US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6871

On February 15 2017 03:32 oneofthem wrote:

they are not active.

turncoats always exist, but you don't know that do you

RT also hugely embellish the credentials of their guests.

On February 15 2017 03:42 Doodsmack wrote:


The leaks about the phone conversations with the Mexican and Australian leaders are real because Trump himself complained about the leaks. But I think you are citing a small minority of news stories which is not sufficient to dismiss them all.

A trio of conservative House members said Tuesday that they were open to further congressional investigations into accusations that retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who resigned as national security adviser Monday night, had inappropriate contacts with Russia during the presidential transition.

The Republicans, speaking with reporters on Capitol Hill at their monthly "conversations with conservatives," said that the intelligence committees should first work with the intelligence community to get a better understanding of what communications did occur between Flynn and Russian officials, but that they supported a broader investigation if the intel communities found it warranted.

"I would support an investigation, if it's warranted based on information from the intelligence community, and the first step would be for the intelligence committees to have that understanding with the intelligence community," said Rep, Justin Amash (R-MI). "The rest of us in Congress wouldn't have immediate access to the same information. So really it's incumbent upon the intelligence community, and the intelligence committees to work together."

Their openness to probing Flynn's behavior went farther than other House GOP leaders -- including House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA and House Oversight Committee Chair Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) -- who sounded ready to leave the matter alone now that Flynn has resigned.

At the briefing with conservatives, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) said he didn't want comment "without the facts" but acknowledged, "I don't know how you get the facts without doing some kind of investigation so let me say that."

"There needs to be a full accounting so we understand what happened," Perry said.

Another prominent House conservative, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID), said he agreed with Perry and Amash, adding, "I do think it's incumbent on the Intel Committees to determine what the facts are and to see if there has to be further investigation."

There have been similar calls on the Senate side from a handful of Republicans, including Sens. Roy Blunt (R-MO) and John McCain (R-AZ), who have said that there are questions they still want answered about Flynn's actions.

At his weekly press conference, Speaker Paul Ryan said that he didn't want to "prejudge any of the circumstances surrounding this until we have all of the information." Chaffetz told reporters that the "situation has taken care of itself." Nunes stopped short of calling for an Intel Committee investigation into President Trump's communications with Flynn about his contacts with Russia. He did, however, raise concerns about the leaks to the press about Flynn's activities.

Some senators on Tuesday said they were willing to default to the ongoing Senate intel committee inquiry into Russia's involvement in the 2016 presidential campaign, but others hinted that there might need to be a more public examination of the allegations against Flynn.

"I think most Americans have a right to know whether or not this was a General Flynn rogue maneuver, or was he basically speaking for somebody else in the White House?" Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) said.

On February 15 2017 04:24 cLutZ wrote:


I think the difference in our evaluation is that I listed a subset of all the "News" that is sensational, not easily verifiable, etc. Look, the Times and Post are overwhelmingly accurate when they report on things that they have seen, on press briefing, releases, court decisions, etc (although thier science reporting seems populated with people who can't pass Physics 1). But, most places do that just fine, even something like the Washington Examiner or NY Post. What we relied on them is to filter these leaks fro ex-state department, ex-cia, and current government employees + the machinations of foreign affairs. Its in these areas where the public can't see the evidence, can't make sense of it, etc. This is why QC exists, and IMO they are significantly below the needed level of skepticism towards partisans and semi-partisans.

A good example I'd say was during the Hillary 9/11 collapse. Any sane reporter knows to doubt the first statement made by the campaign about what happened. First, it's a campaign, they lie. Second, it was a Clinton campaign that is known for these weird non-truths that get them in trouble long term for no rational reason. But sure, let's go with the "overheated" report and run it as fact until Fox points out it was 60 degrees.

On February 15 2017 05:27 KwarK wrote:
The answer is pretty simple. The Republicans think better to betray the country than the party. The President's National Security Adviser being a designated a national security risk, and the fact that the President knowingly kept him included in matters of national security despite knowing this, is apparently a partisan issue.

On February 15 2017 05:51 LegalLord wrote:

Oversight isn't known for being particularly quiet and news-free.

The Congressional Republicans probably just see this as a "meh, whatever" issue. Certain others see this as an "omg Russia Russia Russia!@!@!@!@!" issue but these days most of those are Democrats.

On February 15 2017 05:24 ChristianS wrote:
Okay, so House Oversight Committee (Chaffetz) says he won't investigate further, partly because Flynn already resigned and partly because by his description this stuff is more under House Intel Committee's jurisdiction. House Intel Committee (Nunes) says he won't investigate further, and as a fun bonus said the Flynn story was a whole lot of nothing drummed up by opponents of the president. That was 3 or 4 hours before Flynn resigned.

The Republicans in Congress don't seem very interested in getting to the bottom of this, which is a little hard to figure. The conspiratorially minded might think they're in on the scandal, but if this was all one big coverup I'd think it'd be a little more organized. The conventional wisdom is that they're just using Trump to get their policies across, but surely they realize this is eroding all their political momentum. Wouldn't they rather just get to the bottom of it and get it out of the news cycle?