In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 17 2018 18:44 GreenHorizons wrote: I don't really understand all the empathy for McCabe or disagree that there are a lot of lies and corruption at the FBI. Or that McCabe came up under Comey and was an important part of the "counter terrorism" work at the FBI I mentioned before that both McCabe and Comey hang their hats on.
That's separate than the Russiagate stuff, but it pains me to see people that fancy themselves on the left loving so hard on the FBI lately, just to stick it to Trump.
Hmm. I've never been anti-FBI myself (or indeed other higher law enforcement; I generally view them as doing important work, though at times they get into shady territory), but I do see a vein of hypocrisy given how Comey himself was lambasted during Hilary's 'muh emails'.
Is there not a difference, though, between defending oneself against a perceived unfairness and attempting to actually destroy faith in the entire institution of the FBI?
I don't think it's an illiberal position to want to see reforms in the FBI AND wanting it defended against this public vandalism that Trump's engaging in. And whatever the position on McCabe, this stunt is a pure dick move that should be called out by absolutely everybody.
Not really "shady territory" as much as conspiring to assassinate US citizens. I suppose there's a lot bad stuff leading up to that, but that's pretty bad as an institution. Now, had someone actually been punished for that at some point, perhaps having faith in the FBI would be a reasonable proposition, but ya know, that didn't/won't happen. So it's pretty much a non-starter with me. Others do indeed find the ability to put faith in an institution that helped illegally spy on, threaten, and kill US citizens without ever imprisoning a single person responsible as a 'law enforcement' agency, but for me they remain a political enforcement agency deluded/masked by operating in the interest of "the law".
That would be like putting faith in the Catholic church to monitor a national discount daycare run almost exclusively by priests for sexual abuse.
I don't have an exhaustive understanding of the FBI so I may well be too kind towards it, but an organisation like the FBI is in the position of dealing with crimes at a higher level than the police. They deal with big stuff that has big consequences if they fuck it up, and the margin between justified action and unjustifiable abuse of power is pretty thin at times.
Take the example you linked. Was the FBI in the wrong? Yep. But can't you see a flipside article about how that guy murdered 50 people and 'THE FBI KNEW ABOUT THIS DANGEROUS TERRORIST AND DID NOTHING'?
They provided materiale, but the man himself said he wanted to do it. I think the FBI overstepped its bounds, but then I'd also say they should have done something if they hadn't and he'd become an actual terrorist. For all the article wanted to build a specific story, all I saw there was 'terrorist without means'. Maybe he'd never have done anything himself, but he sure could have if he'd fallen under the wing of an actual terrorist. I mean, that's exactly how terrorist cells are built. Usually one guy has the means, and the charisma to recruit a bunch of willing rubes who don't.
You and I get to judge from the sidelines because we don't have to make decisions that can cost dozens of lives. I suspect a lot of the time the FBI agents aren't 100% sure they're doing the right thing, but would rather not take the risk of doing the wrong thing.
What were you referring to on the assassination point, though? That does sound pretty bad.
Without beating a dead horse your counterpoint serves as an example of my previous point on policing.
The proposition is that there was a terrorist without means and either the FBI provides them or risks him doing something without their help and getting blamed.
I have an idea, how about trying to figure out why he thinks murdering a bunch of people is the only way to make things better (if he even did before the FBI talked them into it) and giving him the mental health/community resources needed to lower the probability of him doing something drastic, and not hyping him up, giving him fake materials, then patting yourself on the back for 'stopping' him.
Presuming he's not one of the many vulnerable/mentally ill people the FBI conned into going from internet/parking lot tough guy to attempted terrorist, and is genuinely a devout follower of the cause, the FBI wouldn't need to facilitate practically every move and talk them into doing something. Then they can consider something like a sting in the interest of public safety (though of course they can't be trusted to do such).
I mean there are plenty of allegations against the FBI, but one they got caught about as dead to rights as it gets on was the conspiracy with the Chicago police to assassinate Fred Hampton.
While I was interviewing the survivors, my partners went to the apartment. And when we gathered all the evidence, it turned out that the police had fired 90 shots into the apartment with a submachine gun, shotguns, pistols and a rifle. There was only one outgoing shot, and that came from a Panther who had been fatally wounded, and it was a vertical shot, after he was hit himself.
So, Hanrahan, who was—the police were assigned to the state’s attorney, a politically ambitious law-and-order prosecutor who wanted to get the political advantage of having attacked and taken out the Panthers, was on the TV that morning saying the Panthers opened fire. It turned out, we proved, that, quite to the contrary, it was a shoot-in, not a shootout.
What we uncovered years later—we also filed a civil rights suit after the charges were dropped against the Panthers. And in addition to proving, as I said, that it was a one-sided raid, that the police came in firing, the evidence also showed that Fred Hampton was in fact killed with two bullets, parallel bullets, fired into his head at point-blank range. He wasn’t killed with the bullets through the walls.
But what we uncovered was that the FBI had obtained a floor plan of Fred Hampton’s apartment. That floor plan was complete with all the furniture, including the bedroom where Hampton and Johnson slept and a rectangle showing the bed. And it turned out that this FBI informant, William O’Neal, and his control took that floor plan and gave it to Hanrahan’s raiders before the raid, so that they came in knowing the layout, knowing where Fred would be sleeping. And when we looked at the directions of the bullets, in fact, they converged on the bed where Fred Hampton was sleeping that morning.
On March 17 2018 20:23 Danglars wrote: I share GH’s bewilderment at the left’s newfound love for the CIA and FBI. There’s too little caution about acting with impunity to trample civil liberties because Trump is so-bad and everybody is automatically justified in sensitive or criminal leaks and lying or misleading congressional oversight.
Trump leaves office, and everybody suddenly rediscovers that these are civil servants charged with a duty on investigations and oversight. The IG and an internal office at least appear to be concerned that justice doesn’t take four-year breaks under Republicans.
Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand.
In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
On March 17 2018 20:23 Danglars wrote: I share GH’s bewilderment at the left’s newfound love for the CIA and FBI. There’s too little caution about acting with impunity to trample civil liberties because Trump is so-bad and everybody is automatically justified in sensitive or criminal leaks and lying or misleading congressional oversight.
Trump leaves office, and everybody suddenly rediscovers that these are civil servants charged with a duty on investigations and oversight. The IG and an internal office at least appear to be concerned that justice doesn’t take four-year breaks under Republicans.
Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand.
In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
Is it also possible that Trump fired him for petty vindictive reasons that don't really matter legally or otherwise with consideration of the person, the org, and the allegations. That his pettiness only matters insomuch as it's being used to score political points against Trump/'the other side'. Perhaps, at the cost of legitimate criticisms/consistency about how problematic the FBI is or anyone who runs it?
That we've heard the heroified tales of integrity and decency that ignore the dark underbelly the Pence like pleasantries mask, from the left too much as of late?
On March 17 2018 20:23 Danglars wrote: I share GH’s bewilderment at the left’s newfound love for the CIA and FBI. There’s too little caution about acting with impunity to trample civil liberties because Trump is so-bad and everybody is automatically justified in sensitive or criminal leaks and lying or misleading congressional oversight.
Trump leaves office, and everybody suddenly rediscovers that these are civil servants charged with a duty on investigations and oversight. The IG and an internal office at least appear to be concerned that justice doesn’t take four-year breaks under Republicans.
Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand.
In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
What did he betray, and what did he lie about? You obviously some how have better insight than most others... it’s just odd a Republican of more than twenty years gets fired for doing his job lol...
On March 17 2018 20:23 Danglars wrote: I share GH’s bewilderment at the left’s newfound love for the CIA and FBI. There’s too little caution about acting with impunity to trample civil liberties because Trump is so-bad and everybody is automatically justified in sensitive or criminal leaks and lying or misleading congressional oversight.
Trump leaves office, and everybody suddenly rediscovers that these are civil servants charged with a duty on investigations and oversight. The IG and an internal office at least appear to be concerned that justice doesn’t take four-year breaks under Republicans.
Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand.
In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
Is it also possible that Trump fired him for petty vindictive reasons that don't really matter legally or otherwise with consideration of the person, the org, and the allegations. That his pettiness only matters insomuch as it's being used to score political points against Trump/'the other side'. Perhaps, at the cost of legitimate criticisms/consistency about how problematic the FBI is or anyone who runs it?
That we've heard the heroified tales of integrity and decency that ignore the dark underbelly the Pence like pleasantries mask, from the left too much as of late?
Yes I think intent matters. If something ends up doing the right thing for the wrong reasons its still not a good thing. Especially for someone as powerful as the POTUS.
And I don't even know what you mean with that last bit. So we cant criticize Trump because then we would get Pence who is also bad? Bullshit.
On March 17 2018 20:23 Danglars wrote: I share GH’s bewilderment at the left’s newfound love for the CIA and FBI. There’s too little caution about acting with impunity to trample civil liberties because Trump is so-bad and everybody is automatically justified in sensitive or criminal leaks and lying or misleading congressional oversight.
Trump leaves office, and everybody suddenly rediscovers that these are civil servants charged with a duty on investigations and oversight. The IG and an internal office at least appear to be concerned that justice doesn’t take four-year breaks under Republicans.
Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand.
In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
Is it also possible that Trump fired him for petty vindictive reasons that don't really matter legally or otherwise with consideration of the person, the org, and the allegations. That his pettiness only matters insomuch as it's being used to score political points against Trump/'the other side'. Perhaps, at the cost of legitimate criticisms/consistency about how problematic the FBI is or anyone who runs it?
That we've heard the heroified tales of integrity and decency that ignore the dark underbelly the Pence like pleasantries mask, from the left too much as of late?
Yes I think intent matters. If something ends up doing the right thing for the wrong reasons its still not a good thing. Especially for someone as powerful as the POTUS.
And I don't even know what you mean with that last bit. So we cant criticize Trump because then we would get Pence who is also bad? Bullshit.
"not a good thing" isn't a very infrequent occurrence at any level of government. I don't think this is a big deal.
As to the second part, I'm saying Comey's "Lordy, gee wilikers" act is very much like Pence's nice guy act, masking a deeper much more twisted person. And that this "how could Trump do such a thing, just days before getting benefits no less" is nauseating. If liberals cared half as much about the millions of people (who by the way don't run despicable organizations paid for in part with tax money from communities they helped destroy) similar things happen to year after year, we wouldn't have a president Trump to be fixated on in the first place.
On March 17 2018 20:23 Danglars wrote: I share GH’s bewilderment at the left’s newfound love for the CIA and FBI. There’s too little caution about acting with impunity to trample civil liberties because Trump is so-bad and everybody is automatically justified in sensitive or criminal leaks and lying or misleading congressional oversight.
Trump leaves office, and everybody suddenly rediscovers that these are civil servants charged with a duty on investigations and oversight. The IG and an internal office at least appear to be concerned that justice doesn’t take four-year breaks under Republicans.
Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand.
In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
Ignore the evidence, focus on a tweet. Let’s just say, don’t perform in your job so badly that makes anyone have a reason to fire you and ought to fire you, much less when the boss up the chain is an asshole about the affair. Retiring with full benefits after that dereliction of duty would send the wrong message to our civil servants. I don’t care if you’re serving under Trump, Clinton, or the Jolly Green Giant.
On March 17 2018 20:23 Danglars wrote: I share GH’s bewilderment at the left’s newfound love for the CIA and FBI. There’s too little caution about acting with impunity to trample civil liberties because Trump is so-bad and everybody is automatically justified in sensitive or criminal leaks and lying or misleading congressional oversight.
Trump leaves office, and everybody suddenly rediscovers that these are civil servants charged with a duty on investigations and oversight. The IG and an internal office at least appear to be concerned that justice doesn’t take four-year breaks under Republicans.
Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand.
In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
Is it also possible that Trump fired him for petty vindictive reasons that don't really matter legally or otherwise with consideration of the person, the org, and the allegations. That his pettiness only matters insomuch as it's being used to score political points against Trump/'the other side'. Perhaps, at the cost of legitimate criticisms/consistency about how problematic the FBI is or anyone who runs it?
That we've heard the heroified tales of integrity and decency that ignore the dark underbelly the Pence like pleasantries mask, from the left too much as of late?
Yes I think intent matters. If something ends up doing the right thing for the wrong reasons its still not a good thing. Especially for someone as powerful as the POTUS.
And I don't even know what you mean with that last bit. So we cant criticize Trump because then we would get Pence who is also bad? Bullshit.
"not a good thing" isn't a very infrequent occurrence at any level of government. I don't think this is a big deal.
As to the second part, I'm saying Comey's "Lordy, gee wilikers" act is very much like Pence's nice guy act, masking a deeper much more twisted person. And that this "how could Trump do such a thing, just days before getting benefits no less" is nauseating. If liberals cared half as much about the millions of people (who by the way don't run despicable organizations paid for in part with tax money from communities they helped destroy) similar things happen to year after year, we wouldn't have a president Trump to be fixated on in the first place.
Go ask some liberal's if they care about those millions of people. I'll wait. .. right, so they do care about that aswell. Gee who could have guessed it.
On March 17 2018 20:23 Danglars wrote: I share GH’s bewilderment at the left’s newfound love for the CIA and FBI. There’s too little caution about acting with impunity to trample civil liberties because Trump is so-bad and everybody is automatically justified in sensitive or criminal leaks and lying or misleading congressional oversight.
Trump leaves office, and everybody suddenly rediscovers that these are civil servants charged with a duty on investigations and oversight. The IG and an internal office at least appear to be concerned that justice doesn’t take four-year breaks under Republicans.
Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand.
In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
Ignore the evidence, focus on a tweet. Let’s just say, don’t perform in your job so badly that makes anyone have a reason to fire you and ought to fire you, much less when the boss up the chain is an asshole about the affair. Retiring with full benefits after that dereliction of duty would send the wrong message to our civil servants. I don’t care if you’re serving under Trump, Clinton, or the Jolly Green Giant.
See, rather than point out the millions of Americans who are forced to work in ways that leaves them in constant violation of protocol/corporate policy that Danglars and Republicans don't ever talk about, liberals want to bicker back and forth about the rumor on E! about what the subtext of an angry tweet was.
On March 17 2018 20:23 Danglars wrote: I share GH’s bewilderment at the left’s newfound love for the CIA and FBI. There’s too little caution about acting with impunity to trample civil liberties because Trump is so-bad and everybody is automatically justified in sensitive or criminal leaks and lying or misleading congressional oversight.
Trump leaves office, and everybody suddenly rediscovers that these are civil servants charged with a duty on investigations and oversight. The IG and an internal office at least appear to be concerned that justice doesn’t take four-year breaks under Republicans.
Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand.
In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
Is it also possible that Trump fired him for petty vindictive reasons that don't really matter legally or otherwise with consideration of the person, the org, and the allegations. That his pettiness only matters insomuch as it's being used to score political points against Trump/'the other side'. Perhaps, at the cost of legitimate criticisms/consistency about how problematic the FBI is or anyone who runs it?
That we've heard the heroified tales of integrity and decency that ignore the dark underbelly the Pence like pleasantries mask, from the left too much as of late?
Yes I think intent matters. If something ends up doing the right thing for the wrong reasons its still not a good thing. Especially for someone as powerful as the POTUS.
And I don't even know what you mean with that last bit. So we cant criticize Trump because then we would get Pence who is also bad? Bullshit.
"not a good thing" isn't a very infrequent occurrence at any level of government. I don't think this is a big deal.
As to the second part, I'm saying Comey's "Lordy, gee wilikers" act is very much like Pence's nice guy act, masking a deeper much more twisted person. And that this "how could Trump do such a thing, just days before getting benefits no less" is nauseating. If liberals cared half as much about the millions of people (who by the way don't run despicable organizations paid for in part with tax money from communities they helped destroy) similar things happen to year after year, we wouldn't have a president Trump to be fixated on in the first place.
Go ask some liberal's if they care about those millions of people. I'll wait. .. right, so they do care about that aswell. Gee who could have guessed it.
you wouldn't know it by watching liberal media, reading liberal papers, or following the posts of liberals in this thread. If you went by what they focus their attention on it's all Russia/Trump all the time, with an occasional pointing out how the government still sucks under Trump.
With a healthy helping of disdain toward all those who aren't obsessed with Russiagate like they are. Oh, and fluff pieces about nazis if you're the NYT.
On March 17 2018 20:23 Danglars wrote: I share GH’s bewilderment at the left’s newfound love for the CIA and FBI. There’s too little caution about acting with impunity to trample civil liberties because Trump is so-bad and everybody is automatically justified in sensitive or criminal leaks and lying or misleading congressional oversight.
Trump leaves office, and everybody suddenly rediscovers that these are civil servants charged with a duty on investigations and oversight. The IG and an internal office at least appear to be concerned that justice doesn’t take four-year breaks under Republicans.
Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand.
In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
What did he betray, and what did he lie about? You obviously some how have better insight than most others... it’s just odd a Republican of more than twenty years gets fired for doing his job lol...
His own agency recommended his firing. It’s based on findings by the IG that he lied under oath and revealed sensitive details of an ongoing investigation without authorization and on multiple occasions.
Aka “fired for doing his job” maybe if this was Russia. It’s a little odd that he so seriously erred in ethics and judgment this late in his career.
On March 17 2018 20:23 Danglars wrote: I share GH’s bewilderment at the left’s newfound love for the CIA and FBI. There’s too little caution about acting with impunity to trample civil liberties because Trump is so-bad and everybody is automatically justified in sensitive or criminal leaks and lying or misleading congressional oversight.
Trump leaves office, and everybody suddenly rediscovers that these are civil servants charged with a duty on investigations and oversight. The IG and an internal office at least appear to be concerned that justice doesn’t take four-year breaks under Republicans.
Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand.
In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
Ignore the evidence, focus on a tweet. Let’s just say, don’t perform in your job so badly that makes anyone have a reason to fire you and ought to fire you, much less when the boss up the chain is an asshole about the affair. Retiring with full benefits after that dereliction of duty would send the wrong message to our civil servants. I don’t care if you’re serving under Trump, Clinton, or the Jolly Green Giant.
See, rather than point out the millions of Americans who are forced to work in ways that leaves them in constant violation of protocol/corporate policy that Danglars and Republicans don't ever talk about, liberals want to bicker back and forth about the rumor on E! about what the subtext of a angry tweet was.
On March 17 2018 20:23 Danglars wrote: I share GH’s bewilderment at the left’s newfound love for the CIA and FBI. There’s too little caution about acting with impunity to trample civil liberties because Trump is so-bad and everybody is automatically justified in sensitive or criminal leaks and lying or misleading congressional oversight.
Trump leaves office, and everybody suddenly rediscovers that these are civil servants charged with a duty on investigations and oversight. The IG and an internal office at least appear to be concerned that justice doesn’t take four-year breaks under Republicans.
Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand.
In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
Is it also possible that Trump fired him for petty vindictive reasons that don't really matter legally or otherwise with consideration of the person, the org, and the allegations. That his pettiness only matters insomuch as it's being used to score political points against Trump/'the other side'. Perhaps, at the cost of legitimate criticisms/consistency about how problematic the FBI is or anyone who runs it?
That we've heard the heroified tales of integrity and decency that ignore the dark underbelly the Pence like pleasantries mask, from the left too much as of late?
Yes I think intent matters. If something ends up doing the right thing for the wrong reasons its still not a good thing. Especially for someone as powerful as the POTUS.
And I don't even know what you mean with that last bit. So we cant criticize Trump because then we would get Pence who is also bad? Bullshit.
"not a good thing" isn't a very infrequent occurrence at any level of government. I don't think this is a big deal.
As to the second part, I'm saying Comey's "Lordy, gee wilikers" act is very much like Pence's nice guy act, masking a deeper much more twisted person. And that this "how could Trump do such a thing, just days before getting benefits no less" is nauseating. If liberals cared half as much about the millions of people (who by the way don't run despicable organizations paid for in part with tax money from communities they helped destroy) similar things happen to year after year, we wouldn't have a president Trump to be fixated on in the first place.
Go ask some liberal's if they care about those millions of people. I'll wait. .. right, so they do care about that aswell. Gee who could have guessed it.
you wouldn't know it by watching liberal media, reading liberal papers, or following the posts of liberals in this thread. If you went by what they focus their attention on it's all Russia/Trump all the time, with an occasional pointing out how the government still sucks under Trump.
With a healthy helping of disdain toward all those who aren't obsessed with Russiagate like they are.
I’m waiting for Russia to have ordered his firing. Maybe that story will print in a month. The latest revelation that Tillerson can be a Russian stooge acting in office as a Russian stooge, but then fired because he was too tough on Russia opens up new realms of possibility for collusion accusations.
On March 17 2018 20:23 Danglars wrote: I share GH’s bewilderment at the left’s newfound love for the CIA and FBI. There’s too little caution about acting with impunity to trample civil liberties because Trump is so-bad and everybody is automatically justified in sensitive or criminal leaks and lying or misleading congressional oversight.
Trump leaves office, and everybody suddenly rediscovers that these are civil servants charged with a duty on investigations and oversight. The IG and an internal office at least appear to be concerned that justice doesn’t take four-year breaks under Republicans.
Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand.
In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
Ignore the evidence, focus on a tweet. Let’s just say, don’t perform in your job so badly that makes anyone have a reason to fire you and ought to fire you, much less when the boss up the chain is an asshole about the affair. Retiring with full benefits after that dereliction of duty would send the wrong message to our civil servants. I don’t care if you’re serving under Trump, Clinton, or the Jolly Green Giant.
See, rather than point out the millions of Americans who are forced to work in ways that leaves them in constant violation of protocol/corporate policy that Danglars and Republicans don't ever talk about, liberals want to bicker back and forth about the rumor on E! about what the subtext of a angry tweet was.
On March 17 2018 21:17 Gorsameth wrote:
On March 17 2018 21:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
On March 17 2018 21:03 Gorsameth wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:54 Gorsameth wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:41 Danglars wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:28 Gorsameth wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:23 Danglars wrote: I share GH’s bewilderment at the left’s newfound love for the CIA and FBI. There’s too little caution about acting with impunity to trample civil liberties because Trump is so-bad and everybody is automatically justified in sensitive or criminal leaks and lying or misleading congressional oversight.
Trump leaves office, and everybody suddenly rediscovers that these are civil servants charged with a duty on investigations and oversight. The IG and an internal office at least appear to be concerned that justice doesn’t take four-year breaks under Republicans.
Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand.
In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
Is it also possible that Trump fired him for petty vindictive reasons that don't really matter legally or otherwise with consideration of the person, the org, and the allegations. That his pettiness only matters insomuch as it's being used to score political points against Trump/'the other side'. Perhaps, at the cost of legitimate criticisms/consistency about how problematic the FBI is or anyone who runs it?
That we've heard the heroified tales of integrity and decency that ignore the dark underbelly the Pence like pleasantries mask, from the left too much as of late?
Yes I think intent matters. If something ends up doing the right thing for the wrong reasons its still not a good thing. Especially for someone as powerful as the POTUS.
And I don't even know what you mean with that last bit. So we cant criticize Trump because then we would get Pence who is also bad? Bullshit.
"not a good thing" isn't a very infrequent occurrence at any level of government. I don't think this is a big deal.
As to the second part, I'm saying Comey's "Lordy, gee wilikers" act is very much like Pence's nice guy act, masking a deeper much more twisted person. And that this "how could Trump do such a thing, just days before getting benefits no less" is nauseating. If liberals cared half as much about the millions of people (who by the way don't run despicable organizations paid for in part with tax money from communities they helped destroy) similar things happen to year after year, we wouldn't have a president Trump to be fixated on in the first place.
Go ask some liberal's if they care about those millions of people. I'll wait. .. right, so they do care about that aswell. Gee who could have guessed it.
you wouldn't know it by watching liberal media, reading liberal papers, or following the posts of liberals in this thread. If you went by what they focus their attention on it's all Russia/Trump all the time, with an occasional pointing out how the government still sucks under Trump.
With a healthy helping of disdain toward all those who aren't obsessed with Russiagate like they are.
I’m waiting for Russia to have ordered his firing. Maybe that story will print in a month. The latest revelation that Tillerson can be a Russian stooge acting in office as a Russian stooge, but then fired because he was too tough on Russia opens up new realms of possibility for collusion accusations.
It's absolutely crazy at this point. I can't even get them to answer a simple question about what it means if Democrats voted to empower people they think we're all supposed to clearly see are Russian puppets.
I'm for a good spy novel as much as the next guy, but at least try to be able to answer simple questions about how this conspiracy holds together in your head (those that think this stuff).
On March 17 2018 18:44 GreenHorizons wrote: I don't really understand all the empathy for McCabe or disagree that there are a lot of lies and corruption at the FBI. Or that McCabe came up under Comey and was an important part of the "counter terrorism" work at the FBI I mentioned before that both McCabe and Comey hang their hats on.
That's separate than the Russiagate stuff, but it pains me to see people that fancy themselves on the left loving so hard on the FBI lately, just to stick it to Trump.
Hmm. I've never been anti-FBI myself (or indeed other higher law enforcement; I generally view them as doing important work, though at times they get into shady territory), but I do see a vein of hypocrisy given how Comey himself was lambasted during Hilary's 'muh emails'.
Is there not a difference, though, between defending oneself against a perceived unfairness and attempting to actually destroy faith in the entire institution of the FBI?
I don't think it's an illiberal position to want to see reforms in the FBI AND wanting it defended against this public vandalism that Trump's engaging in. And whatever the position on McCabe, this stunt is a pure dick move that should be called out by absolutely everybody.
Not really "shady territory" as much as conspiring to assassinate US citizens. I suppose there's a lot bad stuff leading up to that, but that's pretty bad as an institution. Now, had someone actually been punished for that at some point, perhaps having faith in the FBI would be a reasonable proposition, but ya know, that didn't/won't happen. So it's pretty much a non-starter with me. Others do indeed find the ability to put faith in an institution that helped illegally spy on, threaten, and kill US citizens without ever imprisoning a single person responsible as a 'law enforcement' agency, but for me they remain a political enforcement agency deluded/masked by operating in the interest of "the law".
That would be like putting faith in the Catholic church to monitor a national discount daycare run almost exclusively by priests for sexual abuse.
I don't have an exhaustive understanding of the FBI so I may well be too kind towards it, but an organisation like the FBI is in the position of dealing with crimes at a higher level than the police. They deal with big stuff that has big consequences if they fuck it up, and the margin between justified action and unjustifiable abuse of power is pretty thin at times.
Take the example you linked. Was the FBI in the wrong? Yep. But can't you see a flipside article about how that guy murdered 50 people and 'THE FBI KNEW ABOUT THIS DANGEROUS TERRORIST AND DID NOTHING'?
They provided materiale, but the man himself said he wanted to do it. I think the FBI overstepped its bounds, but then I'd also say they should have done something if they hadn't and he'd become an actual terrorist. For all the article wanted to build a specific story, all I saw there was 'terrorist without means'. Maybe he'd never have done anything himself, but he sure could have if he'd fallen under the wing of an actual terrorist. I mean, that's exactly how terrorist cells are built. Usually one guy has the means, and the charisma to recruit a bunch of willing rubes who don't.
You and I get to judge from the sidelines because we don't have to make decisions that can cost dozens of lives. I suspect a lot of the time the FBI agents aren't 100% sure they're doing the right thing, but would rather not take the risk of doing the wrong thing.
What were you referring to on the assassination point, though? That does sound pretty bad.
Without beating a dead horse your counterpoint serves as an example of my previous point on policing.
The proposition is that there was a terrorist without means and either the FBI provides them or risks him doing something without their help and getting blamed.
I have an idea, how about trying to figure out why he thinks murdering a bunch of people is the only way to make things better (if he even did before the FBI talked them into it) and giving him the mental health/community resources needed to lower the probability of him doing something drastic, and not hyping him up, giving him fake materials, then patting yourself on the back for 'stopping' him.
Presuming he's not one of the many vulnerable/mentally ill people the FBI conned into going from internet/parking lot tough guy to attempted terrorist, and is genuinely a devout follower of the cause, the FBI wouldn't need to facilitate practically every move and talk them into doing something. Then they can consider something like a sting in the interest of public safety (though of course they can't be trusted to do such).
I mean there are plenty of allegations against the FBI, but one they got caught about as dead to rights as it gets on was the conspiracy with the Chicago police to assassinate Fred Hampton.
While I was interviewing the survivors, my partners went to the apartment. And when we gathered all the evidence, it turned out that the police had fired 90 shots into the apartment with a submachine gun, shotguns, pistols and a rifle. There was only one outgoing shot, and that came from a Panther who had been fatally wounded, and it was a vertical shot, after he was hit himself.
So, Hanrahan, who was—the police were assigned to the state’s attorney, a politically ambitious law-and-order prosecutor who wanted to get the political advantage of having attacked and taken out the Panthers, was on the TV that morning saying the Panthers opened fire. It turned out, we proved, that, quite to the contrary, it was a shoot-in, not a shootout.
What we uncovered years later—we also filed a civil rights suit after the charges were dropped against the Panthers. And in addition to proving, as I said, that it was a one-sided raid, that the police came in firing, the evidence also showed that Fred Hampton was in fact killed with two bullets, parallel bullets, fired into his head at point-blank range. He wasn’t killed with the bullets through the walls.
But what we uncovered was that the FBI had obtained a floor plan of Fred Hampton’s apartment. That floor plan was complete with all the furniture, including the bedroom where Hampton and Johnson slept and a rectangle showing the bed. And it turned out that this FBI informant, William O’Neal, and his control took that floor plan and gave it to Hanrahan’s raiders before the raid, so that they came in knowing the layout, knowing where Fred would be sleeping. And when we looked at the directions of the bullets, in fact, they converged on the bed where Fred Hampton was sleeping that morning.
Can you explain this a bit more? I don't really know who Fred was, or why he was assassinated, and would like to hear your thoughts on it since you linked it instead of trying to gain some water understanding from Wikipedia.
Former FBI director James Comey told three top FBI officials about conversations he had with President Donald Trump before he was fired last May. All three officials have since been forced out of the bureau, or reassigned within it.
Trump's decision to fire Comey, and his conversations with the FBI director before his removal, now make up the basis of the special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into whether the president sought to obstruct justice when he dismissed Comey last May. At the time, Comey was overseeing the FBI's Russia investigation, which Trump has characterized as a "hoax" and a "witch hunt."
Comey testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee last year that Trump repeatedly asked him for his loyalty and to drop the FBI's investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Flynn pleaded guilty in December to one count of making false statements to investigators about his Russia contacts.
Comey told former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe; his chief of staff, James Rybicki; and FBI general counsel James Baker about his conversations with Trump.
Interesting move to celebrate obstruction on twitter
Edit: apparently McGabe was days away from retiring. Trump could have done literally nothing and have the same outcome. This reeks of revenge
On March 17 2018 20:23 Danglars wrote: I share GH’s bewilderment at the left’s newfound love for the CIA and FBI. There’s too little caution about acting with impunity to trample civil liberties because Trump is so-bad and everybody is automatically justified in sensitive or criminal leaks and lying or misleading congressional oversight.
Trump leaves office, and everybody suddenly rediscovers that these are civil servants charged with a duty on investigations and oversight. The IG and an internal office at least appear to be concerned that justice doesn’t take four-year breaks under Republicans.
Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand.
In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
Ignore the evidence, focus on a tweet. Let’s just say, don’t perform in your job so badly that makes anyone have a reason to fire you and ought to fire you, much less when the boss up the chain is an asshole about the affair. Retiring with full benefits after that dereliction of duty would send the wrong message to our civil servants. I don’t care if you’re serving under Trump, Clinton, or the Jolly Green Giant.
See, rather than point out the millions of Americans who are forced to work in ways that leaves them in constant violation of protocol/corporate policy that Danglars and Republicans don't ever talk about, liberals want to bicker back and forth about the rumor on E! about what the subtext of a angry tweet was.
On March 17 2018 21:17 Gorsameth wrote:
On March 17 2018 21:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
On March 17 2018 21:03 Gorsameth wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:54 Gorsameth wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:41 Danglars wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:28 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand.
In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
Is it also possible that Trump fired him for petty vindictive reasons that don't really matter legally or otherwise with consideration of the person, the org, and the allegations. That his pettiness only matters insomuch as it's being used to score political points against Trump/'the other side'. Perhaps, at the cost of legitimate criticisms/consistency about how problematic the FBI is or anyone who runs it?
That we've heard the heroified tales of integrity and decency that ignore the dark underbelly the Pence like pleasantries mask, from the left too much as of late?
Yes I think intent matters. If something ends up doing the right thing for the wrong reasons its still not a good thing. Especially for someone as powerful as the POTUS.
And I don't even know what you mean with that last bit. So we cant criticize Trump because then we would get Pence who is also bad? Bullshit.
"not a good thing" isn't a very infrequent occurrence at any level of government. I don't think this is a big deal.
As to the second part, I'm saying Comey's "Lordy, gee wilikers" act is very much like Pence's nice guy act, masking a deeper much more twisted person. And that this "how could Trump do such a thing, just days before getting benefits no less" is nauseating. If liberals cared half as much about the millions of people (who by the way don't run despicable organizations paid for in part with tax money from communities they helped destroy) similar things happen to year after year, we wouldn't have a president Trump to be fixated on in the first place.
Go ask some liberal's if they care about those millions of people. I'll wait. .. right, so they do care about that aswell. Gee who could have guessed it.
you wouldn't know it by watching liberal media, reading liberal papers, or following the posts of liberals in this thread. If you went by what they focus their attention on it's all Russia/Trump all the time, with an occasional pointing out how the government still sucks under Trump.
With a healthy helping of disdain toward all those who aren't obsessed with Russiagate like they are.
I’m waiting for Russia to have ordered his firing. Maybe that story will print in a month. The latest revelation that Tillerson can be a Russian stooge acting in office as a Russian stooge, but then fired because he was too tough on Russia opens up new realms of possibility for collusion accusations.
It's absolutely crazy at this point. I can't even get them to answer a simple question about what it means if Democrats voted to empower people they think we're all supposed to clearly see are Russian puppets.
I'm for a good spy novel as much as the next guy, but at least try to be able to answer simple questions about how this conspiracy holds together in your head (those that think this stuff).
The Russia conspiracy, like all conspiracies, is formless and nebulous, and can expand to include everything and nothing as required.
On March 17 2018 20:23 Danglars wrote: I share GH’s bewilderment at the left’s newfound love for the CIA and FBI. There’s too little caution about acting with impunity to trample civil liberties because Trump is so-bad and everybody is automatically justified in sensitive or criminal leaks and lying or misleading congressional oversight.
Trump leaves office, and everybody suddenly rediscovers that these are civil servants charged with a duty on investigations and oversight. The IG and an internal office at least appear to be concerned that justice doesn’t take four-year breaks under Republicans.
Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand.
In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
Ignore the evidence, focus on a tweet. Let’s just say, don’t perform in your job so badly that makes anyone have a reason to fire you and ought to fire you, much less when the boss up the chain is an asshole about the affair. Retiring with full benefits after that dereliction of duty would send the wrong message to our civil servants. I don’t care if you’re serving under Trump, Clinton, or the Jolly Green Giant.
See, rather than point out the millions of Americans who are forced to work in ways that leaves them in constant violation of protocol/corporate policy that Danglars and Republicans don't ever talk about, liberals want to bicker back and forth about the rumor on E! about what the subtext of a angry tweet was.
On March 17 2018 21:17 Gorsameth wrote:
On March 17 2018 21:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
On March 17 2018 21:03 Gorsameth wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:54 Gorsameth wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:41 Danglars wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:28 Gorsameth wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:23 Danglars wrote: I share GH’s bewilderment at the left’s newfound love for the CIA and FBI. There’s too little caution about acting with impunity to trample civil liberties because Trump is so-bad and everybody is automatically justified in sensitive or criminal leaks and lying or misleading congressional oversight.
Trump leaves office, and everybody suddenly rediscovers that these are civil servants charged with a duty on investigations and oversight. The IG and an internal office at least appear to be concerned that justice doesn’t take four-year breaks under Republicans.
Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand.
In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
Is it also possible that Trump fired him for petty vindictive reasons that don't really matter legally or otherwise with consideration of the person, the org, and the allegations. That his pettiness only matters insomuch as it's being used to score political points against Trump/'the other side'. Perhaps, at the cost of legitimate criticisms/consistency about how problematic the FBI is or anyone who runs it?
That we've heard the heroified tales of integrity and decency that ignore the dark underbelly the Pence like pleasantries mask, from the left too much as of late?
Yes I think intent matters. If something ends up doing the right thing for the wrong reasons its still not a good thing. Especially for someone as powerful as the POTUS.
And I don't even know what you mean with that last bit. So we cant criticize Trump because then we would get Pence who is also bad? Bullshit.
"not a good thing" isn't a very infrequent occurrence at any level of government. I don't think this is a big deal.
As to the second part, I'm saying Comey's "Lordy, gee wilikers" act is very much like Pence's nice guy act, masking a deeper much more twisted person. And that this "how could Trump do such a thing, just days before getting benefits no less" is nauseating. If liberals cared half as much about the millions of people (who by the way don't run despicable organizations paid for in part with tax money from communities they helped destroy) similar things happen to year after year, we wouldn't have a president Trump to be fixated on in the first place.
Go ask some liberal's if they care about those millions of people. I'll wait. .. right, so they do care about that aswell. Gee who could have guessed it.
you wouldn't know it by watching liberal media, reading liberal papers, or following the posts of liberals in this thread. If you went by what they focus their attention on it's all Russia/Trump all the time, with an occasional pointing out how the government still sucks under Trump.
With a healthy helping of disdain toward all those who aren't obsessed with Russiagate like they are.
I’m waiting for Russia to have ordered his firing. Maybe that story will print in a month. The latest revelation that Tillerson can be a Russian stooge acting in office as a Russian stooge, but then fired because he was too tough on Russia opens up new realms of possibility for collusion accusations.
The conspiracy theory for Tillerson Russia is that Russia wants Tillerson in because of the Exxon contract, Trump doesn't know/like Tillerson but accepts, then they hate each other for a while but he's protected, then the Exxon contract fails and the protection ends so Trump immediately fires him.
Your portrayal made it seem more confusing than it is, I thought I'd clear that up.
On March 17 2018 18:44 GreenHorizons wrote: I don't really understand all the empathy for McCabe or disagree that there are a lot of lies and corruption at the FBI. Or that McCabe came up under Comey and was an important part of the "counter terrorism" work at the FBI I mentioned before that both McCabe and Comey hang their hats on.
That's separate than the Russiagate stuff, but it pains me to see people that fancy themselves on the left loving so hard on the FBI lately, just to stick it to Trump.
Hmm. I've never been anti-FBI myself (or indeed other higher law enforcement; I generally view them as doing important work, though at times they get into shady territory), but I do see a vein of hypocrisy given how Comey himself was lambasted during Hilary's 'muh emails'.
Is there not a difference, though, between defending oneself against a perceived unfairness and attempting to actually destroy faith in the entire institution of the FBI?
I don't think it's an illiberal position to want to see reforms in the FBI AND wanting it defended against this public vandalism that Trump's engaging in. And whatever the position on McCabe, this stunt is a pure dick move that should be called out by absolutely everybody.
Not really "shady territory" as much as conspiring to assassinate US citizens. I suppose there's a lot bad stuff leading up to that, but that's pretty bad as an institution. Now, had someone actually been punished for that at some point, perhaps having faith in the FBI would be a reasonable proposition, but ya know, that didn't/won't happen. So it's pretty much a non-starter with me. Others do indeed find the ability to put faith in an institution that helped illegally spy on, threaten, and kill US citizens without ever imprisoning a single person responsible as a 'law enforcement' agency, but for me they remain a political enforcement agency deluded/masked by operating in the interest of "the law".
That would be like putting faith in the Catholic church to monitor a national discount daycare run almost exclusively by priests for sexual abuse.
I don't have an exhaustive understanding of the FBI so I may well be too kind towards it, but an organisation like the FBI is in the position of dealing with crimes at a higher level than the police. They deal with big stuff that has big consequences if they fuck it up, and the margin between justified action and unjustifiable abuse of power is pretty thin at times.
Take the example you linked. Was the FBI in the wrong? Yep. But can't you see a flipside article about how that guy murdered 50 people and 'THE FBI KNEW ABOUT THIS DANGEROUS TERRORIST AND DID NOTHING'?
They provided materiale, but the man himself said he wanted to do it. I think the FBI overstepped its bounds, but then I'd also say they should have done something if they hadn't and he'd become an actual terrorist. For all the article wanted to build a specific story, all I saw there was 'terrorist without means'. Maybe he'd never have done anything himself, but he sure could have if he'd fallen under the wing of an actual terrorist. I mean, that's exactly how terrorist cells are built. Usually one guy has the means, and the charisma to recruit a bunch of willing rubes who don't.
You and I get to judge from the sidelines because we don't have to make decisions that can cost dozens of lives. I suspect a lot of the time the FBI agents aren't 100% sure they're doing the right thing, but would rather not take the risk of doing the wrong thing.
What were you referring to on the assassination point, though? That does sound pretty bad.
Without beating a dead horse your counterpoint serves as an example of my previous point on policing.
The proposition is that there was a terrorist without means and either the FBI provides them or risks him doing something without their help and getting blamed.
I have an idea, how about trying to figure out why he thinks murdering a bunch of people is the only way to make things better (if he even did before the FBI talked them into it) and giving him the mental health/community resources needed to lower the probability of him doing something drastic, and not hyping him up, giving him fake materials, then patting yourself on the back for 'stopping' him.
Presuming he's not one of the many vulnerable/mentally ill people the FBI conned into going from internet/parking lot tough guy to attempted terrorist, and is genuinely a devout follower of the cause, the FBI wouldn't need to facilitate practically every move and talk them into doing something. Then they can consider something like a sting in the interest of public safety (though of course they can't be trusted to do such).
I mean there are plenty of allegations against the FBI, but one they got caught about as dead to rights as it gets on was the conspiracy with the Chicago police to assassinate Fred Hampton.
While I was interviewing the survivors, my partners went to the apartment. And when we gathered all the evidence, it turned out that the police had fired 90 shots into the apartment with a submachine gun, shotguns, pistols and a rifle. There was only one outgoing shot, and that came from a Panther who had been fatally wounded, and it was a vertical shot, after he was hit himself.
So, Hanrahan, who was—the police were assigned to the state’s attorney, a politically ambitious law-and-order prosecutor who wanted to get the political advantage of having attacked and taken out the Panthers, was on the TV that morning saying the Panthers opened fire. It turned out, we proved, that, quite to the contrary, it was a shoot-in, not a shootout.
What we uncovered years later—we also filed a civil rights suit after the charges were dropped against the Panthers. And in addition to proving, as I said, that it was a one-sided raid, that the police came in firing, the evidence also showed that Fred Hampton was in fact killed with two bullets, parallel bullets, fired into his head at point-blank range. He wasn’t killed with the bullets through the walls.
But what we uncovered was that the FBI had obtained a floor plan of Fred Hampton’s apartment. That floor plan was complete with all the furniture, including the bedroom where Hampton and Johnson slept and a rectangle showing the bed. And it turned out that this FBI informant, William O’Neal, and his control took that floor plan and gave it to Hanrahan’s raiders before the raid, so that they came in knowing the layout, knowing where Fred would be sleeping. And when we looked at the directions of the bullets, in fact, they converged on the bed where Fred Hampton was sleeping that morning.
Can you explain this a bit more? I don't really know who Fred was, or why he was assassinated, and would like to hear your thoughts on it since you linked it instead of trying to gain some water understanding from Wikipedia.
If you're really interested in learning more I suggest you watch this, or read the book from the person in the previously mentioned Democracy Now piece
(changed link this one the audio is synced better)
But to sum it up:
Fred Hampton was a young Black-middle-class student who began organizing people in Chicago under the Black Panther banner. The goal was to provide security that the government wasn't, provide resources the government wasn't, and empower people to take control of their communities to address the problems the government wasn't. Such as poverty, hunger, violence, racism and basically everything that comes in the "do for self/bootstaps" propaganda often repeated by those on the right and left about black communities.
The government had two significant problems with it.
1. He was empowering oppressed people 2. He was doing it with a socialist philosophy.
They feared that instead of someone like Obama (not wanting to prosecute criminal bankers, imperialist, etc) being the first black president (meaning leading a national political movement) it might be someone like Fred Hampton (would be about the age of the 2016 candidates in 2016) and that terrified them.
Without the pretext of breaking laws, despite trying to write new ones to make what they were doing illegal, they were left with little choice but to assassinate him.
He did plenty of agitating of local instruments of the government so it wasn't hard to recruit the Chicago police to be the trigger men, and the FBI used a classic "betray your cause or lose your life" scheme to flip the head of Black Panther security (one of the most vocal anti-government members of the Chicago BP's) in order to obtain the information that they then passed to police to assassinate him.
Police did what they always do and lied and tried to cover up their crime, but the evidence against them was overwhelming. However, while this was sufficient for a civil judgement, the overwhelming evidence wasn't enough to yield any convictions for the people responsible. The AG won the Democratic party nomination the following election and Black people in Chicago supported the Republican candidate in record numbers and ousted the former AG (as close as they got to a 'punishment').
Before they assassinated Fred, they were shooting at his bedroom which had his pregnant partner in bed next to him. Then dragged him out and murdered him right there with her feet away.
It's worse than trying to blackmail MLK into suicide (another FBI oldie but goodie), and training terrorists so they can celebrate stopping them, and it's a stain they did nothing to remove.
They've also reinvigorated a modern COINTELLPRO targeting what they call "Black Identity Extremists" aka Black people that know the government is bending them over and would tell them to stop directly to their face.
Meanwhile the white terrorists that have been launching attacks over the last several years are nearly invisible to them...
So when people act as if the FBI is just a little shady or 'could be better' it indicates to me they either aren't aware of the FBI's long history of being anti-justice or they simply don't care, if it means they get an opportunity to snipe at Trump.
On March 17 2018 20:23 Danglars wrote: I share GH’s bewilderment at the left’s newfound love for the CIA and FBI. There’s too little caution about acting with impunity to trample civil liberties because Trump is so-bad and everybody is automatically justified in sensitive or criminal leaks and lying or misleading congressional oversight.
Trump leaves office, and everybody suddenly rediscovers that these are civil servants charged with a duty on investigations and oversight. The IG and an internal office at least appear to be concerned that justice doesn’t take four-year breaks under Republicans.
Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand.
In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
Ignore the evidence, focus on a tweet. Let’s just say, don’t perform in your job so badly that makes anyone have a reason to fire you and ought to fire you, much less when the boss up the chain is an asshole about the affair. Retiring with full benefits after that dereliction of duty would send the wrong message to our civil servants. I don’t care if you’re serving under Trump, Clinton, or the Jolly Green Giant.
See, rather than point out the millions of Americans who are forced to work in ways that leaves them in constant violation of protocol/corporate policy that Danglars and Republicans don't ever talk about, liberals want to bicker back and forth about the rumor on E! about what the subtext of a angry tweet was.
On March 17 2018 21:17 Gorsameth wrote:
On March 17 2018 21:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
On March 17 2018 21:03 Gorsameth wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:54 Gorsameth wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:41 Danglars wrote: [quote] In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
Is it also possible that Trump fired him for petty vindictive reasons that don't really matter legally or otherwise with consideration of the person, the org, and the allegations. That his pettiness only matters insomuch as it's being used to score political points against Trump/'the other side'. Perhaps, at the cost of legitimate criticisms/consistency about how problematic the FBI is or anyone who runs it?
That we've heard the heroified tales of integrity and decency that ignore the dark underbelly the Pence like pleasantries mask, from the left too much as of late?
Yes I think intent matters. If something ends up doing the right thing for the wrong reasons its still not a good thing. Especially for someone as powerful as the POTUS.
And I don't even know what you mean with that last bit. So we cant criticize Trump because then we would get Pence who is also bad? Bullshit.
"not a good thing" isn't a very infrequent occurrence at any level of government. I don't think this is a big deal.
As to the second part, I'm saying Comey's "Lordy, gee wilikers" act is very much like Pence's nice guy act, masking a deeper much more twisted person. And that this "how could Trump do such a thing, just days before getting benefits no less" is nauseating. If liberals cared half as much about the millions of people (who by the way don't run despicable organizations paid for in part with tax money from communities they helped destroy) similar things happen to year after year, we wouldn't have a president Trump to be fixated on in the first place.
Go ask some liberal's if they care about those millions of people. I'll wait. .. right, so they do care about that aswell. Gee who could have guessed it.
you wouldn't know it by watching liberal media, reading liberal papers, or following the posts of liberals in this thread. If you went by what they focus their attention on it's all Russia/Trump all the time, with an occasional pointing out how the government still sucks under Trump.
With a healthy helping of disdain toward all those who aren't obsessed with Russiagate like they are.
I’m waiting for Russia to have ordered his firing. Maybe that story will print in a month. The latest revelation that Tillerson can be a Russian stooge acting in office as a Russian stooge, but then fired because he was too tough on Russia opens up new realms of possibility for collusion accusations.
It's absolutely crazy at this point. I can't even get them to answer a simple question about what it means if Democrats voted to empower people they think we're all supposed to clearly see are Russian puppets.
I'm for a good spy novel as much as the next guy, but at least try to be able to answer simple questions about how this conspiracy holds together in your head (those that think this stuff).
The Russia conspiracy, like all conspiracies, is formless and nebulous, and can expand to include everything and nothing as required.
I think that's one reason why they are typically not allowed, but since this one has an incredibly loud echo chamber in the corporate sphere, it's tolerated. I honestly don't think it should be able to be brought up again without answering what seems to be a pretty straightforward and simple question about Democrat Senators voting to empower people these conspiracy theorists consider Russian puppets.
On March 17 2018 18:44 GreenHorizons wrote: I don't really understand all the empathy for McCabe or disagree that there are a lot of lies and corruption at the FBI. Or that McCabe came up under Comey and was an important part of the "counter terrorism" work at the FBI I mentioned before that both McCabe and Comey hang their hats on.
That's separate than the Russiagate stuff, but it pains me to see people that fancy themselves on the left loving so hard on the FBI lately, just to stick it to Trump.
Hmm. I've never been anti-FBI myself (or indeed other higher law enforcement; I generally view them as doing important work, though at times they get into shady territory), but I do see a vein of hypocrisy given how Comey himself was lambasted during Hilary's 'muh emails'.
Is there not a difference, though, between defending oneself against a perceived unfairness and attempting to actually destroy faith in the entire institution of the FBI?
I don't think it's an illiberal position to want to see reforms in the FBI AND wanting it defended against this public vandalism that Trump's engaging in. And whatever the position on McCabe, this stunt is a pure dick move that should be called out by absolutely everybody.
Not really "shady territory" as much as conspiring to assassinate US citizens. I suppose there's a lot bad stuff leading up to that, but that's pretty bad as an institution. Now, had someone actually been punished for that at some point, perhaps having faith in the FBI would be a reasonable proposition, but ya know, that didn't/won't happen. So it's pretty much a non-starter with me. Others do indeed find the ability to put faith in an institution that helped illegally spy on, threaten, and kill US citizens without ever imprisoning a single person responsible as a 'law enforcement' agency, but for me they remain a political enforcement agency deluded/masked by operating in the interest of "the law".
That would be like putting faith in the Catholic church to monitor a national discount daycare run almost exclusively by priests for sexual abuse.
I don't have an exhaustive understanding of the FBI so I may well be too kind towards it, but an organisation like the FBI is in the position of dealing with crimes at a higher level than the police. They deal with big stuff that has big consequences if they fuck it up, and the margin between justified action and unjustifiable abuse of power is pretty thin at times.
Take the example you linked. Was the FBI in the wrong? Yep. But can't you see a flipside article about how that guy murdered 50 people and 'THE FBI KNEW ABOUT THIS DANGEROUS TERRORIST AND DID NOTHING'?
They provided materiale, but the man himself said he wanted to do it. I think the FBI overstepped its bounds, but then I'd also say they should have done something if they hadn't and he'd become an actual terrorist. For all the article wanted to build a specific story, all I saw there was 'terrorist without means'. Maybe he'd never have done anything himself, but he sure could have if he'd fallen under the wing of an actual terrorist. I mean, that's exactly how terrorist cells are built. Usually one guy has the means, and the charisma to recruit a bunch of willing rubes who don't.
You and I get to judge from the sidelines because we don't have to make decisions that can cost dozens of lives. I suspect a lot of the time the FBI agents aren't 100% sure they're doing the right thing, but would rather not take the risk of doing the wrong thing.
What were you referring to on the assassination point, though? That does sound pretty bad.
Without beating a dead horse your counterpoint serves as an example of my previous point on policing.
The proposition is that there was a terrorist without means and either the FBI provides them or risks him doing something without their help and getting blamed.
I have an idea, how about trying to figure out why he thinks murdering a bunch of people is the only way to make things better (if he even did before the FBI talked them into it) and giving him the mental health/community resources needed to lower the probability of him doing something drastic, and not hyping him up, giving him fake materials, then patting yourself on the back for 'stopping' him.
Presuming he's not one of the many vulnerable/mentally ill people the FBI conned into going from internet/parking lot tough guy to attempted terrorist, and is genuinely a devout follower of the cause, the FBI wouldn't need to facilitate practically every move and talk them into doing something. Then they can consider something like a sting in the interest of public safety (though of course they can't be trusted to do such).
I mean there are plenty of allegations against the FBI, but one they got caught about as dead to rights as it gets on was the conspiracy with the Chicago police to assassinate Fred Hampton.
While I was interviewing the survivors, my partners went to the apartment. And when we gathered all the evidence, it turned out that the police had fired 90 shots into the apartment with a submachine gun, shotguns, pistols and a rifle. There was only one outgoing shot, and that came from a Panther who had been fatally wounded, and it was a vertical shot, after he was hit himself.
So, Hanrahan, who was—the police were assigned to the state’s attorney, a politically ambitious law-and-order prosecutor who wanted to get the political advantage of having attacked and taken out the Panthers, was on the TV that morning saying the Panthers opened fire. It turned out, we proved, that, quite to the contrary, it was a shoot-in, not a shootout.
What we uncovered years later—we also filed a civil rights suit after the charges were dropped against the Panthers. And in addition to proving, as I said, that it was a one-sided raid, that the police came in firing, the evidence also showed that Fred Hampton was in fact killed with two bullets, parallel bullets, fired into his head at point-blank range. He wasn’t killed with the bullets through the walls.
But what we uncovered was that the FBI had obtained a floor plan of Fred Hampton’s apartment. That floor plan was complete with all the furniture, including the bedroom where Hampton and Johnson slept and a rectangle showing the bed. And it turned out that this FBI informant, William O’Neal, and his control took that floor plan and gave it to Hanrahan’s raiders before the raid, so that they came in knowing the layout, knowing where Fred would be sleeping. And when we looked at the directions of the bullets, in fact, they converged on the bed where Fred Hampton was sleeping that morning.
Can you explain this a bit more? I don't really know who Fred was, or why he was assassinated, and would like to hear your thoughts on it since you linked it instead of trying to gain some water understanding from Wikipedia.
If you're really interested in learning more I suggest you watch this, or read the book from the person in the previously mentioned Democracy Now piece
But to sum it up:
Fred Hampton was a young Black-middle-class student who began organizing people in Chicago under the Black Panther banner. The goal was to provide security that the government wasn't, provide resources the government wasn't, and empower people to take control of their communities to address the problems the government wasn't. Such as poverty, hunger, violence, racism and basically everything that comes in the "do for self/bootstaps" propaganda often repeated by those on the right and left about black communities.
The government had two significant problems with it.
1. He was empowering oppressed people 2. He was doing it with a socialist philosophy.
They feared that instead of someone like Obama (not wanting to prosecute criminal bankers, imperialist, etc) being the first black president (meaning leading a national political movement) it might be someone like Fred Hampton (would be about the age of the 2016 candidates in 2016) and that terrified them.
Without the pretext of breaking laws, despite trying to write new ones to make what they were doing illegal, they were left with little choice but to assassinate him.
He did plenty of agitating of local instruments of the government so it wasn't hard to recruit the Chicago police to be the trigger men, and the FBI used a classic "betray your cause or lose your life" scheme to flip the head of Black Panther security (one of the most vocal anti-government members of the Chicago BP's) in order to obtain the information that they then passed to police to assassinate him.
Police did what they always do and lied and tried to cover up their crime, but the evidence against them was overwhelming. However, while this was sufficient for a civil judgement, the overwhelming evidence wasn't enough to yield any convictions for the people responsible. The AG won the Democratic party nomination the following election and Black people in Chicago supported the Republican candidate in record numbers and ousted the former AG (as close as they got to a 'punishment').
Before they assassinated Fred, they were shooting at his bedroom which had his pregnant partner in bed next to him. Then dragged him out and murdered him right there with her feet away.
It's worse than trying to blackmail MLK into suicide (another FBI oldie but goodie), and training terrorists so they can celebrate stopping them, and it's a stain they did nothing to remove.
They've also reinvigorated a modern COINTELLPRO targeting what they call "Black Identity Extremists" aka Black people that know the government is bending them over and would tell them to stop directly to their face.
Meanwhile the white terrorists that have been launching attacks over the last several years are nearly invisible to them...
So when people act as if the FBI is just a little shady or 'could be better' it indicates to me they either aren't aware of the FBI's long history of being anti-justice or they simply don't care, if it means they get an opportunity to snipe at Trump.
On March 17 2018 20:23 Danglars wrote: I share GH’s bewilderment at the left’s newfound love for the CIA and FBI. There’s too little caution about acting with impunity to trample civil liberties because Trump is so-bad and everybody is automatically justified in sensitive or criminal leaks and lying or misleading congressional oversight.
Trump leaves office, and everybody suddenly rediscovers that these are civil servants charged with a duty on investigations and oversight. The IG and an internal office at least appear to be concerned that justice doesn’t take four-year breaks under Republicans.
Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand.
In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
Ignore the evidence, focus on a tweet. Let’s just say, don’t perform in your job so badly that makes anyone have a reason to fire you and ought to fire you, much less when the boss up the chain is an asshole about the affair. Retiring with full benefits after that dereliction of duty would send the wrong message to our civil servants. I don’t care if you’re serving under Trump, Clinton, or the Jolly Green Giant.
See, rather than point out the millions of Americans who are forced to work in ways that leaves them in constant violation of protocol/corporate policy that Danglars and Republicans don't ever talk about, liberals want to bicker back and forth about the rumor on E! about what the subtext of a angry tweet was.
On March 17 2018 21:17 Gorsameth wrote:
On March 17 2018 21:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
On March 17 2018 21:03 Gorsameth wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:54 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
Is it also possible that Trump fired him for petty vindictive reasons that don't really matter legally or otherwise with consideration of the person, the org, and the allegations. That his pettiness only matters insomuch as it's being used to score political points against Trump/'the other side'. Perhaps, at the cost of legitimate criticisms/consistency about how problematic the FBI is or anyone who runs it?
That we've heard the heroified tales of integrity and decency that ignore the dark underbelly the Pence like pleasantries mask, from the left too much as of late?
Yes I think intent matters. If something ends up doing the right thing for the wrong reasons its still not a good thing. Especially for someone as powerful as the POTUS.
And I don't even know what you mean with that last bit. So we cant criticize Trump because then we would get Pence who is also bad? Bullshit.
"not a good thing" isn't a very infrequent occurrence at any level of government. I don't think this is a big deal.
As to the second part, I'm saying Comey's "Lordy, gee wilikers" act is very much like Pence's nice guy act, masking a deeper much more twisted person. And that this "how could Trump do such a thing, just days before getting benefits no less" is nauseating. If liberals cared half as much about the millions of people (who by the way don't run despicable organizations paid for in part with tax money from communities they helped destroy) similar things happen to year after year, we wouldn't have a president Trump to be fixated on in the first place.
Go ask some liberal's if they care about those millions of people. I'll wait. .. right, so they do care about that aswell. Gee who could have guessed it.
you wouldn't know it by watching liberal media, reading liberal papers, or following the posts of liberals in this thread. If you went by what they focus their attention on it's all Russia/Trump all the time, with an occasional pointing out how the government still sucks under Trump.
With a healthy helping of disdain toward all those who aren't obsessed with Russiagate like they are.
I’m waiting for Russia to have ordered his firing. Maybe that story will print in a month. The latest revelation that Tillerson can be a Russian stooge acting in office as a Russian stooge, but then fired because he was too tough on Russia opens up new realms of possibility for collusion accusations.
It's absolutely crazy at this point. I can't even get them to answer a simple question about what it means if Democrats voted to empower people they think we're all supposed to clearly see are Russian puppets.
I'm for a good spy novel as much as the next guy, but at least try to be able to answer simple questions about how this conspiracy holds together in your head (those that think this stuff).
The Russia conspiracy, like all conspiracies, is formless and nebulous, and can expand to include everything and nothing as required.
I think that's one reason why they are typically not allowed, but since this one has an incredibly loud echo chamber in the corporate sphere, it's tolerated. I honestly don't think it should be able to be brought up again without answering what seems to be a pretty straightforward and simple question about Democrat Senators voting to empower people these conspiracy theorists consider Russian puppets.
Thank you. I'll be watching this as soon as I have some spare time.
On March 17 2018 18:44 GreenHorizons wrote: I don't really understand all the empathy for McCabe or disagree that there are a lot of lies and corruption at the FBI. Or that McCabe came up under Comey and was an important part of the "counter terrorism" work at the FBI I mentioned before that both McCabe and Comey hang their hats on.
That's separate than the Russiagate stuff, but it pains me to see people that fancy themselves on the left loving so hard on the FBI lately, just to stick it to Trump.
Hmm. I've never been anti-FBI myself (or indeed other higher law enforcement; I generally view them as doing important work, though at times they get into shady territory), but I do see a vein of hypocrisy given how Comey himself was lambasted during Hilary's 'muh emails'.
Is there not a difference, though, between defending oneself against a perceived unfairness and attempting to actually destroy faith in the entire institution of the FBI?
I don't think it's an illiberal position to want to see reforms in the FBI AND wanting it defended against this public vandalism that Trump's engaging in. And whatever the position on McCabe, this stunt is a pure dick move that should be called out by absolutely everybody.
Not really "shady territory" as much as conspiring to assassinate US citizens. I suppose there's a lot bad stuff leading up to that, but that's pretty bad as an institution. Now, had someone actually been punished for that at some point, perhaps having faith in the FBI would be a reasonable proposition, but ya know, that didn't/won't happen. So it's pretty much a non-starter with me. Others do indeed find the ability to put faith in an institution that helped illegally spy on, threaten, and kill US citizens without ever imprisoning a single person responsible as a 'law enforcement' agency, but for me they remain a political enforcement agency deluded/masked by operating in the interest of "the law".
That would be like putting faith in the Catholic church to monitor a national discount daycare run almost exclusively by priests for sexual abuse.
I don't have an exhaustive understanding of the FBI so I may well be too kind towards it, but an organisation like the FBI is in the position of dealing with crimes at a higher level than the police. They deal with big stuff that has big consequences if they fuck it up, and the margin between justified action and unjustifiable abuse of power is pretty thin at times.
Take the example you linked. Was the FBI in the wrong? Yep. But can't you see a flipside article about how that guy murdered 50 people and 'THE FBI KNEW ABOUT THIS DANGEROUS TERRORIST AND DID NOTHING'?
They provided materiale, but the man himself said he wanted to do it. I think the FBI overstepped its bounds, but then I'd also say they should have done something if they hadn't and he'd become an actual terrorist. For all the article wanted to build a specific story, all I saw there was 'terrorist without means'. Maybe he'd never have done anything himself, but he sure could have if he'd fallen under the wing of an actual terrorist. I mean, that's exactly how terrorist cells are built. Usually one guy has the means, and the charisma to recruit a bunch of willing rubes who don't.
You and I get to judge from the sidelines because we don't have to make decisions that can cost dozens of lives. I suspect a lot of the time the FBI agents aren't 100% sure they're doing the right thing, but would rather not take the risk of doing the wrong thing.
What were you referring to on the assassination point, though? That does sound pretty bad.
Without beating a dead horse your counterpoint serves as an example of my previous point on policing.
The proposition is that there was a terrorist without means and either the FBI provides them or risks him doing something without their help and getting blamed.
I have an idea, how about trying to figure out why he thinks murdering a bunch of people is the only way to make things better (if he even did before the FBI talked them into it) and giving him the mental health/community resources needed to lower the probability of him doing something drastic, and not hyping him up, giving him fake materials, then patting yourself on the back for 'stopping' him.
Presuming he's not one of the many vulnerable/mentally ill people the FBI conned into going from internet/parking lot tough guy to attempted terrorist, and is genuinely a devout follower of the cause, the FBI wouldn't need to facilitate practically every move and talk them into doing something. Then they can consider something like a sting in the interest of public safety (though of course they can't be trusted to do such).
I mean there are plenty of allegations against the FBI, but one they got caught about as dead to rights as it gets on was the conspiracy with the Chicago police to assassinate Fred Hampton.
While I was interviewing the survivors, my partners went to the apartment. And when we gathered all the evidence, it turned out that the police had fired 90 shots into the apartment with a submachine gun, shotguns, pistols and a rifle. There was only one outgoing shot, and that came from a Panther who had been fatally wounded, and it was a vertical shot, after he was hit himself.
So, Hanrahan, who was—the police were assigned to the state’s attorney, a politically ambitious law-and-order prosecutor who wanted to get the political advantage of having attacked and taken out the Panthers, was on the TV that morning saying the Panthers opened fire. It turned out, we proved, that, quite to the contrary, it was a shoot-in, not a shootout.
What we uncovered years later—we also filed a civil rights suit after the charges were dropped against the Panthers. And in addition to proving, as I said, that it was a one-sided raid, that the police came in firing, the evidence also showed that Fred Hampton was in fact killed with two bullets, parallel bullets, fired into his head at point-blank range. He wasn’t killed with the bullets through the walls.
But what we uncovered was that the FBI had obtained a floor plan of Fred Hampton’s apartment. That floor plan was complete with all the furniture, including the bedroom where Hampton and Johnson slept and a rectangle showing the bed. And it turned out that this FBI informant, William O’Neal, and his control took that floor plan and gave it to Hanrahan’s raiders before the raid, so that they came in knowing the layout, knowing where Fred would be sleeping. And when we looked at the directions of the bullets, in fact, they converged on the bed where Fred Hampton was sleeping that morning.
Can you explain this a bit more? I don't really know who Fred was, or why he was assassinated, and would like to hear your thoughts on it since you linked it instead of trying to gain some water understanding from Wikipedia.
If you're really interested in learning more I suggest you watch this, or read the book from the person in the previously mentioned Democracy Now piece
Fred Hampton was a young Black-middle-class student who began organizing people in Chicago under the Black Panther banner. The goal was to provide security that the government wasn't, provide resources the government wasn't, and empower people to take control of their communities to address the problems the government wasn't. Such as poverty, hunger, violence, racism and basically everything that comes in the "do for self/bootstaps" propaganda often repeated by those on the right and left about black communities.
The government had two significant problems with it.
1. He was empowering oppressed people 2. He was doing it with a socialist philosophy.
They feared that instead of someone like Obama (not wanting to prosecute criminal bankers, imperialist, etc) being the first black president (meaning leading a national political movement) it might be someone like Fred Hampton (would be about the age of the 2016 candidates in 2016) and that terrified them.
Without the pretext of breaking laws, despite trying to write new ones to make what they were doing illegal, they were left with little choice but to assassinate him.
He did plenty of agitating of local instruments of the government so it wasn't hard to recruit the Chicago police to be the trigger men, and the FBI used a classic "betray your cause or lose your life" scheme to flip the head of Black Panther security (one of the most vocal anti-government members of the Chicago BP's) in order to obtain the information that they then passed to police to assassinate him.
Police did what they always do and lied and tried to cover up their crime, but the evidence against them was overwhelming. However, while this was sufficient for a civil judgement, the overwhelming evidence wasn't enough to yield any convictions for the people responsible. The AG won the Democratic party nomination the following election and Black people in Chicago supported the Republican candidate in record numbers and ousted the former AG (as close as they got to a 'punishment').
Before they assassinated Fred, they were shooting at his bedroom which had his pregnant partner in bed next to him. Then dragged him out and murdered him right there with her feet away.
It's worse than trying to blackmail MLK into suicide (another FBI oldie but goodie), and training terrorists so they can celebrate stopping them, and it's a stain they did nothing to remove.
They've also reinvigorated a modern COINTELLPRO targeting what they call "Black Identity Extremists" aka Black people that know the government is bending them over and would tell them to stop directly to their face.
Meanwhile the white terrorists that have been launching attacks over the last several years are nearly invisible to them...
So when people act as if the FBI is just a little shady or 'could be better' it indicates to me they either aren't aware of the FBI's long history of being anti-justice or they simply don't care, if it means they get an opportunity to snipe at Trump.
On March 17 2018 21:51 iamthedave wrote:
On March 17 2018 21:26 GreenHorizons wrote:
On March 17 2018 21:24 Danglars wrote:
On March 17 2018 21:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
On March 17 2018 21:15 Danglars wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:54 Gorsameth wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:41 Danglars wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:28 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand.
In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
Ignore the evidence, focus on a tweet. Let’s just say, don’t perform in your job so badly that makes anyone have a reason to fire you and ought to fire you, much less when the boss up the chain is an asshole about the affair. Retiring with full benefits after that dereliction of duty would send the wrong message to our civil servants. I don’t care if you’re serving under Trump, Clinton, or the Jolly Green Giant.
See, rather than point out the millions of Americans who are forced to work in ways that leaves them in constant violation of protocol/corporate policy that Danglars and Republicans don't ever talk about, liberals want to bicker back and forth about the rumor on E! about what the subtext of a angry tweet was.
On March 17 2018 21:17 Gorsameth wrote:
On March 17 2018 21:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
On March 17 2018 21:03 Gorsameth wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:58 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Is it also possible that Trump fired him for petty vindictive reasons that don't really matter legally or otherwise with consideration of the person, the org, and the allegations. That his pettiness only matters insomuch as it's being used to score political points against Trump/'the other side'. Perhaps, at the cost of legitimate criticisms/consistency about how problematic the FBI is or anyone who runs it?
That we've heard the heroified tales of integrity and decency that ignore the dark underbelly the Pence like pleasantries mask, from the left too much as of late?
Yes I think intent matters. If something ends up doing the right thing for the wrong reasons its still not a good thing. Especially for someone as powerful as the POTUS.
And I don't even know what you mean with that last bit. So we cant criticize Trump because then we would get Pence who is also bad? Bullshit.
"not a good thing" isn't a very infrequent occurrence at any level of government. I don't think this is a big deal.
As to the second part, I'm saying Comey's "Lordy, gee wilikers" act is very much like Pence's nice guy act, masking a deeper much more twisted person. And that this "how could Trump do such a thing, just days before getting benefits no less" is nauseating. If liberals cared half as much about the millions of people (who by the way don't run despicable organizations paid for in part with tax money from communities they helped destroy) similar things happen to year after year, we wouldn't have a president Trump to be fixated on in the first place.
Go ask some liberal's if they care about those millions of people. I'll wait. .. right, so they do care about that aswell. Gee who could have guessed it.
you wouldn't know it by watching liberal media, reading liberal papers, or following the posts of liberals in this thread. If you went by what they focus their attention on it's all Russia/Trump all the time, with an occasional pointing out how the government still sucks under Trump.
With a healthy helping of disdain toward all those who aren't obsessed with Russiagate like they are.
I’m waiting for Russia to have ordered his firing. Maybe that story will print in a month. The latest revelation that Tillerson can be a Russian stooge acting in office as a Russian stooge, but then fired because he was too tough on Russia opens up new realms of possibility for collusion accusations.
It's absolutely crazy at this point. I can't even get them to answer a simple question about what it means if Democrats voted to empower people they think we're all supposed to clearly see are Russian puppets.
I'm for a good spy novel as much as the next guy, but at least try to be able to answer simple questions about how this conspiracy holds together in your head (those that think this stuff).
The Russia conspiracy, like all conspiracies, is formless and nebulous, and can expand to include everything and nothing as required.
I think that's one reason why they are typically not allowed, but since this one has an incredibly loud echo chamber in the corporate sphere, it's tolerated. I honestly don't think it should be able to be brought up again without answering what seems to be a pretty straightforward and simple question about Democrat Senators voting to empower people these conspiracy theorists consider Russian puppets.
Thank you. I'll be watching this as soon as I have some spare time.
I appreciate you wanting to know more. After you do, ask yourself why they don't teach about him in Chicago schools, or any US schools really (save liberation oriented ones), prior to college.
On March 17 2018 18:44 GreenHorizons wrote: I don't really understand all the empathy for McCabe or disagree that there are a lot of lies and corruption at the FBI. Or that McCabe came up under Comey and was an important part of the "counter terrorism" work at the FBI I mentioned before that both McCabe and Comey hang their hats on.
That's separate than the Russiagate stuff, but it pains me to see people that fancy themselves on the left loving so hard on the FBI lately, just to stick it to Trump.
Hmm. I've never been anti-FBI myself (or indeed other higher law enforcement; I generally view them as doing important work, though at times they get into shady territory), but I do see a vein of hypocrisy given how Comey himself was lambasted during Hilary's 'muh emails'.
Is there not a difference, though, between defending oneself against a perceived unfairness and attempting to actually destroy faith in the entire institution of the FBI?
I don't think it's an illiberal position to want to see reforms in the FBI AND wanting it defended against this public vandalism that Trump's engaging in. And whatever the position on McCabe, this stunt is a pure dick move that should be called out by absolutely everybody.
Not really "shady territory" as much as conspiring to assassinate US citizens. I suppose there's a lot bad stuff leading up to that, but that's pretty bad as an institution. Now, had someone actually been punished for that at some point, perhaps having faith in the FBI would be a reasonable proposition, but ya know, that didn't/won't happen. So it's pretty much a non-starter with me. Others do indeed find the ability to put faith in an institution that helped illegally spy on, threaten, and kill US citizens without ever imprisoning a single person responsible as a 'law enforcement' agency, but for me they remain a political enforcement agency deluded/masked by operating in the interest of "the law".
That would be like putting faith in the Catholic church to monitor a national discount daycare run almost exclusively by priests for sexual abuse.
I don't have an exhaustive understanding of the FBI so I may well be too kind towards it, but an organisation like the FBI is in the position of dealing with crimes at a higher level than the police. They deal with big stuff that has big consequences if they fuck it up, and the margin between justified action and unjustifiable abuse of power is pretty thin at times.
Take the example you linked. Was the FBI in the wrong? Yep. But can't you see a flipside article about how that guy murdered 50 people and 'THE FBI KNEW ABOUT THIS DANGEROUS TERRORIST AND DID NOTHING'?
They provided materiale, but the man himself said he wanted to do it. I think the FBI overstepped its bounds, but then I'd also say they should have done something if they hadn't and he'd become an actual terrorist. For all the article wanted to build a specific story, all I saw there was 'terrorist without means'. Maybe he'd never have done anything himself, but he sure could have if he'd fallen under the wing of an actual terrorist. I mean, that's exactly how terrorist cells are built. Usually one guy has the means, and the charisma to recruit a bunch of willing rubes who don't.
You and I get to judge from the sidelines because we don't have to make decisions that can cost dozens of lives. I suspect a lot of the time the FBI agents aren't 100% sure they're doing the right thing, but would rather not take the risk of doing the wrong thing.
What were you referring to on the assassination point, though? That does sound pretty bad.
Without beating a dead horse your counterpoint serves as an example of my previous point on policing.
The proposition is that there was a terrorist without means and either the FBI provides them or risks him doing something without their help and getting blamed.
I have an idea, how about trying to figure out why he thinks murdering a bunch of people is the only way to make things better (if he even did before the FBI talked them into it) and giving him the mental health/community resources needed to lower the probability of him doing something drastic, and not hyping him up, giving him fake materials, then patting yourself on the back for 'stopping' him.
Presuming he's not one of the many vulnerable/mentally ill people the FBI conned into going from internet/parking lot tough guy to attempted terrorist, and is genuinely a devout follower of the cause, the FBI wouldn't need to facilitate practically every move and talk them into doing something. Then they can consider something like a sting in the interest of public safety (though of course they can't be trusted to do such).
I mean there are plenty of allegations against the FBI, but one they got caught about as dead to rights as it gets on was the conspiracy with the Chicago police to assassinate Fred Hampton.
While I was interviewing the survivors, my partners went to the apartment. And when we gathered all the evidence, it turned out that the police had fired 90 shots into the apartment with a submachine gun, shotguns, pistols and a rifle. There was only one outgoing shot, and that came from a Panther who had been fatally wounded, and it was a vertical shot, after he was hit himself.
So, Hanrahan, who was—the police were assigned to the state’s attorney, a politically ambitious law-and-order prosecutor who wanted to get the political advantage of having attacked and taken out the Panthers, was on the TV that morning saying the Panthers opened fire. It turned out, we proved, that, quite to the contrary, it was a shoot-in, not a shootout.
What we uncovered years later—we also filed a civil rights suit after the charges were dropped against the Panthers. And in addition to proving, as I said, that it was a one-sided raid, that the police came in firing, the evidence also showed that Fred Hampton was in fact killed with two bullets, parallel bullets, fired into his head at point-blank range. He wasn’t killed with the bullets through the walls.
But what we uncovered was that the FBI had obtained a floor plan of Fred Hampton’s apartment. That floor plan was complete with all the furniture, including the bedroom where Hampton and Johnson slept and a rectangle showing the bed. And it turned out that this FBI informant, William O’Neal, and his control took that floor plan and gave it to Hanrahan’s raiders before the raid, so that they came in knowing the layout, knowing where Fred would be sleeping. And when we looked at the directions of the bullets, in fact, they converged on the bed where Fred Hampton was sleeping that morning.
Can you explain this a bit more? I don't really know who Fred was, or why he was assassinated, and would like to hear your thoughts on it since you linked it instead of trying to gain some water understanding from Wikipedia.
If you're really interested in learning more I suggest you watch this, or read the book from the person in the previously mentioned Democracy Now piece
Fred Hampton was a young Black-middle-class student who began organizing people in Chicago under the Black Panther banner. The goal was to provide security that the government wasn't, provide resources the government wasn't, and empower people to take control of their communities to address the problems the government wasn't. Such as poverty, hunger, violence, racism and basically everything that comes in the "do for self/bootstaps" propaganda often repeated by those on the right and left about black communities.
The government had two significant problems with it.
1. He was empowering oppressed people 2. He was doing it with a socialist philosophy.
They feared that instead of someone like Obama (not wanting to prosecute criminal bankers, imperialist, etc) being the first black president (meaning leading a national political movement) it might be someone like Fred Hampton (would be about the age of the 2016 candidates in 2016) and that terrified them.
Without the pretext of breaking laws, despite trying to write new ones to make what they were doing illegal, they were left with little choice but to assassinate him.
He did plenty of agitating of local instruments of the government so it wasn't hard to recruit the Chicago police to be the trigger men, and the FBI used a classic "betray your cause or lose your life" scheme to flip the head of Black Panther security (one of the most vocal anti-government members of the Chicago BP's) in order to obtain the information that they then passed to police to assassinate him.
Police did what they always do and lied and tried to cover up their crime, but the evidence against them was overwhelming. However, while this was sufficient for a civil judgement, the overwhelming evidence wasn't enough to yield any convictions for the people responsible. The AG won the Democratic party nomination the following election and Black people in Chicago supported the Republican candidate in record numbers and ousted the former AG (as close as they got to a 'punishment').
Before they assassinated Fred, they were shooting at his bedroom which had his pregnant partner in bed next to him. Then dragged him out and murdered him right there with her feet away.
It's worse than trying to blackmail MLK into suicide (another FBI oldie but goodie), and training terrorists so they can celebrate stopping them, and it's a stain they did nothing to remove.
They've also reinvigorated a modern COINTELLPRO targeting what they call "Black Identity Extremists" aka Black people that know the government is bending them over and would tell them to stop directly to their face.
Meanwhile the white terrorists that have been launching attacks over the last several years are nearly invisible to them...
So when people act as if the FBI is just a little shady or 'could be better' it indicates to me they either aren't aware of the FBI's long history of being anti-justice or they simply don't care, if it means they get an opportunity to snipe at Trump.
On March 17 2018 20:23 Danglars wrote: I share GH’s bewilderment at the left’s newfound love for the CIA and FBI. There’s too little caution about acting with impunity to trample civil liberties because Trump is so-bad and everybody is automatically justified in sensitive or criminal leaks and lying or misleading congressional oversight.
Trump leaves office, and everybody suddenly rediscovers that these are civil servants charged with a duty on investigations and oversight. The IG and an internal office at least appear to be concerned that justice doesn’t take four-year breaks under Republicans.
Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand.
In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on.
I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
Ignore the evidence, focus on a tweet. Let’s just say, don’t perform in your job so badly that makes anyone have a reason to fire you and ought to fire you, much less when the boss up the chain is an asshole about the affair. Retiring with full benefits after that dereliction of duty would send the wrong message to our civil servants. I don’t care if you’re serving under Trump, Clinton, or the Jolly Green Giant.
See, rather than point out the millions of Americans who are forced to work in ways that leaves them in constant violation of protocol/corporate policy that Danglars and Republicans don't ever talk about, liberals want to bicker back and forth about the rumor on E! about what the subtext of a angry tweet was.
On March 17 2018 21:17 Gorsameth wrote:
On March 17 2018 21:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
On March 17 2018 21:03 Gorsameth wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
On March 17 2018 20:54 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired.
All just pure coincidence...
(note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway.
Is it also possible that Trump fired him for petty vindictive reasons that don't really matter legally or otherwise with consideration of the person, the org, and the allegations. That his pettiness only matters insomuch as it's being used to score political points against Trump/'the other side'. Perhaps, at the cost of legitimate criticisms/consistency about how problematic the FBI is or anyone who runs it?
That we've heard the heroified tales of integrity and decency that ignore the dark underbelly the Pence like pleasantries mask, from the left too much as of late?
Yes I think intent matters. If something ends up doing the right thing for the wrong reasons its still not a good thing. Especially for someone as powerful as the POTUS.
And I don't even know what you mean with that last bit. So we cant criticize Trump because then we would get Pence who is also bad? Bullshit.
"not a good thing" isn't a very infrequent occurrence at any level of government. I don't think this is a big deal.
As to the second part, I'm saying Comey's "Lordy, gee wilikers" act is very much like Pence's nice guy act, masking a deeper much more twisted person. And that this "how could Trump do such a thing, just days before getting benefits no less" is nauseating. If liberals cared half as much about the millions of people (who by the way don't run despicable organizations paid for in part with tax money from communities they helped destroy) similar things happen to year after year, we wouldn't have a president Trump to be fixated on in the first place.
Go ask some liberal's if they care about those millions of people. I'll wait. .. right, so they do care about that aswell. Gee who could have guessed it.
you wouldn't know it by watching liberal media, reading liberal papers, or following the posts of liberals in this thread. If you went by what they focus their attention on it's all Russia/Trump all the time, with an occasional pointing out how the government still sucks under Trump.
With a healthy helping of disdain toward all those who aren't obsessed with Russiagate like they are.
I’m waiting for Russia to have ordered his firing. Maybe that story will print in a month. The latest revelation that Tillerson can be a Russian stooge acting in office as a Russian stooge, but then fired because he was too tough on Russia opens up new realms of possibility for collusion accusations.
It's absolutely crazy at this point. I can't even get them to answer a simple question about what it means if Democrats voted to empower people they think we're all supposed to clearly see are Russian puppets.
I'm for a good spy novel as much as the next guy, but at least try to be able to answer simple questions about how this conspiracy holds together in your head (those that think this stuff).
The Russia conspiracy, like all conspiracies, is formless and nebulous, and can expand to include everything and nothing as required.
I think that's one reason why they are typically not allowed, but since this one has an incredibly loud echo chamber in the corporate sphere, it's tolerated. I honestly don't think it should be able to be brought up again without answering what seems to be a pretty straightforward and simple question about Democrat Senators voting to empower people these conspiracy theorists consider Russian puppets.
I believe you're making an error of analysis here. The conspiracy theory has expanded to ridiculous proportions, but there's definitely something going on. Until such time as the Mueller investigation concludes discussion of it seems reasonable to me, and I imagine afterwards TL moderators will shut it down provided it gets properly debunked. It's blabbering on about debunked theories that's the problem.
I too will watch that documentary when I have time.
Has this sort of thing happened recently, do you know?
I don't believe the FBI is as badly damaged as the police force in terms of its ability to carry out its operations. Not yet, at least. It seems quite likely that after this administration it might well be. We'll have to see how the next administration deals with it. The FBI seems to me both more likely to get reforms put upon it (it's an actual threat to the government, so keeping it in some degree of check makes sense, and a rogue FBI could do untold damage) and more reformable than the US police force; it's smaller, for one thing, and thus much more manageable if someone actually wants to manage it.
As for why the man isn't taught about - before having seen the documentary - I'm pretty sure the answer will be: Because US history is shit and history books get edited to remove the nastier bits on a regular basis so people can be comfortable in thinking America is teh BESTEST.
EPT
