journalists ?
      Has Trump Spied on opposing political parties ?
      Has Trump lied to us about health care ?
      Has Trump lied ot us about a terrorist attack ?
      Has Trump used his phone and pen to act beyond his constitutional powers ?
      ……..

      “Our presidency has been debased by a figure who has a seemingly bottomless appetite for destruction and division and only a passing familiarity with how the Constitution works.”

      Flake is right – but about the wrong person.

    • dduck12 permalink
      May 24, 2018 8:24 pm

      More frothing on the cake from Mr. Mucous.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 24, 2018 10:23 pm

        Badly mixed metaphors ad hominem and zero argument.

  36. Jay permalink
    May 23, 2018 9:13 pm

    Thanks for the tax refund,El Duchebag.
    Where’s the stimulus you promised????

    The only stimulus I’m seeing is for rising costs:
    My auto gas went up.
    My auto insurance just went up $150.
    My health insurance is going up.
    Interest rates are rising.
    My supermarket bills for farm products are rising.

    And US economic Allies are ready to announce billions in increased tariffs in response to Trump’s.

    • dhlii permalink
      May 24, 2018 2:11 am

      Overall inflation is running 2.2% since jan 1, 2017.
      This is only a tiny bit higher than the average for Obama.
      It is much lower than the average for Bush.
      Regardless nothing dramatic is happening with inflation.

      I beleive China just announced that it is going to buy 200B of additional goods from the US to reduce our Trade Deficit. Much of that automobiles.

      I beleive that should make blue collar Trump voters very happy.

      I worry that Trump will start a trade war. I do not like what he says about Trade – at the same time I doubt you would be saying anything sane if it were not that you are unable to agree with Trump on anything – otherwise you would be telling me the same things Trump is about Trade.

      But so far he has avoided a trade war.

      Don’t tell me what might be. Tell me what actually is.

      You do this about everything.

      You conflate your fears with reality.

    • dduck12 permalink
      May 25, 2018 4:19 pm

      Mixing metaphors is an art, but it takes a while to appreciate humor- for some (yes, you Mucous).
      Some non political reading for you: https://www.printedmatter.org/catalog/tables/3867/20763

      • dhlii permalink
        May 25, 2018 8:04 pm

        There is a difference between creativity in writing and juvenile hackery.

        I would be embarrassed to have written what you have.

        Isn;t Trump the one famous for giving people monickers ?
        And isn’t that something you find offensive and bullying about him ?

        I would note that one of the reasons that Trump appeals is that he does to you and those on the left what you do to everyone else.

        We are all happy to see the bullies getting bullied.

  37. dhlii permalink
    May 24, 2018 2:27 am

    The Smoking Gun ! Here we have it ! Wikileaks proves …….

    US Interference in French elections.

    • dduck12 permalink
      May 24, 2018 2:59 pm

      French monitoring: Disturbing if this is accurate. I wouldn’t mind if the Obama admin people give us a rationale.
      If there is a reasonable reason, I would like to hear it before I say that this act was egregious.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 24, 2018 4:03 pm

        Are the Russians allowed to as you say “monitor” our elections ?

        Are you prepared to wait for the evidence before deciding what you think about the claims regarding Russia, Manafort, ….?

        I would note that the Russian companies came to the US to defend against the Mueller indictment, and are demanding a speedy trial, and Mueller is balking.
        And that almost never happens. The defendants right to a speedy trial is very near absolute.
        I am not finding anyone who recalls an instance where a prosecutor as not forced to proceed if the defense was ready. Mueller had control until he filed charges. The expectation of the courts is that you do not charge people you are not prepared to prosecute.
        He also had the option of a sealed indictment if he was not ready, but that would have deprived him of the publicity of indicting a gaggle of russians he assumed would not try to defend themselves.

      • Jay permalink
        May 24, 2018 7:28 pm

        You don’t know what the hell you are talking about. STFU

      • dhlii permalink
        May 24, 2018 10:19 pm

        Did you intend to insult dduck ? That is who you replied to.

        Regardless, your response is just ad hominem, no argument.

      • Jay permalink
        May 25, 2018 10:58 am

        No, Dummy, it was in response to your response to him.

    • dduck12 permalink
      May 25, 2018 9:29 pm

      “I would be embarrassed to have written what you have.”
      I’m embarrassed that I even respond to a person like you; my error and weakness.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 26, 2018 12:50 am

        More of that ad hominem.

        Trump got elected because the left normalized intolerance and insult over argument, so Trump insulted the left, and many cheered.

  38. dhlii permalink
    May 24, 2018 3:37 am

    One May 18th Republicans actually had a 5pr advantage on the rolling average for the generic ballot, today things are back to even.

    http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM1212Y17/type/day/filters/PD1:1/dates/20180101-20180523/collapsed/true

    As I have said before – November is a long way away.

    • dduck12 permalink
      May 26, 2018 6:45 pm

      “More of that ad hominem” You earn it every day you jam up the pipeline, and I am proud to serve it up, but only if it bothers you (which will probably mean a 1,000 word BS reply).

      • dhlii permalink
        May 26, 2018 11:41 pm

        The blog is not a pipeline – nor is the internet.

        Being proud of being bad at insulting, is insulting yourself.

        Whether it bothers me is your test ?

        That is really pretty decrepit. Your pleasure comes from the hope that your insults might have offended someone else ?

        As to my reaction – it is sadness that you waste whatever skill you might have on being offensive rather than advocating for whatever ideas you have – if you even have any.

  39. dduck12 permalink
    May 24, 2018 3:36 pm

    Thanks to Pence and company at FOX, Kim has an excuse to back out of a meeting. He achieved his objective to get in the world’s spot light, maybe with coaching from Dennis Rodman, although a new set of threads would have been nice.
    Lucy (Kim) nicely snatched the football away from Charley Brown (Trump).

    • dhlii permalink
      May 24, 2018 4:06 pm

      Kim has apparently destroyed his testing center in the north. Though it may only be a small step – it is a step. North and South are talking – as it Kim and the US. That has not happened in 70 years. That is a good sign.

      We all would have liked to have this wrapped up fast. But plenty of people have cautioned about too much optimism or expecting NK to move too fast.

      My guess is that we hit a speed bump, not a cul de sac.

      • Jay permalink
        May 24, 2018 7:22 pm

        It’s political mutual masterbation theater.

        A stupid soap opera, with planned temporary breakups, to keep the audience watching. Plot ploys to keep the ratings up.

        Both these slim bucket leaders want to bask in the spotlight, and this kind of hemming and hawing insures that …

        By next week the meeting will be on again. Wanna bet?

      • dhlii permalink
        May 24, 2018 9:18 pm

        “By next week the meeting will be on again. Wanna bet?”

        Nope,

        Nor am I going to bitch and moan about the Way Trump is handling something that no one else has managed to make any progress on.

        Penn Jillette makes the point in most of his videos on libertarianism – that he does not know how to run his own life, he certainly does not know how to run the lives of others, and that he does not think any of the rest of us are better at dictating to others how they should live than he is.

        The essence of libertarianism is not imposing by force on others what you are not even able to do for yourself.

        Unfortunately dealing with Kim Un IS inside the legitimate role of government.

        I DO find it very scary when Trump tries to DO things.
        I am much happier when he is UNDOING things – that is far less dangerous.
        And he has been DOING alot of UNDOING – and I am happy with that.

        But that still leaves me terrified and hopeful regarding NK at the same time.

      • Jay permalink
        May 24, 2018 7:32 pm

        And Kim destroyed the facility because HE HAD TO. It was declared structurally unsound and unoccupiable (possibly radiation contamination… )there was ZERO concession made toward a disarming treaty.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 24, 2018 10:21 pm

        What – you do not think that in a gulag you can get people to work in contaminated and unsound spaces ?

        Kim does not “have to” do anything.

        While I do beleive the assessment of outside geologists that he was risking disaster.

        I do not beleive Kim Un cares about those assessments

      • Jay permalink
        May 25, 2018 11:07 am

        Have stupid are you?
        The people who worked in that lab were specialists -scientists & engineers able to build nuclear weapons …

        You really are a dumbbell.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 25, 2018 3:09 pm

        “Have stupid are you?
        The people who worked in that lab were specialists -scientists & engineers able to build nuclear weapons …

        You really are a dumbbell.”

        Ad hominem, and not even an on point argument.

        You claimed that Kim had to destroy the facility.

        He clearly did not.

        There is no step that Kim could take that would make the future production of WMD’s impossible.
        But the destruciton of the test facility made it harder.

        I have no idea what you think your remarks about scientists and engineers means.

        Either you are deluded into thinking that in possibly the most totalitarian state in the world they would not work in unsafe conductions – aparently you have never heard of the scientists the Soviets sent to the gulags to die.

        Or you think the destruction of the facilty had no effect on NK’s nuclear efforts.

        The US could wipe out Los Almos and continue to develop nukes,
        But it would result in a significant delay, and make detecting the development of a new facility detectable.

  40. Jay permalink
    May 24, 2018 7:27 pm

    An accurate news summary when smart Americans are commenting

    “former Dir of National Intelligence James Clapper says he’s personally concluded Russians not only influenced but DECIDED outcome of 2016 election: “80 thousand votes in 3 states” @NewsHour tonight”

    “Return of hostages is good, but Kim took 2 of them while Trump was president. Test site is cosmetic. Sanctions already relaxed because China eased up on enforcement. Kim maneuvered Trump into being the bad guy. US-S Korea alliance damaged. …This was amateur hour. @MaxBoot”

    “Nothing we heard today has changed our view that there is no evidence to support any allegation that the FBI or any intelligence agency placed a spy in the Trump campaign, or otherwise failed to follow appropriate procedures and protocols. ” – @RepAdamSchiff

    “The president of the United States is lying to us over and over and over and over again” hill.cm/QBe8gBx

    “LDems & GOPers were surprised to see POTUS’s WH attorney defending him in the Russia probe, Emmet Flood, attending the start of both briefings on the confidential FBI source, sources tell me.

    Said a GOP congressional staffer: “It’s the craziest shit I ever heard.” @JakeTapper

    • dhlii permalink
      May 24, 2018 9:22 pm

      Anything that starts with former Dir of National Intelligence James Clapper

      Is likely to be horribly self serving and a lie.

      Why am I to beleive him about ANYTHING. He has been caught lying both under oath and otherwise myriads of times.

      Why do you beleive him ?

      Finally – what is ti that you think makes him knowledgeable ?

      The distinction between his knowledge and that of the rest of us is solely what he was privy to as DNI.

      What is evident is that is precisely what he has been lying about and also repeatedly getting wrong.

      Based on the real world evidence available to the rest of us – the only effect on the election was through the malfeasance and misconduct of our government.

    • dhlii permalink
      May 24, 2018 9:26 pm

      Max Boot is no more credible than Clapper.

      Regardless, even if his assessment is correct, it is still better than any president in 70 years.

      All that we learned today is that this may not be easy.

      Even if he has failed Trump has gotten farther than any other president.

      My guess is that the big factor regarding Kim is the fact that Trump tore up the Iran agreement

      That means two things to Kim – no completely one sided deal,
      and more leverage because the US is now dealing with to rogue nations on the verge of becoming a serious nuclear threat.

      Kim is gambling that we are unable to walk and chew gum

    • dhlii permalink
      May 24, 2018 10:13 pm

      The quote from Rep Schiff is a pile of Schiff.

      Why do you continue to trust people who have repeatedly lied to you of things of significance.

      We are NOW getting this garbage of – we really were not spying on the Trump Campaign, we were spying on the Russians – well there were no real russians anywhere near any of the Trump people in the UK. No one has ever tied Mifsud to the Russuans but he has heavy ties to MI6 – if he is not an MI6 operative – MI6 has been compromised.

      First the Trump campaign was not wiretapped – then it was justified, first the Trump campaign was not spied on – now it was for their own good.
      And now they were not really spying on the Trump campaign, they were spying on Russians.

      Worse there does not seem to be anything that the Obama Regime can do that you will not find a way to justify.

      What we are seeing is what Nixon WANTED to do but was unable – because Hoover had actual integrity.

      And you are OK with it ?

      Schiff promised over a year ago that he has seen real evidence – where is it ?

      You are quoting Clapper – as if if you have the word of a DNI caught repeatedly lying under oath – you do not need facts.

      When Nixon pulled this crap – ultimately voters and his own party abandoned him.

      Where are democrats willing to say – this is too much ?

      And yes, Trump is right – this is a witch hunt, and you are still hoping for witches,.

      The Mueller leaks are claiming that he is Done with Russia and collusion.

      Kushner has a permanent Top Secret security clearance which has never occured while someone is the target or subject of an investigation – so presumably Mueller cleared him.

      That pretty much means there is nothing on Trump.

      It is certain as this continues will will get ever more about the misconduct in the Obama administration. Grassley and Nunes are eventually going to get everything – unredacted.

      Further as we are finding as somethings get unredacted – the redactions have NOTHING to do with national security – in otherwords AGAIN the FBI/DOJ are lying to cover their ass.

    • dhlii permalink
      May 24, 2018 10:16 pm

      “The president of the United States is lying to us over and over and over and over again”

      So what of substance has Trump lied about over and over ?

      He has been right about this investigation – from the begining.

      What lie has he told that is even equal to “if you like your doctor you can keep them” ?

      Trump speaks differently than Obama. He may be less articulate, but he is actually MORE Truthful – atleast about things that matter.

    • dhlii permalink
      May 24, 2018 10:17 pm

      At this point why would the WH attorney not defend Trump.

      He has been right about all of this.

  41. May 24, 2018 9:28 pm

    Today I read that Jared Kushner has received his security clearance to receive information only a few can see.

    What I find disturbing is much of the article went into explaining why career FBI employees who have conducted background checks and security clearances for years did not find anything in his i formation to preclude him from receiving this info. There were comments from multiple individuals defending their actions and why investigations by Mueller did not impact their decision.

    One can only hope that what has happened this administration will open the eyes of Americans so they demand that politics stays out or our law enforcement agencies from the very top on down. Why should career FBI agents have to defend their actions when nothing is found?.

    I can only image what went down behind closed doors when the career FBI said there was nothing there and the lead political dudes almost stroked out when there was no red meat to give the press.

    • dhlii permalink
      May 24, 2018 10:28 pm

      I do not know the details, but I would be shocked if the FBI would approve Kusner for a permanent clearance without Mueller telling them Kushner was neither a subject nor a target.

      And there is no reason for Mueller to do so unless it is true.

      Kushner could have continued on temporary clearance forever – contra the press that is NOT unusual. I had a temporary TSC for two years before getting a permanent one.

      Further Trump is president can insist that Kushner be allowed to see whatever Trump wishes him to.

      The president is the ultimate power on classifications.

      • Jay permalink
        May 25, 2018 11:02 am

        The FBI didn’t approvethe clearance.

        “The FBI does not grant, deny, or otherwise adjudicate security clearances for individuals on behalf of these clients. As a result, the granting or suspension of Mr. Kushner’s clearance would be the responsibility of the client adjudication entity, in this case, the White House.”

        “Kushner had to update his SF-86 multiple times after failing to disclose connections with foreign officials and entities, including an attempt to set up a back-channel communication with the Kremlin. He has also been fined for repeated failure to file ethics disclosures. “
        @RepDonBeyer

      • May 25, 2018 11:37 am

        “The FBI didn’t approvethe clearance.”
        Really

        “Kushner’s FBI background check was likely complicated by his failure to include more than 100 foreign contacts and ties he had on his original security clearance application. He has amended his list of contacts multiple times since he joined the White House.”
        Source: Business Insider, May 24, 2018

        Maybe the FBI did not technically approve the clearance, but they were the ones doing the background check and they were the ones explaining why they did not find anything to defend themselves from any Mueller fallout.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 25, 2018 3:24 pm

        The FBI is the primary government agency involved in security clearances.

        They are not the SOLE agency.

        However if they recommend against approval, only the President can override that decision.

        Only the president has the plenipotentiary powers of the executive.

        I have actually personally gone through the approval process.
        My SF-86 was relatively short – I think only about 300 pages.
        It still took almost 2 years to get a permanent approval – though I had a temporary approval in a few months.

        Given what Kushner is involved in the FBI is going to be incredibly thorough.

        Even in my case the FBI interviewed friends and relatives.

        Further I have a relative who maintains a “secret” clearance – that is lower than the one I had.
        She has to update her SF-86 every year.

        One of the “foreign contacts” she must list is my children – but particularly my daughter, who was adopted from China.
        Even though she is now a US citizen by law, jy relative must still list her ever year, because she was foreign born in china.
        Failure to do so could cost her her clearance.

        That is how thorough this process is.

        Kushner had only two ways to get permanently cleared – 1). the FBI checking EVERY allegations regarding him and talking to Mueller to be sure they missed nothing or that nothing was pending,

        Or Trump ordering him cleared.

        There are no other choices.

      • May 25, 2018 5:13 pm

        Yep, I knew that from the articles I had read. I just had to find information to prove it to Jay because without documentation, one is only spreading BS and he won’t believe it (unless it is anti-Trump Twitter BS spread by want-a-be journalists who call themselves a journalist because they have an internet Blog and a Twitter site)).

      • dhlii permalink
        May 25, 2018 2:46 pm

        Again you are clueless,

        For every Security Clearance the FBI conducts and investigation – that investigations starts with an SFQ-86 – which is a large document that you compile based on a long long series of questions about your life.

        The FBI verifies most everything in it, and everything that raises concerns.

        The FBI likely will have investigators interview every person menitioned in your SFQ-86.

        In Kushner’s case he would have been required to list that he was interviewed as part of the Mueller investigation, and agents would have talked to Mueller.

        Those agents would have explicitly asked if Kushner was a target or subject,
        And if Mueller had said yes to either,
        The FBI would have recommended against approval.

        No the FBI does not have the final say – it is the executive branch and as you do not seem to grasp in ALL things related tot he executive branch the PRESIDENT has the final say.

        Trump can just say “give Kushner a TSC”

        That said the FBI does “approve” clearances – as if they recomend against clearing someone, they almost never get approved. And the FBI is REQUIRED to make a reccomendation.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 25, 2018 3:01 pm

        Updating an SF-86 is Normal. Generally it takes several attempts to get it right the first time – and more if you have a complex life with many business involvements.
        You are also required to update it every year formally, and informally whenever anything of substance changes.

        But there is no legal authority to “fine” someone, if you improperly fill out your SF-86 the penalty is that you may not get your security clearance or it may not be renewed.

        To get a clearance the FBI would BOTH have had to investigate all of Kushner’s contacts with foreigners – including claimed back channels to Russia AND to have confered with Mueller regarding them.

        If the FBI determined that ANYTHING that Kushner had done was illegal or even merely something that he could be blackmailed for – he would not have received a clearance.

        Rep. Beyer clearly does not know what he is talking about.

        Do you understand that Flynn was fired because he purportedly made a minor misrepresentation of a conversation with Kislyak to VP Pence and if the Russians found that our they could blackmail him.

        Well if Kushner had inappropriate or unauthorized or illegal contact with Russians – he would be blackmailable too. And you do not get a clearance if there is something in your life you can be blackmailed about.

        It used to be that you could not get a security clearance if you were gay – even if that was legal where you lived. Then you could not get one if you were in the closet.

        You and Rep. Beyer know NOTHING about security clearances.

        While you are absolutley right that Kushner can get a clearance merely because Trump orders that he be given a clearance – that is NOT what happened.

        The recent change made under Kelly – is that ALL FBI recomendations for people in the White house come to HIM first, Before being forwarded to WH security dept.
        That is because before the FBI and the WH security staff were delaying an lying about approvals.
        By having FBI recomendations come to Kelley FIRST – neither the FBI no the WH security can lie to him about whether there is a problem and where the problem is.

        Kelley does not approve clearances, But he does oversee those who do.

  42. Jay permalink
    May 25, 2018 11:11 am

    Looks like I was right about Trump & Kim playing masterbatory media attention games:

    “We’re talking to them now. It was a very nice statement they put out. We’ll see what happens,” President Trump says of North Korea after cancelling summit. “It could even be the 12th.”

    • dhlii permalink
      May 25, 2018 3:14 pm

      Only you and the left are fixated on each tiny step in this process.

      Some of us understand that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

      Trump – unlike his predecessors has Taken the first step.

      It is likely there will be missteps along the way.
      It is possible that the efforts will fail.

      But the first steps have been taken – No President since Truman can say that.

      I hope Trump succeeds.
      I am not holding my breath with respect to the 12th – or any time soon.

      And even if there is a meeting soon – this MIGHT go quickly – East Germany collapsed quickly.
      But it also may take months or years.

      And there may be many more obstacles along the way.

  43. dhlii permalink
    May 25, 2018 3:41 pm

    Just as I am offended by Trump possibly playing games with the post office.
    We have similar issues with Amazon, Google, Youtube, Twitter, etc. disempowering conserbative groups.

    I would note that while Amazon can “do as they please” they are still actually not free to violate contracts with others, nor can they unilaterally revise a contract.

    If you receive a service from Amazon for free – they can do whatever they please regarding you.

    But if you have a contract with amazon – which prime members, affiliates, and lots of institutions do – then you and Amazon are bound to that contract.

    Wherever money is exchanged – there is a contract.

    In some cases a PRIOR contract.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/05/amazon-demonitizes-conservative-website-us/

  44. dduck12 permalink
    May 25, 2018 7:30 pm

    Fake News: Amazon will be buying the USPS.
    In my neighborhood there are more vans with Amazon packages than the real USPS, UPS and Fed Ex. 🙂

    • May 25, 2018 8:59 pm

      One has to wonder what all the large shopping centers will become in the future. Small retailers will survive just as they have with Walmart, Target and other discount retailers around. But when Sears, Penny’s, Macy’s and other anchor stores close, the smaller stores will follow. Our huge mall has alot of vacancies and the parking lots are almost empty.

      Was watching our local news, consumer report feature and they did some comparative shopping. Many baby items were much cheaper at Walmart than Amazon, same size, same brand. But the convenience of home delivery makes Amazon more attractive. I dont do enough shopping to pay for prime, but even with shipping cost, its better than going to the store.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 26, 2018 12:32 am

        The projections for retail over the next several years are excellent.
        BUT the projections for brick and mortar retail – particularly big old chain stores is bad.

        Mom and pops are actually thriving – mostly moving into space vacated by larger failed operations.

        Walmart, Costco, … are doing OK, Sears, KMart, Macey’s BonTon, … are in trouble,

        Online is booming.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 26, 2018 12:34 am

        Prime is basically $10/month for streaming video and free shipping.

        IF you EITHER buy alot on line OR watch alot of streaming video – Prime is a win.

      • May 26, 2018 9:38 am

        I buy little other than “needed now” items from Lowes or Home Depot.
        I do no streaming. Watch local news, Washington Nationals BB, NASCAR, Carolina Panther FB and few CBS programs. Cant remember the last movie I watched.

        I dont even know what is available from a streaming service.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 26, 2018 8:54 pm

        Wow! We are close to the opposite. My local news is crap – I do not even get th local paper anymore. What little I care about locally is available online.

        Nor do I watch national news. On occaision I view clips from the news as provided in online editorials. That is the closets I get to traditional news. I get news from websites – left, right and moderate. I am very happy with that – today we have access to the writing of the most intelligent people in the country on most any subject – including news. There is absolutely no reason to “trust” some talking head or purported expert when you can review the work and views of dozens of the best and verify the details if you are so inclined.

        I wrestled in was in track and field in Jr. High. In HS I bicycled to school – and everywhere through my senior year – I was a very serious bicycler at the time. I managed the football team from Freshman through Sr. Yr, and was the statistician, /i also ran cross country and managed 3m in 15:45 – which is good, but not great.

        I watched the Bruins and Cowboys with my Father, but mostly lost all interest in sports in college.

        I do not think I have watched a football Game since Landry left the Cowboys.
        As me about Roger Staubach, Golden Richards or Billy Hayes, but after that I am pretty clueless about sports.

        But we subscribe to Hulu, Netflix and Amazon Prime. Rarely go to the movies, but stream movies and TV several nights a week.

  45. dhlii permalink
    May 25, 2018 8:12 pm

    I do not beleive that anyone said Amazon IS buying USPS – only that if it were sold – Bezos would likely buy it.

  46. Jay permalink
    May 25, 2018 9:28 pm

    I’ll bet you Trump ass kisserswill rationalize this too

    • dhlii permalink
      May 26, 2018 12:48 am

      This is “fake news”.

      Trump is following the law – if you do not like the law – change it, I will support you.

      I beleive Obama was actually doing the same thing. One of the things that Glenn Greenwald notes on immigration is that Obama was absolutely HORRIBLE..

      Deportations under Obama were DOUBLE those of bush.
      I beleive they have actually dropped under Trump.

      Further Trump is MUCH more heavily targeting criminals, than Obama did.

      With respect to Tribes assertion – If you come here legitimately seeking asylum – then you should be able to prove the need for asylum, and the threat to you in your country of origen shoudl be so great, that being separated from your children briefly is a small price.

      That the US will separate parents from their children at our borders – is no secret.

      If you are trying to come here – legally or otherwise, it is a factor you should consider.

      No one required these people to come here.

      I support broad immigration. I support changing the law – even the law on this.
      But I also support government following the law – ESPECIALLY laws I think are bad laws.
      That is how we get rid of bad laws. When we see their cost, we should not just ignore them.

      Finally – I support open boarders – that is an unpopular position, and one that requires changes elsewhere – it atleast requires ending entitledments to immigrants by virtue of crossing into our country or we will bankrupt ourselves. Regardless, I understand the assorted costs of my postion and I am not hiding from them.

      I( am not interested in the whining of those who do not support open borders, but want to cry over every inconvenience to any immigrant legal or not.

      Figure out what it is that you think the law ought actually be. Commit to it and work to impliment it.

      But quit pretending you can do whatever “feels good” and pretend it has no cost.

      How many immigrants should the US accept each year – 500K, 1M, 2M, 10M ?

      And of those where should they come from and who should they be ?

      Do not bitch and moan about the plight of asylum seekers – if you are not willing to make tough choices.

      Are you going to accept everyone who claims they need asylum ?
      If so you can expect everyone to demand asylum.

      Are you going to take asylum seekers over haitians ? Nigerians ? Chinese ? …..

      Make the tough choices.

      And if you can’t – quit bitching about those who do.

      I do not agree with Trump on Immigration. I do not agree with the law. But Trump is atleast following the law. That is better than Obama.

      • May 26, 2018 10:14 am

        There are laws in this country that many on the left believe they can choose to follow if they want to or not follow if they dont like the law. Illegal immigrants are breaking the law! If they are held for breaking the law, can anyone imagine the outcry from the left if children were in these jails with the parents?

        The law NEEDS to be changed so immigrants can come legally based on some handful of requirements. Such as your not a felon in your country ( and that can be further definec based on specific crimes) and you have a job or someone sponsoring you and providing support if no job ( no government support for you or your family). Not much more needed.

        But our do nothing congress where the extremist on the right and the Trump opposing Pelosi Democrats on the left will not set down with the “common sense” centrist members and work out a plan to upgrade our immigration laws.

        So Trump originally says in January that congress needs to address DACA, they do nothing, so the laws of the country are being enforced.

        If we want something done, how about sending Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, David Brat and Mark Meadows, along with the rest of the wing nuts in congress packing and replace them with some that will make constructive changes to archaic laws. Every democrat joined a hand full of republicans to oppose the farm bill, not because they opposed the immigration items in the bill, but because they oppose Trump and want him to have -0- to run on.

        But as long as people keep reading want-a-be journalists comments on social media, hate will dominate and nothing gets done.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 26, 2018 9:17 pm

        Issues regarding the law personally I find quite simple, and do not understand why they provide everyone so much difficulty

        The purpose of govenrment is securing our rights.
        The purpose of law is to serve that end.

        Aside from a small amount of law related to the structure and framework of government itself – there is no basis for law that is not about the protection of individual rights.

        Laws must be few – otherwise by definition they do more harm to individual rights than good.
        Laws must ALWAYS be construed with the greatest individual liberty and the least government power possible – because it is always possible to write the law to explicitly go further when we actually fine that necessary

        Laws must be few – because ALL of us are bound to obey all the laws. We can not obey laws we can not know.

        Laws must reflect the internal sense of right and wrong of atleast 80% of the people –
        Law is about the use of force, and the majority can not use force against minorities where there is only a think majority.

        Any given law must have one and only one meaning, from the moment it was enacted – until it is modified. that is critical – that is the essence of “originalism”.

        While I think there is a specific approach that provides that result that is the right one,
        The details of how to arrive at only one meaning are not critical.
        What is critical is that “the rule of law, not man” requires that the law can not mean many different things to many different people – that is lawless, the rule of man not law.

        It is not necescary for us to LIKE what the law says. It is necescary not only to accept what the law says, but to have a means of determining what the law says that as best as we can acheive produces ONE result.

        Any theory of statutory or constitutional interpretation that has the meaning of the law or constitution changing over time WITHOUT changing the law itself or the constitution – is inherently lawless.

        We can change bad law, we can not fix things if the rule essentially is “there are no rules” the law or constitution change in meaning subject to whimsy.

        Humans change over time – absolutely. But we are capable of changing our laws when we change our values.

        There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting the law to be different from what it is,
        but expecting the courts to change the meaning of the law – because people have changed – is lawless. We change the law and the constitution – by changing it.

        I disagree with many many many of our laws.
        I do not disagree with enforcing them.
        Enforcing bad laws is part of the process of getting them changed.

        I do not beleive in much “prosecutorial discretion” If we can not rigorously enforce ALL the laws on the books – get more police or get rid of alot of laws, one or the other.

        Having alot of laws on the books – to be used only when it is convenient to prosecute someone we do not like – that is the rule of man, not law. That is lawless.

        All of the above is legal philosophy. But there is something else important about it,
        it is the only scheme that can actually work. Anything else is ultimately lawless – a concurrent combination of anarchy and totalitarianism. It is the stuff of every dystopia ever written. It is the stuff of every country that has ever failed.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 26, 2018 9:21 pm

        With regard to congress – “do nothing” is almost always an improvement over their doing something.

        Further while I am not that close to the so called “freedom caucus” on “social issues”.
        I am absolutely with them on fiscal and limited government issues.

        As Barry Goldwater said – “extremism in defense of liberty no vice, and moderation in justice no virtue.

        Or echoed more recently as “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”

        But “justice’ is not some made up concept. It is government and law that conforms to that legal philosophy I posted before.

      • May 26, 2018 9:32 pm

        “With regard to congress – “do nothing” is almost always an improvement over their doing something.”

        So doing nothing about our archaic immigration laws and continuing the DACA issue is better than rewriting the law and giving these individuals the ability to stay in the country they have basically only known.

        I know you dont want any immigration laws, but that is not an option. Allowing thousands from Syria and other middle eastern nations is not wise. That is shown to be true given the issues in Europe.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 26, 2018 9:26 pm

        People opposed the farm bill for different reasons.

        One of the things that is braking down – mostly a consequence of far greater public scrutiny – it that increasingly log rolling, and pork are not enough to force bad compromises anymore.

        This makes politics more divisive – but it is good.

        BTW our government was deliberately designed to make getting things done hard – and that is a good thing.

        While I would like to get rid of bad law, the next best thing is NOT to make more new bad laws.
        Gridlock is the SECOND best solution to bad government.

  47. Jay permalink
    May 25, 2018 9:34 pm

    Dave/John
    By now Trump appointees have infiltrated all government agencies, people who cannot but demur to his wishes. We’ve already seen evidence that others with patriotic concerns about the nation governed under this unprincipled lump of garbage have resigned.

    As to the Mueller investigation, here’s some noted Republicans and other high ranking Americans who worked in Republican administrations and think Trump (and you by default) are full of shit:

    Sen. Lindsey Graham .
    Joe Walsh (former Congressman present Radio host)
    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
    Senate Republican Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
    Senator Jeff Flake
    Senator John McCain
    Senator Cory Gardner (Colorado)
    Senator Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
    Susan Collins (Maine)
    Ben Sasse (Nebraska)
    Thom Tills (North Carolina)
    Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania)
    Lamar Alexander (Tennessee)
    Bob Corker (Tennessee)
    John Cornyn (Texas)
    Orrin Hatch (Utah)

    • dhlii permalink
      May 26, 2018 1:02 am

      Actually Trump is pretty far behind on appointments.
      Partly this is due to the unillingness of McConnel to “go nuclear” which I support, and partly because Trump/Senate have prioritized judicial reform. A decision I also agree with.

      Regardless, the consequence is there remains a very large number of obama holdovers in appointed positions.

      Personally I think that Trump should fire them all and allow “carreer” people to take their place until the positions can be filled.
      Or leave the positions empty as Tillerson did.

      As to some of Trump’s appointments disagreeing with him

      Wonderful! That is what I would hope for. Rathe that Holder as Obama’s “wing man”.

      With respect to your bizzare equivalence – I disagree with most of the people on your list.
      I do not think Most of them are “full of shit” nor would I presume that they think I or anyone who disagrees with them are “full of shit”.

      You are unable to disagree without hating those you disagree with. Without turning political differences into crimes.

      You are precisely why we want the rule of law not man, and what is wrong with what is occuring right now.

      While I have argued that much of what is going on is WRONG – immoral, unethical and criminal.

      Equally important it is UNIQUE – this is NOT what was done with respect to Obama or Clinton.

      The number of credible threats of violence against Obama was miniscule.
      The number of people demanding his impeachment tiny.

      LArge numbers of people stood up against Obama’s POLICIES and attempts to change the law.
      They did not make this about Obama the PERSON, they made it about the law, and the political process – and still they were thwarted – often illegally every step of the way.

      Now – those opposed to the policies of Obama, having won their battle against impossible odds,
      those like you are making YOU LOSS OF POWER personal. You are seeking to bend the law not properly use it, you are looking to go outside the norms, to change the rules of the game, rather than win by following the rules.

    • dhlii permalink
      May 26, 2018 1:05 am

      Most of those on your list are at odds with Trump over specific policies – and in atleast some instances I agree with them on those policies.

      It is you, the left, the media and a small number of nevertrumpers that make this personal and about feelings.

  48. Jay permalink
    May 25, 2018 9:37 pm

    The FBI has obtained secret wiretaps collected by Spanish police of conversations involving Alexander Torshin, the Putin ally who met Don Jr. at the NRA convention, Yahoo reports.

    A top Spanish prosecutor said: “Mr. Trump’s son should be concerned.”

    Lock Em Up!

    • dhlii permalink
      May 26, 2018 1:12 am

      So you have wiretaps between two Russians ?

      Clinton should likely be “concerned” too as she has far stronger russian ties than Trump.

      What FACTS are in your story – the FBI has wiretaps between two russians.

      Everything else is innuendo.

      You do understand that the average Russian Bussinessman is tied to Putin – in much the same was as Bezos and Musk are tied to Trump ?

      I have not addressed this enough – though it came up with the Money to Cohen.

      Every person of Russian descent is NOT an agent of the russian government.
      Every person with “ties” to Putin – is not an agent of the Russian Government.

      BTW the very fact this article brings up the NRA discredits it.

      The NRA received a TINY amount of money for DUES, from Russians living in america, and americans living in Russia.

      The rest of the story is garbage.

  49. Jay permalink
    May 25, 2018 11:08 pm

    • dhlii permalink
      May 26, 2018 1:15 am

      No big McConnel Fan.

      Regardless, – you seem to think lawlessness is something we decide by polls ?

      I do not care if 100 senators “support” the mueller investigation.

      Only congress can investigate the president.
      Further only appointed and confirmed officers in the executive can empannel grand juries, issue subpeona’s request warrants and try cases.

      Mueller is neither appointed by the president or confirmed by congress.

  50. Jay permalink
    May 25, 2018 11:10 pm

    • dhlii permalink
      May 26, 2018 1:26 am

      Well James Clapper thinks so – regardless, Plenty of people have PROPERLY addressed this.

      There are basically three catagories people in the field in intelligence can be in.

      Confidential informant. These are people PART of the organization being surveiled who provide information that they legitimately encounter.
      Spies – In the parlance of the intelligence services these too are CALLED Confidential informants, as there is no “spy” category, regardless, generally we conceive of spies as people who STEAL secrets.
      The last catagory is OPERATIVES – these ar the people who ENGAGE targets. They are NOT insiders, though they may try to get inside.

      Halper was NOT an informant. It is unlikely that he “stole” information, but he WAS engaged in surveilance and he was an OPERATIVE – he was active rather than passive and outside rather than inside.

      Beyond that you are engaged in semantics.

      Was what Hoover did to MLK appropriate ? Was it Spying ?

      Whatever LABEL you wish to use – the facts stil are that the Obama administration hired an AGENT for the purpose of surveiling an oponents political campaign.

      Most of us call that spying. You would be calling that spying if it was done to you.
      You would be calling that spying if Trump did it.

      I would remind you that if you allow Obama to get away with it, you are authorizing Trump to do the same – is that OK with you ?

      I do not think it would take Trump 10s to hack together a more credible claim that the DNC was operating under “russian influence” – after all look at the number of Russians tied to the clinton’s ?
      Or Bernie’s praises and ties to Venezuela ?

      Anyway, tired of the word games – are you OK with Trump doing it to his democratic oponent in 2020 with the same flumsy (non-existant) basis as Obama did – YES, or NO ?

      What name you call it does nto matter.

      Engaging in a semantic debate is just stupidity.

      Is the CONDUCT acceptable ? Will it be if Trump has the same done to Democrats ?

  51. Jay permalink
    May 25, 2018 11:15 pm

    “It is now well established. There was no “spy” lodged in Trump’s campaign. Everyone knows this, even the president. Yet he keeps repeating the falsehood. Many object but many numbly shrug. Said over and over it begins to gain acceptance. This is dangerous behavior in a democracy.“ John McLaughlin

    • May 25, 2018 11:28 pm

      “Said over and over it begins to gain acceptance”

      He is the master of manipulation. And he has taken the Democrats playbook and is turning the tables on them. That is one thing the GOP can take lessons on since they are terrible in messaging and they have allowed opposition candidates to frame their agendas for them for years. They now have to defend attacks on them instead of having all the offensive ammunition in their game.

      And don’t ask me what I am talking about with the democrat playbook. If you have not followed Pelosi/Shumer over their careers and all their political minions, then there is no hope in convincing you that the left can do bad things also.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 26, 2018 1:32 am

        This is not a “democratic playbook” thing. It is just a general lefist thing.

        The politics of the left are that so long as you say the right things and give the poor bread and circuses, you can DO whatever you want.

        The differences between republicans and democrats is more one of the greater hypocracy of the left. Not much on substance.

      • May 26, 2018 10:22 am

        “This is not a “democratic playbook” thing. It is just a general lefist thing.”
        Welll I relate all current Democrats to leftist today, so to me its a Democrat thing. The days of the LBJ, Bill Clinton democrats is dead!

      • dhlii permalink
        May 26, 2018 1:36 am

        It is like this lunatic debate over whether Halper was a “spy”

        Look I think it is stupid to call him anything else – but if you want to be stupid – call him whatever you want.

        That begs the question of whether what he did was legal, moral or ethical.

        The easiest test of that is where would you stand if the shoe was on the other foot.

        If you are prepared to allow Trump to direct the FBI to run cofidential informants trying to ensnare the 2020 democratic candidate in some manufatured claims with no evidence – then fine – Halper is NOT a spy, and Trump can direct the FBI to “NOT SPY” on his 2020 potential poliical rivals tomorow.

      • Jay permalink
        May 26, 2018 11:08 am

        You’re like a guy watching his house burn down before his eyes, not bothering to put it out, complaining about a past fire that burned out another house, while his house is still burning, threatening to spread and burn down the neighborhood.

      • May 26, 2018 12:01 pm

        Everything that happens in politics today is caused by Trump in your mind. You are just like the extreme far right conservatives that anything that happened between 2008 and 2016 was Obama’s fault. WRONG!

        I did not say I agreed with spygate. I did not say I disagreed with spygate. I can say I don’t know much about spygate other than it seems like there was a spy suspected somewhere and because there is a “gate” included, most likely it was in the campaign somehow, somewhere.

        What I did say was Trump has taken the democrats playbook that they have used for years to constantly communicate a position, whether right or wrong, to make people believe that position. I said the GOP has been piss poor at using that tactic and any message they had got lost. Trump is a master at turning the table on people, right or wrong.

        John McLaughlin said “Said over and over it begins to gain acceptance. This is dangerous behavior in a democracy.“ I agree with him 100% because people do not check messages from parties or their media friends, they blindly follow that message. Most people that follow Madow or Hannity have to idea what the true story really is.

        AND THAT IS WHAT IS DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR IN A DEMOCRACY!!
        (and your blind hatred for Trump that won’t allow you to see the true story in any story, regardless of the issue)

      • dhlii permalink
        May 26, 2018 9:33 pm

        If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

        Joseph Goebbels

      • dhlii permalink
        May 26, 2018 9:28 pm

        And you are in the same situation arguing that we should do ANYTHING – including throw gasoline on the fire to put it out.

    • dhlii permalink
      May 26, 2018 1:29 am

      McLaughlin is wrong – the vast majority of us would call what was doine “spying” regardless,

      The LABELS are not the issue – WAS THE CONDUCT ACCEPTABLE ?
      Would it be OK if Obama does that to his democratic oponent in 2020 ?

      If you can not answer yes to both – then what was done was WRONG – WORSE THAN WATERGATE!

      • Jay permalink
        May 26, 2018 11:11 am

        Obama’s running in 2020?
        How is he getting around the term limitation law?.

      • dhlii permalink
        May 26, 2018 9:30 pm

        Mistyped meant Trump.

        At the same time – the question remains would it be acceptable if those you hate the most did what those you loved the most have done ?

        If you can not say yes, you are first a hypocrite and 2nd make it clear that you do not actually have any principles, you make decisions purely based on who you like and who you do not.

  52. May 26, 2018 5:57 pm

    This man is driving most everyone crazy, either with hated toward him or total amazement of a non traditional politician being in office making decisions that political pollsters have not reviewed.

    I have an extremely hard time believing Kim had no idea what Trump was about to do. I believe, and most likely anyone reading this will disagree, Trump told Kim “I am going to announce cancellation of this meeting and put Kim Jong Un on the defensive because he really wants this meeting to happen. Makes him have more stature in NK and cancelling defeats this. You act suprised, go forward with your plans and lets see what Rocket Man does”

    Most anyone making deals backs out multiple times before the deal happens.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/north-and-south-korean-leaders-meet-to-frankly-discuss-how-to-make-trump-kim-summit-a-success-seoul-says/2018/05/26/37a74e9c-60d7-11e8-9ee3-49d6d4814c4c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9f480aa96d93

    • dhlii permalink
      May 26, 2018 11:37 pm

      i do not have what it takes to negotiate with Kim Un. Obama did not either, nor did Bush or Clinton.

      I do not know that Trump, does. I do know that Hillary did not.

      I know that looking at the process too closely scares the crap out of me.

      But I also know that if I – or most anyone else were negotiating this deal, in order to avoid the scary parts, In a few years we would be dealing with a NK capable of nuking Manhattan or using an EMP weapon to throw 2/3 of the US back to the stone ages.

      So I am not really interested in the ranting about Trump over this.

      I could not do better – and I do not beleive those complaining could either.

      Maybe we will get lucky this time and Trump will manage a deal we can all live with.

      Without making committments, I would also suggest that this could go slow – or it could go very fast.

      The USSR died in says. The end of totalitarian regimes is often sudden and unexpected.

  53. Jay permalink
    May 26, 2018 8:37 pm

    Trump is a fuck up.
    I’m not the only one who thinks that.
    So does the conservative WSJ.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-trade-confusion-1527203643

    • May 26, 2018 9:15 pm

      How does one read WSJ articles without a subscription? Every time I go to read one of their links, it gives me 5-10 sentences and then “,To read more, please subscribe for $Xxx”

    • dhlii permalink
      May 26, 2018 11:49 pm

      I do not beleive that there is anyone who thinks that Trump’s positions on Trade – if actually carried out would not result in disaster.

      My GUESS, is that they are not real, they are just more Trump negotiating – thus far he has actually been very effective at that.

      I have some interesting thoughts on his “style” of negotiating.

      In the context of an actual free market – with a real limited government that is capable of enforcing agreements, trump’s negotiating style – atleast with respect to the way he has handled foreign affairs is immoral. Just as Obama was not free to make agreements that were outside of his powers – Trump is not free to tear up agreements that were entered into reasonably and confirmed by the senate on a whim.

      Keeping ones word matters.

      But as I noted before the relationship between nations – is NOT minarchy – it is NOT limited government and free markets.

      It is very close to pure anarcho-capitalism and it has been working for thousands of years.

      There is no world government – and we would not agree to one.
      There is no limited government enforcing agreements, and Trump is playing by the actual rules in that context.

      But I am not an anarcho-capitolist and I am not comfortable with that.

    • dhlii permalink
      May 26, 2018 11:51 pm

      There is a world of difference between “you are wrong on free trade” and “you are a f$%k up”.

      But then everything that Trump souches must be evil in your eyes.

      If Trump died and managed to get into heaven – you would choose to go to hell, just to spite him.

  54. Jay permalink
    May 26, 2018 8:42 pm

    An anonymous aide to a major Conservative politician’s of the cuff remark, overheard at a DC restaurant:

    “Let me get this straight. The President staffed his campaign with 2 indicted tax frauds/money launderers (one pled guilty already), an agent of a foreign power (Page), and an unregistered foreign agent (Flynn), among other things.

    And the scandal is that the FBI was concerned?”

  55. May 26, 2018 11:17 pm

    Jay “Obama’s running in 2020?
    How is he getting around the term limitation law?.”

    Just add “s” before “he” in your question and there is no term limitation.
    Some might think this far fetched. I don’t since she has been included in a number of polls and does well. Why shouldn’t she. Black, Woman, Liberal.

    And after Trump. most people will have totally forgotten Obama’s screw ups and remember him for being somewhat presidential which will play much better than Bill’s reputation for Hillary.

    And Michele was not considered a bitch like Hillary!

    given a Trump/Obama choice, i will vote for the third party.

  56. Jay permalink
    May 27, 2018 12:33 am

    Fact Checks On The Liar In Chief

    https://apnews.com/0255ceb218274d04a89a2285fae879e3

  57. Jay permalink
    May 27, 2018 12:45 am

    And here are 3 baldfaced lies The Liar In Chief made today: separation of children from parents is required by law; FBI didn’t warn his campaign about Russia; senior WH official in briefing doesn’t exist.

Trackbacks

  1. Something interesting? - Page 2 - CurlTalk

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: