|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 January 26 2018 23:04 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 22:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 26 2018 20:13 iamthedave wrote:On January 26 2018 11:29 m4ini wrote:In one phone conversation during 2017, Trump complained to May over the criticism he’d been getting in British newspapers. Amid warnings that Trump would face protests in the streets when he arrived, he told the prime minister he would not be coming to the U.K. until she could promise him a warm welcome.
May responded to say such treatment was simply the way the British press operate, and there wasn’t much she could do. In the secure bunker underneath the prime minister’s office, her advisers listened in to the call in astonishment at Trump’s demand. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-01-24/inside-the-dysfunctional-relationship-of-donald-trump-and-theresa-mayGuess touting how you could've fucked the still very beloved Diana, including taking an HIV test, months after she died isn't as forgotten as he thinks. I actually could understand if the british have a special kind of hatred towards trump. Not just the usual one. Disclaimer: sorry if it was mentioned somewhere earlier, i just couldn't be arsed to go through the conspiracy shit. Actually, since you mentioned us, we do have a special kind of hatred towards Trump. British politics is mostly a pretty dry affair, still quite stentorian, steeped in tradition, and held to a certain standard. It's been slowly eroded over time, but even our 'rowdy' at PMQs is formalised. Trump is just a lout. It's like having a drunk man wander into our political sphere and tell us we need to respect him, when a big part of our basic politics is that the press give our politicians endless crap and they politely don't address the matter as best as possible, because we expect a certain standard of behaviour from them. It's also why Nigel Farage is a special kind of hated, even outside the UKIP stuff; he played a role in damaging the political process and messed with the traditions that we're used to. His whole appeal 'that of being the man in the pub' is the exact antithesis of our politics: Our politicians AREN'T THAT, that's the whole point. Or shouldn't be. So Trump's another symptom of tacitly accepted British traditions eroding, and we're not fond of that, culturally speaking. We're quite cross about it, actually (and indeed, Brexit was rooted in a fear of that alongside all the other concerns). To be honest that has been the case everywhere and it's a process that goes way beyond Trump even though America has really overdone it by electing such a moron. But take the example of France. If Trump speaks like a 4th grader, Sarkozy spoke like a 6th grader. When he was elected it was a complete shock: he doesn't master French at a high level, can't actually really speak english or any foreign language, is vulgar, not well read, uninterested in culture, doesn't master etiquette or even elementary rules of courtesy, and doesn't even have any kind of control over his own body. Compare to Valery Giscard d'Estaing, Francois Mitterand or Charles De Gaulle, who all had really something of a prince's aura, and you could see that something had really changed. The transition, in France, was done by Chirac. It was said that he would read Beaudelaire inside a playboy cover. He was an old fashioned, cultured, informed, high quality politician (not that he was an angel, very, very far from it), but he had understood that times were changing and was trying to appear more vulgar than he really was. I think the movement is not irreversible. If anything (and I don't like him either), Macron is the proof that new generations of successful politicians don't need to speak and behave like drunkards at the pub to appeal to people. That's good news. France seems a special case, as weren't you dodging Marine Le Pen? I think a great many evils can be forgiven to avoid that fate. Though I say that, I obviously only saw bits and pieces of her. She seemed almost moustache-twirling in her obvious evilness. How did she seem from your side? The sticking point for us is that the US is our 'special relationship' partner. We weren't happy about hanging out with Bush, but he always handled himself well when over here. Trump's just everything we're not and everything we don't want to accept in our politics. The closest we can get to Trump's level of BS is probably Boris Johnson, and I'm sure the US folks here would consider him pretty mild compared to... well, not just Trump, but a lot of politicians in the US. The genius with the immaculate conception metaphor, for example.
Marine Le Pen is not a normal politician, which is why she can't be elected, and why despite getting a lot of vote, she is almost absent of our parliament. Her breed has always existed in French politics, with populists like Poujade, and then her father Jean-Marie Le Pen. You can trace our populist, ultranationalist and xenophobic modern far right to the post-first world war and what were called the Ligues, essentially far right, antidemocratic ww1 veterans leagues, and they always had really upbeat and, as you say, moustache twirling, cartoonish leaders.
Same goes with the communist party, who also had leaders who couldn't articulate a sentence without making six grammatical mistakes (George Marchais comes to mind). And all that time we have also had trotskist parties, who also have complete jokers as representatives. But again, those were and are not politicians that would ever get elected. Even Marine Le Pen, despite her scores, remains a fringe politician, with no real party apparatus behind her, and with very, very few important seats at any level of the political system.
The debate between Macron and Le Pen showed that there is still some hope. You had a composed, intelligent, knowledgable, educated and well prepared man, presenting well rounded arguments, and a hateful witch throwing insults, conspiracy theories and lies and with clearly no idea of what she was talking about. And that really didn't work well for her. She got incinerated. What happened in the Clinton - Trump debate can't happen in France. If you try to bullshit and bully your way without having a clue, you get completely nuked and people won't vote for you.
That being said, when the FN do get seats, it's the absolute apocalypse. They are complete morons. You have people in city councils whose facebook page shows them playing paintball in camouflage and whose wall is a sewer of conspiracy theories and low quality racist videos, all of that written in a french that would make a 7 years old laugh out loud. That's tragic.
|
On January 27 2018 01:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 23:04 iamthedave wrote:On January 26 2018 22:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 26 2018 20:13 iamthedave wrote:On January 26 2018 11:29 m4ini wrote:In one phone conversation during 2017, Trump complained to May over the criticism he’d been getting in British newspapers. Amid warnings that Trump would face protests in the streets when he arrived, he told the prime minister he would not be coming to the U.K. until she could promise him a warm welcome.
May responded to say such treatment was simply the way the British press operate, and there wasn’t much she could do. In the secure bunker underneath the prime minister’s office, her advisers listened in to the call in astonishment at Trump’s demand. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-01-24/inside-the-dysfunctional-relationship-of-donald-trump-and-theresa-mayGuess touting how you could've fucked the still very beloved Diana, including taking an HIV test, months after she died isn't as forgotten as he thinks. I actually could understand if the british have a special kind of hatred towards trump. Not just the usual one. Disclaimer: sorry if it was mentioned somewhere earlier, i just couldn't be arsed to go through the conspiracy shit. Actually, since you mentioned us, we do have a special kind of hatred towards Trump. British politics is mostly a pretty dry affair, still quite stentorian, steeped in tradition, and held to a certain standard. It's been slowly eroded over time, but even our 'rowdy' at PMQs is formalised. Trump is just a lout. It's like having a drunk man wander into our political sphere and tell us we need to respect him, when a big part of our basic politics is that the press give our politicians endless crap and they politely don't address the matter as best as possible, because we expect a certain standard of behaviour from them. It's also why Nigel Farage is a special kind of hated, even outside the UKIP stuff; he played a role in damaging the political process and messed with the traditions that we're used to. His whole appeal 'that of being the man in the pub' is the exact antithesis of our politics: Our politicians AREN'T THAT, that's the whole point. Or shouldn't be. So Trump's another symptom of tacitly accepted British traditions eroding, and we're not fond of that, culturally speaking. We're quite cross about it, actually (and indeed, Brexit was rooted in a fear of that alongside all the other concerns). To be honest that has been the case everywhere and it's a process that goes way beyond Trump even though America has really overdone it by electing such a moron. But take the example of France. If Trump speaks like a 4th grader, Sarkozy spoke like a 6th grader. When he was elected it was a complete shock: he doesn't master French at a high level, can't actually really speak english or any foreign language, is vulgar, not well read, uninterested in culture, doesn't master etiquette or even elementary rules of courtesy, and doesn't even have any kind of control over his own body. Compare to Valery Giscard d'Estaing, Francois Mitterand or Charles De Gaulle, who all had really something of a prince's aura, and you could see that something had really changed. The transition, in France, was done by Chirac. It was said that he would read Beaudelaire inside a playboy cover. He was an old fashioned, cultured, informed, high quality politician (not that he was an angel, very, very far from it), but he had understood that times were changing and was trying to appear more vulgar than he really was. I think the movement is not irreversible. If anything (and I don't like him either), Macron is the proof that new generations of successful politicians don't need to speak and behave like drunkards at the pub to appeal to people. That's good news. France seems a special case, as weren't you dodging Marine Le Pen? I think a great many evils can be forgiven to avoid that fate. Though I say that, I obviously only saw bits and pieces of her. She seemed almost moustache-twirling in her obvious evilness. How did she seem from your side? The sticking point for us is that the US is our 'special relationship' partner. We weren't happy about hanging out with Bush, but he always handled himself well when over here. Trump's just everything we're not and everything we don't want to accept in our politics. The closest we can get to Trump's level of BS is probably Boris Johnson, and I'm sure the US folks here would consider him pretty mild compared to... well, not just Trump, but a lot of politicians in the US. The genius with the immaculate conception metaphor, for example. Marine Le Pen is not a normal politician, which is why she can't be elected, and why despite getting a lot of vote, she is almost absent of our parliament. Her breed has always existed in French politics, with populists like Poujade, and then her father Jean-Marie Le Pen. You can trace our populist, ultranationalist and xenophobic modern far right to the post-first world war and what were called the Ligues, essentially far right, antidemocratic ww1 veterans leagues, and they always had really upbeat and, as you say, moustache twirling, cartoonish leaders. Same goes with the communist party, who also had leaders who couldn't articulate a sentence without making six grammatical mistakes (George Marchais comes to mind). And all that time we have also had trotskist parties, who also have complete jokers as representatives. But again, those were and are not politicians that would ever get elected. Even Marine Le Pen, despite her scores, remains a fringe politician, with no real party apparatus behind her, and with very, very few important seats at any level of the political system. The debate between Macron and Le Pen showed that there is still some hope. You had a composed, intelligent, knowledgable, educated and well prepared man, presenting well rounded arguments, and a hateful witch throwing insults, conspiracy theories and lies and with clearly no idea of what she was talking about. And that really didn't work well for her. She got incinerated. What happened in the Clinton - Trump debate can't happen in France. If you try to bullshit and bully your way without having a clue, you get completely nuked and people won't vote for you. That being said, when the FN do get seats, it's the absolute apocalypse. They are complete morons. You have people in city councils whose facebook page shows them playing paintball in camouflage and whose wall is a sewer of conspiracy theories and low quality racist videos, all of that written in a french that would make a 7 years old laugh out loud. That's tragic.
Huh. I thought Marine was in for a chance at actual election to actually 'leading' the country? Shows how little we know about the process across the pond (or how little our media cares, at least).
I'm glad your debates still mean something. Ours do as well, which is why our prime ministers keep running away from them at top speed. I'm still annoyed that they're allowed to get away with that. Debates should be mandatory and those who don't want to participate can go get another job. I feel that we do a reasonable job of making our politicians explain themselves, but we should do more to make the Prime Minister do it, too, instead of sending out surrogates all the time.
PMQs is still theoretically a good forum, but it's a little too dependent on the opposition asking the right questions.
|
On January 26 2018 15:16 Introvert wrote:
Any intent to collude that may have existed came to naught.
You're awfully close to conspiracy there aren't you? The only remaining question is whether the clown parade that is Trump's team was successful in what they wanted to do.
|
On January 27 2018 00:51 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 00:36 Adreme wrote:On January 27 2018 00:18 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 19:55 Gorsameth wrote:On January 26 2018 15:53 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 15:32 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 15:16 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 15:07 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 15:00 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 14:49 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
Except he's being investigated by, you know, a special counsel. Not by a democrat. Here's a thought for you. What could be the reason to drag this investigation out a bit, or make it "more thorough" than it'd need to be?
Also, "nada" is quite the stretch (pretty much as funny as trump complaining about Mueller having "a conflict of interest", pahaha). I mean, okay. Nada, if you don't count charges against Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and Papadopoulos.
Three of which include lying to the FBI in regards to this very investigation. None of those charges were for "collusion" or conspiracy and if that was part of it Mueller would have made them confess to it. We've been over this. Moreover I was talking about the wailing Democrats were doing. If Mueller says there was no evidence of collusion it is not going to be Trump that is in trouble. No. They're on a way more basic level. They're for lying about meeting russians in the first place (amongst other things). Explain that away. Secondly, yeah, it won't be pretty if Mueller says that. Assuming he does. Not to mention no, Mueller would not necessarily have made them confess anything. It's not uncommon (or even unheard of in this very investigation) that people get deals. Second, i asked you something, don't ignore it because it's inconvenient. I'd have to find it again, but no. if you make a deal with someone in the hopes of getting them to cooperate for a bigger takedown, you make them acknowledge the conspiracy in the first place, so that you have established it occurred. I'm not sure what your first slam-dunk question means. Why is it longer? Because Mueller is being careful and has moved to obstruction. I'm not sure what I said that prompted that question. I don't know what's inconvenient about it. The Trump team was stupid and incompetent. Any intent to collude that may have existed came to naught. That is my current opinion based on what we know. You are so angry and aggressive for some reason. Because I'm known as the great Trump defender. Not necessarily, what? You don't need to make them openly admit to something, and then charge them for a lesser crime - especially considering that it would have a big negative impact on further stages of the investigation. It's longer because Mueller is careful, sure. And he might wait for a certain point in time to reveal something. Moving to obstruction doesn't mean the prior topic turned out to be a dud, it could also mean that there's additional stuff to bring up. You argue as if unarguably because he didn't immediately reveal his cards (and Mueller has proven to not do that, at all), he doesn't have any, so he moved on. Which is simply stupid. We are in agreement about the trump team. The intent for collusion is proof enough. You're acively trying to commit a crime, your incompetence doesn't shield you from repercussions. So yes: just proving the intent already is good enough. Since you answered before i edited, what are the charges for Manafort and Gates? edit: in regards to angry, i have a cheek like a hamster currently - might rub off a little bit, unintentionally though Again from what I've read if you are going after bigger fish then you use the smaller ones to establish something actually happened. A lot of people have the idea that it was just a first step, but there didn't and doesn't appear to be any further steps from where they were. Maybe something for Trump Jr. is coming, but I kinda doubt it. if memory serves, because it was eons ago is news time, they were charged with violating FARA; they failed to register as foreign agents in 2007 or there abouts. Maybe also money laundering? I found the primary article I was thinking of: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454311/mueller-strategy-obstruction-justice-investigation-leading-impeachment There is something in this logic I don't get. Do you think Flynn made a deal with the investigation, possibly to also protect his son? If yes, what could he have offered the investigation if not evidence to something deeper that has yet to come out? Yes, and also Flynn was broke. Mueller isn't going to walk away empty-handed so he'll take what he can, especially, as the article notes, if he's perusing obstruction. *** Remember when Mueller was brought on it was in the guise of a counter intelligence operation about Russian interference. Super broad. To me it makes no sense to say that they are still seriously perusing some kind of conspiracy because that's where they started, not where they are ending. Lots of people are projecting and are going to be really, really sad when they find out the election wasn't "stolen" in even a small degree. You can also take the clue from the hack politicians that stopped talking about "collusion" for the most part. I can't help everyone if they are coming up with justifications in their own heads about what is going on. It's remarkable that I'm saying the same thing and at least citing some knowledgeable source and meanwhile people keep repeating the same things st me over and over, especially things that pieces I've linked to discuss. Again I'm 90% on all this, not 100%. Is this what its like living in the conservative bubble? Things that are known to be true 1. Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC and the Podesta emails 2. Russia was specifically targeting key swing districts with false stories and false accusations (a tactic that has been shown to swing votes before) Knowing both of those to be true (considering that the intelligence agencies have said that for number 1 they have the go between between wikileaks and Russia and number 2 is super easy to prove) it is impossible for any reasonable person to say Russia did not play a part in influencing the election. Were they the sole cause? Impossible to say, way too many variables and its likely it did not matter but that is not the point. Mueller's job is to investigate links between those attacks and the Trump campaign of which there seemed to be many odd coincidences not least of which being that the president preferred to attack america itself rather than to attack Putin. Of course there was also going to be investigations into the Tower meeting and Flynn meeting and it is also worth mentioning Flynn is pleading guilty because he is guilty. He lied to the FBI about it and there is no workaround and it is completely standard for them to use that to get a deal. An investigation into this was always going to revolve around money which unfortunately for Trump is a big problem considering he has historically had some lets be kind and say controversial ties to Russian money going back decades which is most likely the reason he wanted to fire Mueller before it got to this point because there was most likely no colluding for the assistance that Russia provided but once the investigation turned to money that becomes a lot harder to cover up. Is this what it's like half-assing a response? I am content to wait and see. No matter what though, I maintain that Trump will not be impeached and removed unless there was some form of collusion or conspiracy.
Trump will not be impeached regardless of what crimes they find. He is the best thing to happen to democrats so even though at best he is guilty of what got Nixon impeached the dems are going to be happy to let him continuously screw up and energize there voters.
|
On January 27 2018 01:33 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 15:16 Introvert wrote:
Any intent to collude that may have existed came to naught. You're awfully close to conspiracy there aren't you? The only remaining question is whether the clown parade that is Trump's team was successful in what they wanted to do.
Conspiracy to commit a crime does not require you to actually successfully commit said crime.
|
On January 27 2018 02:05 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 00:51 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2018 00:36 Adreme wrote:On January 27 2018 00:18 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 19:55 Gorsameth wrote:On January 26 2018 15:53 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 15:32 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 15:16 Introvert wrote:On January 26 2018 15:07 m4ini wrote:On January 26 2018 15:00 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
None of those charges were for "collusion" or conspiracy and if that was part of it Mueller would have made them confess to it. We've been over this. Moreover I was talking about the wailing Democrats were doing. If Mueller says there was no evidence of collusion it is not going to be Trump that is in trouble. No. They're on a way more basic level. They're for lying about meeting russians in the first place (amongst other things). Explain that away. Secondly, yeah, it won't be pretty if Mueller says that. Assuming he does. Not to mention no, Mueller would not necessarily have made them confess anything. It's not uncommon (or even unheard of in this very investigation) that people get deals. Second, i asked you something, don't ignore it because it's inconvenient. I'd have to find it again, but no. if you make a deal with someone in the hopes of getting them to cooperate for a bigger takedown, you make them acknowledge the conspiracy in the first place, so that you have established it occurred. I'm not sure what your first slam-dunk question means. Why is it longer? Because Mueller is being careful and has moved to obstruction. I'm not sure what I said that prompted that question. I don't know what's inconvenient about it. The Trump team was stupid and incompetent. Any intent to collude that may have existed came to naught. That is my current opinion based on what we know. You are so angry and aggressive for some reason. Because I'm known as the great Trump defender. Not necessarily, what? You don't need to make them openly admit to something, and then charge them for a lesser crime - especially considering that it would have a big negative impact on further stages of the investigation. It's longer because Mueller is careful, sure. And he might wait for a certain point in time to reveal something. Moving to obstruction doesn't mean the prior topic turned out to be a dud, it could also mean that there's additional stuff to bring up. You argue as if unarguably because he didn't immediately reveal his cards (and Mueller has proven to not do that, at all), he doesn't have any, so he moved on. Which is simply stupid. We are in agreement about the trump team. The intent for collusion is proof enough. You're acively trying to commit a crime, your incompetence doesn't shield you from repercussions. So yes: just proving the intent already is good enough. Since you answered before i edited, what are the charges for Manafort and Gates? edit: in regards to angry, i have a cheek like a hamster currently - might rub off a little bit, unintentionally though Again from what I've read if you are going after bigger fish then you use the smaller ones to establish something actually happened. A lot of people have the idea that it was just a first step, but there didn't and doesn't appear to be any further steps from where they were. Maybe something for Trump Jr. is coming, but I kinda doubt it. if memory serves, because it was eons ago is news time, they were charged with violating FARA; they failed to register as foreign agents in 2007 or there abouts. Maybe also money laundering? I found the primary article I was thinking of: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454311/mueller-strategy-obstruction-justice-investigation-leading-impeachment There is something in this logic I don't get. Do you think Flynn made a deal with the investigation, possibly to also protect his son? If yes, what could he have offered the investigation if not evidence to something deeper that has yet to come out? Yes, and also Flynn was broke. Mueller isn't going to walk away empty-handed so he'll take what he can, especially, as the article notes, if he's perusing obstruction. *** Remember when Mueller was brought on it was in the guise of a counter intelligence operation about Russian interference. Super broad. To me it makes no sense to say that they are still seriously perusing some kind of conspiracy because that's where they started, not where they are ending. Lots of people are projecting and are going to be really, really sad when they find out the election wasn't "stolen" in even a small degree. You can also take the clue from the hack politicians that stopped talking about "collusion" for the most part. I can't help everyone if they are coming up with justifications in their own heads about what is going on. It's remarkable that I'm saying the same thing and at least citing some knowledgeable source and meanwhile people keep repeating the same things st me over and over, especially things that pieces I've linked to discuss. Again I'm 90% on all this, not 100%. Is this what its like living in the conservative bubble? Things that are known to be true 1. Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC and the Podesta emails 2. Russia was specifically targeting key swing districts with false stories and false accusations (a tactic that has been shown to swing votes before) Knowing both of those to be true (considering that the intelligence agencies have said that for number 1 they have the go between between wikileaks and Russia and number 2 is super easy to prove) it is impossible for any reasonable person to say Russia did not play a part in influencing the election. Were they the sole cause? Impossible to say, way too many variables and its likely it did not matter but that is not the point. Mueller's job is to investigate links between those attacks and the Trump campaign of which there seemed to be many odd coincidences not least of which being that the president preferred to attack america itself rather than to attack Putin. Of course there was also going to be investigations into the Tower meeting and Flynn meeting and it is also worth mentioning Flynn is pleading guilty because he is guilty. He lied to the FBI about it and there is no workaround and it is completely standard for them to use that to get a deal. An investigation into this was always going to revolve around money which unfortunately for Trump is a big problem considering he has historically had some lets be kind and say controversial ties to Russian money going back decades which is most likely the reason he wanted to fire Mueller before it got to this point because there was most likely no colluding for the assistance that Russia provided but once the investigation turned to money that becomes a lot harder to cover up. Is this what it's like half-assing a response? I am content to wait and see. No matter what though, I maintain that Trump will not be impeached and removed unless there was some form of collusion or conspiracy. Trump will not be impeached regardless of what crimes they find. He is the best thing to happen to democrats so even though at best he is guilty of what got Nixon impeached the dems are going to be happy to let him continuously screw up and energize there voters.
Pretty much until Republicans start an impeachment vote, Dems are pretty happy to let Trump keep shooting himself and the GOP in the foot/feet. They'd vote yes in a heartbeat if the vote came from repubs though.
|
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller?
|
Haha, so the White House wanted to borrow a Van Gogh to the Guggenheim to put it in the oval office. The Guggenheim declined and offer to lend them instead the perfectly functioning 18 carat golden toilets from Maurizio Cattelan instead.
That's gold (pun intended).
|
Where the hell is the ACLU?
The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has officially gained agency-wide access to a nationwide license plate recognition database, according to a contract finalized earlier this month. The system gives the agency access to billions of license plate records and new powers of real-time location tracking, raising significant concerns from civil libertarians.
The source of the data is not named in the contract, but an ICE representative said the data came from Vigilant Solutions, the leading network for license plate recognition data. “Like most other law enforcement agencies, ICE uses information obtained from license plate readers as one tool in support of its investigations,” spokesperson Dani Bennett said in a statement. “ICE is not seeking to build a license plate reader database, and will not collect nor contribute any data to a national public or private database through this contract.” (Vigilant did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)
While it collects few photos itself, Vigilant Solutions has amassed a database of more than 2 billion license plate photos by ingesting data from partners like vehicle repossession agencies and other private groups. Vigilant also partners with local law enforcement agencies, often collecting even more data from camera-equipped police cars. The result is a massive vehicle-tracking network generating as many as 100 million sightings per month, each tagged with a date, time, and GPS coordinates of the sighting.
ICE agents would be able to query that database in two ways. A historical search would turn up every place a given license plate has been spotted in the last five years, a detailed record of the target’s movements. That data could be used to find a given subject’s residence or even identify associates if a given car is regularly spotted in a specific parking lot.
“Knowing the previous locations of a vehicle can help determine the whereabouts of subjects of criminal investigations or priority aliens to facilitate their interdiction and removal,” an official privacy assessment explains. “In some cases, when other leads have gone cold, the availability of commercial LPR data may be the only viable way to find a subject.”
ICE agents can also receive instantaneous email alerts whenever a new record of a particular plate is found — a system known internally as a “hot list.” (The same alerts can also be funneled to the Vigilant’s iOS app.) According to the privacy assessment, as many as 2,500 license plates could be uploaded to the hot list in a single batch, although the assessment does not detail how often new batches can be added. With sightings flooding in from police dashcams and stationary readers on bridges and toll booths, it would be hard for anyone on the list to stay unnoticed for long.
Those powers are particularly troubling given ICE’s recent move to expand deportations beyond criminal offenders, fueling concerns of politically motivated enforcement. In California, state officials have braced for rumored deportation sweeps targeted at sanctuary cities. In New York, community leaders say they’ve been specifically targeted for deportation as a result of their activism. With automated license plate recognition, that targeting would only grow more powerful.
For civil liberties groups, the implications go far beyond immigration. “There are people circulating in our society who are undocumented,” says senior policy analyst Jay Stanley, who studies license plate readers with the ACLU. “Are we as a society, out of our desire to find those people, willing to let our government create an infrastructure that will track all of us?”
The new license plate reader contract comes after years of internal lobbying by the agency. ICE first tested Vigilant’s system in 2012, gauging how effective it was at locating undocumented immigrants. Two years later, the agency issued an open solicitation for the technology, sparking an outcry from civil liberties group. Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson canceled the solicitation shortly afterward, citing privacy concerns, although two field offices subsequently formed rogue contracts with Vigilant in apparent violation of Johnson’s policy. In 2015, Homeland Security issued another call for bids, although an ICE representative said no contract resulted from that solicitation.
As a result, this new contract is the first agency-wide contract ICE has completed with the company, a fact that is reflected in accompanying documents. On December 27th, 2017, Homeland Security issued an updated privacy assessment of license plate reader technology, a move it explained was necessary because “ICE has now entered into a contract with a vendor.”
The new system places some limits on ICE surveillance, but not enough to quiet privacy concerns. Unlike many agencies, ICE won’t upload new data to Vigilant’s system but simply scan through the data that’s already there. In practical terms, that means driving past a Vigilant-linked camera might flag a car to ICE, but driving past an ICE camera won’t flag a car to everyone else using the system. License plates on the hot list will also expire after one year, and the system retains extensive audit logs to help supervisors trace back any abuse of the system.
Still, the biggest concern for critics is the sheer scale of Vigilant’s network, assembled almost entirely outside of public accountability. “If ICE were to propose a system that would do what Vigilant does, there would be a huge privacy uproar and I don’t think Congress would approve it,” Stanley says. “But because it’s a private contract, they can sidestep that process.”
Source
|
On January 27 2018 02:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Where the hell is the ACLU? Show nested quote +The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has officially gained agency-wide access to a nationwide license plate recognition database, according to a contract finalized earlier this month. The system gives the agency access to billions of license plate records and new powers of real-time location tracking, raising significant concerns from civil libertarians.
The source of the data is not named in the contract, but an ICE representative said the data came from Vigilant Solutions, the leading network for license plate recognition data. “Like most other law enforcement agencies, ICE uses information obtained from license plate readers as one tool in support of its investigations,” spokesperson Dani Bennett said in a statement. “ICE is not seeking to build a license plate reader database, and will not collect nor contribute any data to a national public or private database through this contract.” (Vigilant did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)
While it collects few photos itself, Vigilant Solutions has amassed a database of more than 2 billion license plate photos by ingesting data from partners like vehicle repossession agencies and other private groups. Vigilant also partners with local law enforcement agencies, often collecting even more data from camera-equipped police cars. The result is a massive vehicle-tracking network generating as many as 100 million sightings per month, each tagged with a date, time, and GPS coordinates of the sighting.
ICE agents would be able to query that database in two ways. A historical search would turn up every place a given license plate has been spotted in the last five years, a detailed record of the target’s movements. That data could be used to find a given subject’s residence or even identify associates if a given car is regularly spotted in a specific parking lot.
“Knowing the previous locations of a vehicle can help determine the whereabouts of subjects of criminal investigations or priority aliens to facilitate their interdiction and removal,” an official privacy assessment explains. “In some cases, when other leads have gone cold, the availability of commercial LPR data may be the only viable way to find a subject.”
ICE agents can also receive instantaneous email alerts whenever a new record of a particular plate is found — a system known internally as a “hot list.” (The same alerts can also be funneled to the Vigilant’s iOS app.) According to the privacy assessment, as many as 2,500 license plates could be uploaded to the hot list in a single batch, although the assessment does not detail how often new batches can be added. With sightings flooding in from police dashcams and stationary readers on bridges and toll booths, it would be hard for anyone on the list to stay unnoticed for long.
Those powers are particularly troubling given ICE’s recent move to expand deportations beyond criminal offenders, fueling concerns of politically motivated enforcement. In California, state officials have braced for rumored deportation sweeps targeted at sanctuary cities. In New York, community leaders say they’ve been specifically targeted for deportation as a result of their activism. With automated license plate recognition, that targeting would only grow more powerful.
For civil liberties groups, the implications go far beyond immigration. “There are people circulating in our society who are undocumented,” says senior policy analyst Jay Stanley, who studies license plate readers with the ACLU. “Are we as a society, out of our desire to find those people, willing to let our government create an infrastructure that will track all of us?”
The new license plate reader contract comes after years of internal lobbying by the agency. ICE first tested Vigilant’s system in 2012, gauging how effective it was at locating undocumented immigrants. Two years later, the agency issued an open solicitation for the technology, sparking an outcry from civil liberties group. Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson canceled the solicitation shortly afterward, citing privacy concerns, although two field offices subsequently formed rogue contracts with Vigilant in apparent violation of Johnson’s policy. In 2015, Homeland Security issued another call for bids, although an ICE representative said no contract resulted from that solicitation.
As a result, this new contract is the first agency-wide contract ICE has completed with the company, a fact that is reflected in accompanying documents. On December 27th, 2017, Homeland Security issued an updated privacy assessment of license plate reader technology, a move it explained was necessary because “ICE has now entered into a contract with a vendor.”
The new system places some limits on ICE surveillance, but not enough to quiet privacy concerns. Unlike many agencies, ICE won’t upload new data to Vigilant’s system but simply scan through the data that’s already there. In practical terms, that means driving past a Vigilant-linked camera might flag a car to ICE, but driving past an ICE camera won’t flag a car to everyone else using the system. License plates on the hot list will also expire after one year, and the system retains extensive audit logs to help supervisors trace back any abuse of the system.
Still, the biggest concern for critics is the sheer scale of Vigilant’s network, assembled almost entirely outside of public accountability. “If ICE were to propose a system that would do what Vigilant does, there would be a huge privacy uproar and I don’t think Congress would approve it,” Stanley says. “But because it’s a private contract, they can sidestep that process.” Source
How to get "gubment" types to support the government's ability to track any street legal vehicle: "Yeah, but it's to get rid of brown people".
|
The ACLU is fighting in immigration courts throughout the US, they don't deserve any ire on this front, at all.
|
These data collection companies are a nightmare. I'm not surprised one like that exists. I'm surprised that a goverment agency would attempt to use that date for anything. But it is ICE and they don't need to build cases or worry about due process.
On January 27 2018 02:54 farvacola wrote:
The ACLU is fighting in immigration courts throughout the US, they don't deserve any ire on this front, at all.
I also don't know how they would bring a lawsuit against ICE for buying the database. There is no standing and no harm at this point. There will be harm and false positives. But that is down the line.
|
On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller?
Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything.
|
On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything.
Congress can say that the special counsel can only be fired with congressional approval. They created the Justice Department and FBI. If they want the investigation to conclude without the President firing Mueller, they have more than enough power to do so.
|
On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything.
So you would not support an effort by Congress to limit the president's ability to fire Mueller?
|
A senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign who was accused of repeatedly sexually harassing a young subordinate was kept on the campaign at Mrs. Clinton’s request, according to four people familiar with what took place.
[ . . .]
The complaint against Mr. Strider was made by a 30-year-old woman who shared an office with him. She told a campaign official that Mr. Strider had rubbed her shoulders inappropriately, kissed her on the forehead and sent her a string of suggestive emails, including at least one during the night, according to three former campaign officials familiar with what took place.
The complaint was taken to Ms. Doyle, the campaign manager, who approached Mrs. Clinton and urged that Mr. Strider, who was married at the time, be fired, according to the officials familiar with what took place. Mrs. Clinton said she did not want to, and instead he remained on her staff.
NYTimes
|
On January 27 2018 03:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. Congress can say that the special counsel can only be fired with congressional approval. They created the Justice Department and FBI. If they want the investigation to conclude without the President firing Mueller, they have more than enough power to do so.
I think the current statutory authority provided by Congress is fine. The recourse is sufficient, as detailed.
On January 27 2018 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. So you would not support an effort by Congress to limit the president's ability to fire Mueller?
No. If he fires two-three special counsels (or deputies for not firing them), you can demonstrate that there’s a need. He’s not stopping the investigation even if he fires Mueller.
|
On January 27 2018 03:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 03:00 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. Congress can say that the special counsel can only be fired with congressional approval. They created the Justice Department and FBI. If they want the investigation to conclude without the President firing Mueller, they have more than enough power to do so. I think the current statutory authority provided by Congress is fine. The recourse is sufficient, as detailed. Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. So you would not support an effort by Congress to limit the president's ability to fire Mueller? No. If he fires two-three special counsels (or deputies for not firing them), you can demonstrate that there’s a need. He’s not stopping the investigation even if he fires Mueller.
Why does a need need to first be demonstrated? I'm not understanding what you see as the disadvantage. There is a clear pro. What is the con?
|
On January 27 2018 03:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 03:36 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:00 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. Congress can say that the special counsel can only be fired with congressional approval. They created the Justice Department and FBI. If they want the investigation to conclude without the President firing Mueller, they have more than enough power to do so. I think the current statutory authority provided by Congress is fine. The recourse is sufficient, as detailed. On January 27 2018 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. So you would not support an effort by Congress to limit the president's ability to fire Mueller? No. If he fires two-three special counsels (or deputies for not firing them), you can demonstrate that there’s a need. He’s not stopping the investigation even if he fires Mueller. Why does a need need to first be demonstrated? I'm not understanding what you see as the disadvantage. There is a clear pro. What is the con?
I didn’t see a pro. You read why.
|
On January 27 2018 03:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 03:00 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. Congress can say that the special counsel can only be fired with congressional approval. They created the Justice Department and FBI. If they want the investigation to conclude without the President firing Mueller, they have more than enough power to do so. I think the current statutory authority provided by Congress is fine. The recourse is sufficient, as detailed. Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 27 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any of our resident republicans opposed to congress/senate or whoever taking some sort of protective measures for Mueller? Special counsel is executive branch. Paul Ryan should make it clear that he’ll start a house investigative committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election should Trump fire Mueller through deputies and order an end to the special counsel’s investigation. I don’t think discussions about what Trump allegedly thought about doing and didn’t do 7 months ago changes anything. So you would not support an effort by Congress to limit the president's ability to fire Mueller? No. If he fires two-three special counsels (or deputies for not firing them), you can demonstrate that there’s a need. He’s not stopping the investigation even if he fires Mueller.
I disagree. Congress does not have the staff or means to handle the investigation. That is why they work with the FBI and rely on FBI’s findings. And its not like they can “staff up” for that job. They would still need to rely on the executive branch and justice department. If Trump fired Mueller, they would need to legislate to take control of some part of the FBI to assure he wouldn’t tamper with the process further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
