US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6544

On January 12 2017 03:09 Sermokala wrote:

The true information that CNN reported on was that trump was briefed ON MEMOS. CNN can't verify what the memos are nor what they contained. This means that what Trump was briefed on is rumor and hearsay.

Comey's letter is in a different world considering it was in response to an already made public investigation. The briefing and the memos in question are not public and have nothing behind the allegation of what they contain(ed). They could have been in truth about anything else and nothing would change about what CNN reported on thats the problem.

On January 12 2017 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Comey makes an announcement that next week he has dirt on Hillary. Next week comes by and he shows us emails related to Weiner.

Once again, the information was fairly meaningless because there was no dirt on Hillary. Comey knew that. But he presented it as evidence against Hillary before even telling us what it was, and even though the investigation was over since July, he decided to wait until November to announce.

The anger was from how he attempted to create a feeling of there being evidence against Hillary to rile up anti-hillary sentiments. Not the actual emails he shared because, once again, there were no emails showing any wrongdoing.

On January 12 2017 03:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:


The same CNN sources saying the briefing occurred corroborated that a 2-page synopsis of the oppo research from the MI6 agent was in the briefing.

On January 12 2017 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Comey makes an announcement that next week he has dirt on Hillary. Next week comes by and he shows us emails related to Weiner.

Once again, the information was fairly meaningless because there was no dirt on Hillary. Comey knew that. But he presented it as evidence against Hillary before even telling us what it was, and even though the investigation was over since July, he decided to wait until November to announce.

The anger was from how he attempted to create a feeling of there being evidence against Hillary to rile up anti-hillary sentiments. Not the actual emails he shared because, once again, there were no emails showing any wrongdoing.

On January 12 2017 03:38 Sermokala wrote:

You're missing the point. The content of what comey said has nothing to do with what he did. Comey made an announcement that his previous statement has to be changed temporarily in light of possible new information. He makes the announcement later that the new information didn't change anything. He had to make these statements as a CYA move because the investigation was made public.

The difference here is that there is a name behind what Comey did and its Comey.

On January 12 2017 03:12 zlefin wrote:

i'm not being hyperpartisan, you are
biden also didn't in fact do it, not like the republicans did here. that's a canard they feed people so they feel better about their improper decision.
the senate didn't confirm or reject him, they didn't address it at all, which is a patent violation of the system. they abjectly refused to considre the matter, which is clearly improper.

i think it about the border and the ACA because i'm correct. more border enforcement might be fine and reasonable, the wall is dumb. arguments have been made about the ACA, an actual factual look at the evidence shows it's unimpressive and poor, helps some and hurts others a little bit. making a superior replacement would be easy from a design standpoint, not so easy politically. the ACA did fix some things, and it's not at all clear that what's done will be better.
and the notion of an "activist" supreme court is just the usual partisan nonsense not actually based in reality.
you also failed to answer the core questions on waht can even constitute maga. so i'll assume you're just like the 85% or so of americans who have opinions but have a poor and wrong factual basis for their beliefs, heavily covered by partisan bias.

On January 12 2017 03:33 xDaunt wrote:

I didn't like that Comey published that letter in the week before the election without backing it up with serious evidence. However, I understand why Comey did it as a purely CYA move for himself. He was damned if he released the letter and damned if he didn't. His circumstances were very different from those faced by a news organization such as CNN deciding whether to publish what is, on its face, a gossip column.

On January 12 2017 03:42 On_Slaught wrote:
So apparently the Law firm working with Trump won Russian law firm of the year? I'm sure it's just coincidence #136. Regardless, bad optics.

As for the press conference, it was just as embarrassing and dangerous as I expected. Guy is a ticking time bomb. His major fuck up is a question of when not if.

(Can't see how anybody could disagree about the ticking time bomb part)

On January 12 2017 04:11 Danglars wrote:
I'm now expecting a Semantics Style Guide from a WaPo or NYT delineating what is allowed to be called fake news, and those bright-line differences with false news stories, gossip columns masquerading as news, unsubstantiated thinly-sourced essentially-op-eds placed on news pages, and opinion columns pretending to be fact checks. Next, we'll hear why the first one is uniquely damaging.

And finally, why Trump is a bad person for twisting the term fake news to mean things outside Big-Journo semantic mainstream. Anybody taking over/under bets on how long, if ever, until big j-school grads recognize this pointless demonstration is only further hurting their credibility to report the news and analyze it?

We made it clear that we were not publishing any of the details of the 35-page document because we have not corroborated the report's allegations. Given that members of the Trump transition team have so vocally criticized our reporting, we encourage them to identify, specifically, what they believe to be inaccurate.

On January 12 2017 03:36 Sermokala wrote:

The sources are the problem though without a name or trust beyond the organization that is CNN theres nothing to argue against that its fake. Trump can say that its fake news and theres nothing CNN or anyone who supports CNN can argue against him on that. Not to mention the former MI6 agent is retained by someone who benefits from this story regardless of its credibility.

On January 12 2017 03:27 mustaju wrote:

This attack here is unnecessary. The only way America can be functional/great is when people can move past partisanship bias, it's true, but holier than thou statements just destroy potential common ground.
I think one way to look at the Trump presidency is to look how the more than 60 million people who voted against him will benefit/lose. What sort of place, if any, exists for the millions of people holding an unfavorable view of him? Will the benefits his supporters get outweigh the costs?

On January 12 2017 04:11 Danglars wrote:
I'm now expecting a Semantics Style Guide from a WaPo or NYT delineating what is allowed to be called fake news, and those bright-line differences with false news stories, gossip columns masquerading as news, unsubstantiated thinly-sourced essentially-op-eds placed on news pages, and opinion columns pretending to be fact checks. Next, we'll hear why the first one is uniquely damaging.

And finally, why Trump is a bad person for twisting the term fake news to mean things outside Big-Journo semantic mainstream. Anybody taking over/under bets on how long, if ever, until big j-school grads recognize this pointless demonstration is only further hurting their credibility to report the news and analyze it?

On January 12 2017 04:11 Danglars wrote:
I'm now expecting a Semantics Style Guide from a WaPo or NYT delineating what is allowed to be called fake news, and those bright-line differences with false news stories, gossip columns masquerading as news, unsubstantiated thinly-sourced essentially-op-eds placed on news pages, and opinion columns pretending to be fact checks. Next, we'll hear why the first one is uniquely damaging.

And finally, why Trump is a bad person for twisting the term fake news to mean things outside Big-Journo semantic mainstream. Anybody taking over/under bets on how long, if ever, until big j-school grads recognize this pointless demonstration is only further hurting their credibility to report the news and analyze it?

On January 12 2017 03:45 Danglars wrote:

I'll wait for your accompanying denouncement of Biden for vocally advocating for such an unconstitutional matter. Otherwise, I'm left thinking you're more opposed based on the party than on the principle.

And yes, I am also aware you think the facts support your side of the story. I mean, do we have to rehash why both sides think the other doesn't have a leg to stand on? You have learned the answers to your previous questions, so move on.

On January 12 2017 03:42 On_Slaught wrote:
So apparently the Law firm working with Trump won Russian law firm of the year? I'm sure it's just coincidence #136. Regardless, bad optics.

As for the press conference, it was just as embarrassing and dangerous as I expected. Guy is a ticking time bomb. His major fuck up is a question of when not if.

(Can't see how anybody could disagree about the ticking time bomb part)

IN JANUARY, 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered his farewell address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans of this specific threat to democracy: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” That warning was issued prior to the decadelong escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction’s power even further.

This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as “Fake News.”

Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as a systemic collapse of their party, seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing — eager — to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging those behaviors might be.

The serious dangers posed by a Trump presidency are numerous and manifest. There are a wide array of legitimate and effective tactics for combatting those threats: from bipartisan congressional coalitions and constitutional legal challenges to citizen uprisings and sustained and aggressive civil disobedience. All of those strategies have periodically proven themselves effective in times of political crisis or authoritarian overreach.

But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive. Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth — despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie — is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality. And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.

Beyond all that, there is no bigger favor that Trump opponents can do for him than attacking him with such lowly, shabby, obvious shams, recruiting large media outlets to lead the way. When it comes time to expose actual Trump corruption and criminality, who is going to believe the people and institutions who have demonstrated they are willing to endorse any assertions no matter how factually baseless, who deploy any journalistic tactic no matter how unreliable and removed from basic means of ensuring accuracy?

All of these toxic ingredients were on full display yesterday as the Deep State unleashed its tawdriest and most aggressive assault yet on Trump: vesting credibility in and then causing the public disclosure of a completely unvetted and unverified document, compiled by a paid, anonymous operative while he was working for both GOP and Democratic opponents of Trump, accusing Trump of a wide range of crimes, corrupt acts and salacious private conduct. The reaction to all of this illustrates that while the Trump presidency poses grave dangers, so, too, do those who are increasingly unhinged in their flailing, slapdash, and destructive attempts to undermine it.
....
One can certainly object to Buzzfeed’s decision and, as the New York Times notes this morning, many journalists are doing so. It’s almost impossible to imagine a scenario where it’s justifiable for a news outlet to publish a totally anonymous, unverified, unvetted document filled with scurrilous and inflammatory allegations about which its own editor-in-chief says there “is serious reason to doubt the allegations,” on the ground that they want to leave it to the public to decide whether to believe it.

But even if one believes there is no such case where that is justified, yesterday’s circumstances presented the most compelling scenario possible for doing this. Once CNN strongly hinted at these allegations, it left it to the public imagination to conjure up the dirt Russia allegedly had to blackmail and control Trump. By publishing these accusations, BuzzFeed ended that speculation. More importantly, it allowed everyone to see how dubious this document is, one the CIA and CNN had elevated into some sort of grave national security threat.

CNN refused to specify what these allegations were on the ground that they could not “verify” them. But with this document in the hands of multiple media outlets, it was only a matter of time — a small amount of time — before someone would step up and publish the whole thing. Buzzfeed quickly obliged, airing all of the unvetted, anonymous claims about Trump.

Its editor-in-chief Ben Smith published a memo explaining that decision, saying that—- although there “is serious reason to doubt the allegations” — Buzzfeed in general “errs on the side of publication” and “Americans can make up their own minds about the allegations.” Publishing this document predictably produced massive traffic (and thus profit) for the site, with millions of people viewing the article and presumably reading the “dossier.”

....

THERE IS A REAL DANGER here that this maneuver can harshly backfire, to the great benefit of Trump and to the great detriment of those who want to oppose him. If any of the significant claims in this “dossier” turn out to be provably false — such as Cohen’s trip to Prague — many people will conclude, with Trump’s encouragement, that large media outlets (CNN and BuzzFeed) and anti-Trump factions inside the government (CIA) are deploying “Fake News” to destroy him. In the eyes of many people, that will forever discredit — render impotent — future journalistic exposés that are based on actual, corroborated wrongdoing.

Beyond that, the threat posed by submitting ourselves to the CIA and empowering it to reign supreme outside of the democratic process is — as Eisenhower warned — an even more severe danger. The threat of being ruled by unaccountable and unelected entities is self-evident and grave. That’s especially true when the entity behind which so many are rallying is one with a long and deliberate history of lying, propaganda, war crimes, torture, and the worst atrocities imaginable.

All of the claims about Russia’s interference in U.S. elections and ties to Trump should be fully investigated by a credible body, and the evidence publicly disclosed to the fullest extent possible. As my colleague Sam Biddle argued last week after disclosure of the farcical intelligence community report on Russia hacking — one which even Putin’s foes mocked as a bad joke — the utter lack of evidence for these allegations means “we need an independent, resolute inquiry.” But until then, assertions that are unaccompanied by evidence and disseminated anonymously should be treated with the utmost skepticism — not lavished with convenience-driven gullibility.

Most important of all, the legitimate and effective tactics for opposing Trump are being utterly drowned by these irrational, desperate, ad hoc crusades that have no cogent strategy and make his opponents appear increasingly devoid of reason and gravity. Right now, Trump’s opponents are behaving as media critic Adam Johnson described: as ideological jelly fish, floating around aimlessly and lost, desperately latching on to whatever barge randomly passes by.

There are solutions to Trump. They involve reasoned strategizing and patient focus on issues people actually care about. Whatever those solutions are, venerating the intelligence community, begging for its intervention, and equating their dark and dirty assertions as Truth are most certainly not among them. Doing that cannot possibly achieve any good, and is already doing much harm.