|
On January 04 2019 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2019 05:09 xDaunt wrote:
The Chinese were forced to admit the existence of the camps in Xinjiang, though they called them "vocational training" camps. Do you take them at their word? Honestly my question isn't about whether they are torturing people (I don't believe they are, and I think their approach is exponentially better than Indian boarding schools in the US) but about what amounts to widely sharing fake evidence.
I don't think that you're going to find much argument against the point that all sorts of bullshit is shared through social media, and even through regular media outlets.
|
theres a lot of fake evidence for a lot of things. i still wouldnt want to be uyghur in china.
|
On January 04 2019 05:24 IgnE wrote:
theres a lot of fake evidence for a lot of things. i still wouldnt want to be uyghur in china.
One of the ironies is that Uyghur food is super popular in China right now and may secretly be the best variety of Chinese food. It's right up there with Sichuan food. Too bad it is almost impossible to find in the US.
|
On January 04 2019 03:20 xDaunt wrote:BTW, thanks to John Solomon, now we know why Mueller requested zero jail time for Flynn: Show nested quote +Sometimes public silence can be deafening or, for that matter, misleading.
For nearly two years now, the intelligence community has kept secret evidence in the Russia collusion case that directly undercuts the portrayal of retired Army general and former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn as a Russian stooge.
That silence was maintained even when former acting Attorney General Sally Yates publicly claimed Flynn was possibly “compromised” by Moscow.
And when a Democratic senator, Al Franken of Minnesota, suggested the former Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) chief posed a “danger to this republic.”
And even when some media outlets opined about whether Flynn’s contacts with Russia were treasonous.
Yes, the Pentagon did give a classified briefing to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) in May 2017, but then it declined the senator’s impassioned plea three months later to make some of that briefing information public.
“It appears the public release of this information would not pose any ongoing risk to national security. Moreover, the declassification would be in the public interest, and is in the interest of fairness to Lt. Gen. Flynn,” Grassley wrote in August 2017.
Were the information Grassley requested made public, America would have learned this, according to my sources:
+Before Flynn made his infamous December 2015 trip to Moscow — as a retired general and then-adviser to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign — he alerted his former employer, the DIA.
+He then attended a “defensive” or “protective” briefing before he ever sat alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Russia Today (RT) dinner, or before he talked with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
+The briefing educated and sensitized Flynn to possible efforts by his Russian host to compromise the former high-ranking defense official and prepared him for conversations in which he could potentially extract intelligence for U.S. agencies such as the DIA.
+When Flynn returned from Moscow, he spent time briefing intelligence officials on what he learned during the Moscow contacts. Between two and nine intelligence officials attended the various meetings with Flynn about the RT event, and the information was moderately useful, about what one would expect from a public event, according to my sources.
DIA spokesman James Kudla on Wednesday declined comment about Flynn.
Rather than a diplomatic embarrassment bordering on treason, Flynn’s conduct at the RT event provided some modest benefit to the U.S. intelligence community, something that many former military and intelligence officers continue to offer their country after retirement when they keep security clearances.
It’s important to wind back many months to where the Russia collusion narrative started and the media frenzy–driven suggestion that Flynn may have been on a mission to compromise America’s security and endanger this great republic when he visited Moscow.
Would the central character in a Russian election hijack plot actually self-disclose his trip in advance? And then sit through a briefing on how to avoid being compromised by his foreign hosts? And then come back to America and be debriefed by U.S. intelligence officers about who and what he saw?
And would a prosecutor recommend little or no prison time for a former general if that former military leader truly had compromised national security?
Highly unlikely.
The gap between the original portrayal of Flynn’s activities and the actual facts likely is one of the reasons a prosecutor working for special counsel Robert Mueller pointedly rejected a judge’s suggestion at Flynn’s aborted sentencing last month that the general might have engaged in treason. Source. Long story short, the Russian collusion story was always bogus, the FBI/DOJ knew it was always bogus, yet they set Flynn up anyway.
The RT event is not at all central to Flynn's legal situation, and I see no reason to believe it is even relevant to his legal situation. It is not a component of Flynn's charges or sentencing. Solomon is only actually refuting media reports implying that the RT event was nefarious. But you know this already.
|
On January 04 2019 05:30 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2019 03:20 xDaunt wrote:BTW, thanks to John Solomon, now we know why Mueller requested zero jail time for Flynn: Sometimes public silence can be deafening or, for that matter, misleading.
For nearly two years now, the intelligence community has kept secret evidence in the Russia collusion case that directly undercuts the portrayal of retired Army general and former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn as a Russian stooge.
That silence was maintained even when former acting Attorney General Sally Yates publicly claimed Flynn was possibly “compromised” by Moscow.
And when a Democratic senator, Al Franken of Minnesota, suggested the former Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) chief posed a “danger to this republic.”
And even when some media outlets opined about whether Flynn’s contacts with Russia were treasonous.
Yes, the Pentagon did give a classified briefing to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) in May 2017, but then it declined the senator’s impassioned plea three months later to make some of that briefing information public.
“It appears the public release of this information would not pose any ongoing risk to national security. Moreover, the declassification would be in the public interest, and is in the interest of fairness to Lt. Gen. Flynn,” Grassley wrote in August 2017.
Were the information Grassley requested made public, America would have learned this, according to my sources:
+Before Flynn made his infamous December 2015 trip to Moscow — as a retired general and then-adviser to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign — he alerted his former employer, the DIA.
+He then attended a “defensive” or “protective” briefing before he ever sat alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Russia Today (RT) dinner, or before he talked with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
+The briefing educated and sensitized Flynn to possible efforts by his Russian host to compromise the former high-ranking defense official and prepared him for conversations in which he could potentially extract intelligence for U.S. agencies such as the DIA.
+When Flynn returned from Moscow, he spent time briefing intelligence officials on what he learned during the Moscow contacts. Between two and nine intelligence officials attended the various meetings with Flynn about the RT event, and the information was moderately useful, about what one would expect from a public event, according to my sources.
DIA spokesman James Kudla on Wednesday declined comment about Flynn.
Rather than a diplomatic embarrassment bordering on treason, Flynn’s conduct at the RT event provided some modest benefit to the U.S. intelligence community, something that many former military and intelligence officers continue to offer their country after retirement when they keep security clearances.
It’s important to wind back many months to where the Russia collusion narrative started and the media frenzy–driven suggestion that Flynn may have been on a mission to compromise America’s security and endanger this great republic when he visited Moscow.
Would the central character in a Russian election hijack plot actually self-disclose his trip in advance? And then sit through a briefing on how to avoid being compromised by his foreign hosts? And then come back to America and be debriefed by U.S. intelligence officers about who and what he saw?
And would a prosecutor recommend little or no prison time for a former general if that former military leader truly had compromised national security?
Highly unlikely.
The gap between the original portrayal of Flynn’s activities and the actual facts likely is one of the reasons a prosecutor working for special counsel Robert Mueller pointedly rejected a judge’s suggestion at Flynn’s aborted sentencing last month that the general might have engaged in treason. Source. Long story short, the Russian collusion story was always bogus, the FBI/DOJ knew it was always bogus, yet they set Flynn up anyway. The RT event is not at all central to Flynn's legal situation, and I see no reason to believe it is even relevant to the Mueller investigation. It is not a component of Flynn's charges or sentencing. Solomon is only actually refuting media reports implying that the RT event was nefarious. But you know this already.
That's not the point. The point is that Flynn was already sharing with American intelligence agencies the contents of his conversations with Kislyak. This again begs the question of why the FBI felt compelled to go "interview" him.
|
Isn't this what the last 2 years are supposed to be about? Fake media originating from questionable places and then spread by purportedly informed people influencing/exacerbating tensions whether based on real problems or imagined?
Is this China-Uyghur thing not an example of something far more effective than Russia with buff Bernie memes?
|
On January 04 2019 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
Isn't this what the last 2 years are supposed to be about? Fake media originating from questionable places and then spread by purportedly informed people influencing/exacerbating tensions whether based on real problems or imagined?
Is this China-Uyghur thing not an example of something far more effective than Russia with buff Bernie memes?
This is what Igne and I are not so subtly addressing. Regardless of the veracity of any particular story shared through social media, China is clearly abusing the hell out of its Uyghur population. So no, you should not be using false/fake stories about Uyghur abuse to illustrate your point, because abuse is happening.
|
On January 04 2019 05:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2019 05:30 Doodsmack wrote:On January 04 2019 03:20 xDaunt wrote:BTW, thanks to John Solomon, now we know why Mueller requested zero jail time for Flynn: Sometimes public silence can be deafening or, for that matter, misleading.
For nearly two years now, the intelligence community has kept secret evidence in the Russia collusion case that directly undercuts the portrayal of retired Army general and former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn as a Russian stooge.
That silence was maintained even when former acting Attorney General Sally Yates publicly claimed Flynn was possibly “compromised” by Moscow.
And when a Democratic senator, Al Franken of Minnesota, suggested the former Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) chief posed a “danger to this republic.”
And even when some media outlets opined about whether Flynn’s contacts with Russia were treasonous.
Yes, the Pentagon did give a classified briefing to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) in May 2017, but then it declined the senator’s impassioned plea three months later to make some of that briefing information public.
“It appears the public release of this information would not pose any ongoing risk to national security. Moreover, the declassification would be in the public interest, and is in the interest of fairness to Lt. Gen. Flynn,” Grassley wrote in August 2017.
Were the information Grassley requested made public, America would have learned this, according to my sources:
+Before Flynn made his infamous December 2015 trip to Moscow — as a retired general and then-adviser to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign — he alerted his former employer, the DIA.
+He then attended a “defensive” or “protective” briefing before he ever sat alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Russia Today (RT) dinner, or before he talked with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
+The briefing educated and sensitized Flynn to possible efforts by his Russian host to compromise the former high-ranking defense official and prepared him for conversations in which he could potentially extract intelligence for U.S. agencies such as the DIA.
+When Flynn returned from Moscow, he spent time briefing intelligence officials on what he learned during the Moscow contacts. Between two and nine intelligence officials attended the various meetings with Flynn about the RT event, and the information was moderately useful, about what one would expect from a public event, according to my sources.
DIA spokesman James Kudla on Wednesday declined comment about Flynn.
Rather than a diplomatic embarrassment bordering on treason, Flynn’s conduct at the RT event provided some modest benefit to the U.S. intelligence community, something that many former military and intelligence officers continue to offer their country after retirement when they keep security clearances.
It’s important to wind back many months to where the Russia collusion narrative started and the media frenzy–driven suggestion that Flynn may have been on a mission to compromise America’s security and endanger this great republic when he visited Moscow.
Would the central character in a Russian election hijack plot actually self-disclose his trip in advance? And then sit through a briefing on how to avoid being compromised by his foreign hosts? And then come back to America and be debriefed by U.S. intelligence officers about who and what he saw?
And would a prosecutor recommend little or no prison time for a former general if that former military leader truly had compromised national security?
Highly unlikely.
The gap between the original portrayal of Flynn’s activities and the actual facts likely is one of the reasons a prosecutor working for special counsel Robert Mueller pointedly rejected a judge’s suggestion at Flynn’s aborted sentencing last month that the general might have engaged in treason. Source. Long story short, the Russian collusion story was always bogus, the FBI/DOJ knew it was always bogus, yet they set Flynn up anyway. The RT event is not at all central to Flynn's legal situation, and I see no reason to believe it is even relevant to the Mueller investigation. It is not a component of Flynn's charges or sentencing. Solomon is only actually refuting media reports implying that the RT event was nefarious. But you know this already. That's not the point. The point is that Flynn was already sharing with American intelligence agencies the contents of his conversations with Kislyak. This again begs the question of why the FBI felt compelled to go "interview" him.
The article contradicts your entire point. He talked to intel agencies about the RT event. The FBI interview and legal case are not related to the RT event. From the article:
There’s no sugarcoating the mistakes Flynn did make. By his own admission, he misled the FBI and Vice President Pence about the fact that sanctions did come up in a December 2016 conversation with Kislyak, then Moscow’s ambassador to the United States. He didn’t file proper foreign-lobbying paperwork for money he received from Turkish sources. And he likely did not file the proper paperwork disclosing or seeking permission for the $45,000 in speaking and travel fees he got for the RT event.
Those are sins for which Flynn has paid, and will pay, dearly.
But there is ample evidence now that the event that many “Russia collusion” cheerleaders have cited as the start of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Moscow was, in fact, something very different.
Flynn’s attendance at the RT event was disclosed in advance to the intelligence community, he took proactive steps to ensure he could not be compromised by attendees and he then came back to the United States and reported intelligence designed to benefit America.
Flynn was never charged with any wrongdoing related to the RT event, so the belated revelations about his pre- and post-event conduct won’t have any effect on his sentencing in the court of law. But in the court of public opinion, they should have a real impact.
|
On January 04 2019 05:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2019 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
Isn't this what the last 2 years are supposed to be about? Fake media originating from questionable places and then spread by purportedly informed people influencing/exacerbating tensions whether based on real problems or imagined?
Is this China-Uyghur thing not an example of something far more effective than Russia with buff Bernie memes? This is what Igne and I are not so subtly addressing. Regardless of the veracity of any particular story shared through social media, China is clearly abusing the hell out of its Uyghur population. So no, you should not be using false/fake stories about Uyghur abuse to illustrate your point, because abuse is happening.
That's exactly what the media did with Russia posts about police abuse and Racism in general.
EDIT: As an aside I can't help but imagine a good 1/3 of Trump supporters would back a plan to send US Muslims to the Chinese facilities regardless of how bad they are.
|
On January 04 2019 05:56 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2019 05:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 04 2019 05:30 Doodsmack wrote:On January 04 2019 03:20 xDaunt wrote:BTW, thanks to John Solomon, now we know why Mueller requested zero jail time for Flynn: Sometimes public silence can be deafening or, for that matter, misleading.
For nearly two years now, the intelligence community has kept secret evidence in the Russia collusion case that directly undercuts the portrayal of retired Army general and former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn as a Russian stooge.
That silence was maintained even when former acting Attorney General Sally Yates publicly claimed Flynn was possibly “compromised” by Moscow.
And when a Democratic senator, Al Franken of Minnesota, suggested the former Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) chief posed a “danger to this republic.”
And even when some media outlets opined about whether Flynn’s contacts with Russia were treasonous.
Yes, the Pentagon did give a classified briefing to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) in May 2017, but then it declined the senator’s impassioned plea three months later to make some of that briefing information public.
“It appears the public release of this information would not pose any ongoing risk to national security. Moreover, the declassification would be in the public interest, and is in the interest of fairness to Lt. Gen. Flynn,” Grassley wrote in August 2017.
Were the information Grassley requested made public, America would have learned this, according to my sources:
+Before Flynn made his infamous December 2015 trip to Moscow — as a retired general and then-adviser to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign — he alerted his former employer, the DIA.
+He then attended a “defensive” or “protective” briefing before he ever sat alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Russia Today (RT) dinner, or before he talked with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
+The briefing educated and sensitized Flynn to possible efforts by his Russian host to compromise the former high-ranking defense official and prepared him for conversations in which he could potentially extract intelligence for U.S. agencies such as the DIA.
+When Flynn returned from Moscow, he spent time briefing intelligence officials on what he learned during the Moscow contacts. Between two and nine intelligence officials attended the various meetings with Flynn about the RT event, and the information was moderately useful, about what one would expect from a public event, according to my sources.
DIA spokesman James Kudla on Wednesday declined comment about Flynn.
Rather than a diplomatic embarrassment bordering on treason, Flynn’s conduct at the RT event provided some modest benefit to the U.S. intelligence community, something that many former military and intelligence officers continue to offer their country after retirement when they keep security clearances.
It’s important to wind back many months to where the Russia collusion narrative started and the media frenzy–driven suggestion that Flynn may have been on a mission to compromise America’s security and endanger this great republic when he visited Moscow.
Would the central character in a Russian election hijack plot actually self-disclose his trip in advance? And then sit through a briefing on how to avoid being compromised by his foreign hosts? And then come back to America and be debriefed by U.S. intelligence officers about who and what he saw?
And would a prosecutor recommend little or no prison time for a former general if that former military leader truly had compromised national security?
Highly unlikely.
The gap between the original portrayal of Flynn’s activities and the actual facts likely is one of the reasons a prosecutor working for special counsel Robert Mueller pointedly rejected a judge’s suggestion at Flynn’s aborted sentencing last month that the general might have engaged in treason. Source. Long story short, the Russian collusion story was always bogus, the FBI/DOJ knew it was always bogus, yet they set Flynn up anyway. The RT event is not at all central to Flynn's legal situation, and I see no reason to believe it is even relevant to the Mueller investigation. It is not a component of Flynn's charges or sentencing. Solomon is only actually refuting media reports implying that the RT event was nefarious. But you know this already. That's not the point. The point is that Flynn was already sharing with American intelligence agencies the contents of his conversations with Kislyak. This again begs the question of why the FBI felt compelled to go "interview" him. The article contradicts your entire point. He talked to intel agencies about the RT event. The FBI interview and legal case are not related to the RT event. From the article: Show nested quote +There’s no sugarcoating the mistakes Flynn did make. By his own admission, he misled the FBI and Vice President Pence about the fact that sanctions did come up in a December 2016 conversation with Kislyak, then Moscow’s ambassador to the United States. He didn’t file proper foreign-lobbying paperwork for money he received from Turkish sources. And he likely did not file the proper paperwork disclosing or seeking permission for the $45,000 in speaking and travel fees he got for the RT event.
Those are sins for which Flynn has paid, and will pay, dearly.
But there is ample evidence now that the event that many “Russia collusion” cheerleaders have cited as the start of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Moscow was, in fact, something very different.
Flynn’s attendance at the RT event was disclosed in advance to the intelligence community, he took proactive steps to ensure he could not be compromised by attendees and he then came back to the United States and reported intelligence designed to benefit America.
Flynn was never charged with any wrongdoing related to the RT event, so the belated revelations about his pre- and post-event conduct won’t have any effect on his sentencing in the court of law. But in the court of public opinion, they should have a real impact.
No, you're not looking at it correctly. The question to ask is why does the FBI need to interview someone about a conversation that the person had with a Russian when that person already has a history of voluntarily cooperating with American intelligence on counterespionage matters related to prior conversations with the same Russian? And let's not forget that the FBI already had the transcript of the call that they interviewed Flynn about and that Flynn knew they had the transcript. If you don't think this stinks, then you're missing a nose.
|
On January 04 2019 06:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2019 05:56 Doodsmack wrote:On January 04 2019 05:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 04 2019 05:30 Doodsmack wrote:On January 04 2019 03:20 xDaunt wrote:BTW, thanks to John Solomon, now we know why Mueller requested zero jail time for Flynn: Sometimes public silence can be deafening or, for that matter, misleading.
For nearly two years now, the intelligence community has kept secret evidence in the Russia collusion case that directly undercuts the portrayal of retired Army general and former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn as a Russian stooge.
That silence was maintained even when former acting Attorney General Sally Yates publicly claimed Flynn was possibly “compromised” by Moscow.
And when a Democratic senator, Al Franken of Minnesota, suggested the former Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) chief posed a “danger to this republic.”
And even when some media outlets opined about whether Flynn’s contacts with Russia were treasonous.
Yes, the Pentagon did give a classified briefing to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) in May 2017, but then it declined the senator’s impassioned plea three months later to make some of that briefing information public.
“It appears the public release of this information would not pose any ongoing risk to national security. Moreover, the declassification would be in the public interest, and is in the interest of fairness to Lt. Gen. Flynn,” Grassley wrote in August 2017.
Were the information Grassley requested made public, America would have learned this, according to my sources:
+Before Flynn made his infamous December 2015 trip to Moscow — as a retired general and then-adviser to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign — he alerted his former employer, the DIA.
+He then attended a “defensive” or “protective” briefing before he ever sat alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Russia Today (RT) dinner, or before he talked with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
+The briefing educated and sensitized Flynn to possible efforts by his Russian host to compromise the former high-ranking defense official and prepared him for conversations in which he could potentially extract intelligence for U.S. agencies such as the DIA.
+When Flynn returned from Moscow, he spent time briefing intelligence officials on what he learned during the Moscow contacts. Between two and nine intelligence officials attended the various meetings with Flynn about the RT event, and the information was moderately useful, about what one would expect from a public event, according to my sources.
DIA spokesman James Kudla on Wednesday declined comment about Flynn.
Rather than a diplomatic embarrassment bordering on treason, Flynn’s conduct at the RT event provided some modest benefit to the U.S. intelligence community, something that many former military and intelligence officers continue to offer their country after retirement when they keep security clearances.
It’s important to wind back many months to where the Russia collusion narrative started and the media frenzy–driven suggestion that Flynn may have been on a mission to compromise America’s security and endanger this great republic when he visited Moscow.
Would the central character in a Russian election hijack plot actually self-disclose his trip in advance? And then sit through a briefing on how to avoid being compromised by his foreign hosts? And then come back to America and be debriefed by U.S. intelligence officers about who and what he saw?
And would a prosecutor recommend little or no prison time for a former general if that former military leader truly had compromised national security?
Highly unlikely.
The gap between the original portrayal of Flynn’s activities and the actual facts likely is one of the reasons a prosecutor working for special counsel Robert Mueller pointedly rejected a judge’s suggestion at Flynn’s aborted sentencing last month that the general might have engaged in treason. Source. Long story short, the Russian collusion story was always bogus, the FBI/DOJ knew it was always bogus, yet they set Flynn up anyway. The RT event is not at all central to Flynn's legal situation, and I see no reason to believe it is even relevant to the Mueller investigation. It is not a component of Flynn's charges or sentencing. Solomon is only actually refuting media reports implying that the RT event was nefarious. But you know this already. That's not the point. The point is that Flynn was already sharing with American intelligence agencies the contents of his conversations with Kislyak. This again begs the question of why the FBI felt compelled to go "interview" him. The article contradicts your entire point. He talked to intel agencies about the RT event. The FBI interview and legal case are not related to the RT event. From the article: There’s no sugarcoating the mistakes Flynn did make. By his own admission, he misled the FBI and Vice President Pence about the fact that sanctions did come up in a December 2016 conversation with Kislyak, then Moscow’s ambassador to the United States. He didn’t file proper foreign-lobbying paperwork for money he received from Turkish sources. And he likely did not file the proper paperwork disclosing or seeking permission for the $45,000 in speaking and travel fees he got for the RT event.
Those are sins for which Flynn has paid, and will pay, dearly.
But there is ample evidence now that the event that many “Russia collusion” cheerleaders have cited as the start of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Moscow was, in fact, something very different.
Flynn’s attendance at the RT event was disclosed in advance to the intelligence community, he took proactive steps to ensure he could not be compromised by attendees and he then came back to the United States and reported intelligence designed to benefit America.
Flynn was never charged with any wrongdoing related to the RT event, so the belated revelations about his pre- and post-event conduct won’t have any effect on his sentencing in the court of law. But in the court of public opinion, they should have a real impact. No, you're not looking at it correctly. The question to ask is why does the FBI need to interview someone about a conversation that the person had with a Russian when that person already has a history of voluntarily cooperating with American intelligence on counterespionage matters related to prior conversations with the same Russian? And let's not forget that the FBI already had the transcript of the call that they interviewed Flynn about and that Flynn knew they had the transcript. If you don't think this stinks, then you're missing a nose.
Problem is the FBI interview came after Flynn was apparently lying about a call he had with that Russian, meaning he apparently was not being forthright about his contacts with that Russian. He even lied to Pence about it, and was fired for that reason (independent of any FBI interview). And if he knew that the FBI had the transcript, he probably shouldn't have lied about the contents of the call. In fact it would be pretty damn stupid to lie in that situation.
|
I guess I'm not talking about Republicans contributions to our problems enough (I feel it's clear I think they are worse than Democrats, so much worse they aren't even worth consideration (at the politician level). The operating presumption (I thought was clear) is that they are offering the worst possible ideas strictly in the interest of their donors and their donors are some heartless sob's.
I just think a bunch of Democrats/liberals are wasting their time talking about how terrible Trump and Republicans are and how Democrats funding Trump's horrific border policy, or much of the other ~60% of Trumps agenda people like Manchin support, is the best people should expect and they shouldn't express their concerns.
That said worse than Democrats or even Republicans is Bolsonaro
Newly installed President Jair Bolsonaro targeted Brazil’s indigenous groups, descendants of slaves and the LGBT community with executive orders in the first hours of his administration, moving quickly after a campaign in which the far-right leader said he would radically overhaul many aspects of life in Latin America’s largest nation.
Sao Paulo’s stock market, meanwhile, jumped 3.56 percent to a record closing of 91,012 points as new Cabinet ministers reinforced the intent to privatize state-owned companies and a Brazilian arms maker benefited from Bolsonaro’s plans to loosen gun controls. Similar spikes in stock prices also occurred during the presidential campaign.
One of the orders issued late Tuesday, hours after Bolsonaro’s inauguration, likely will make it all but impossible for new lands to be identified and demarcated for indigenous communities. Areas set aside for “Quilombolas,” as descendants of former slaves are known, are also affected by the decision.
Another order removed the concerns of the LGBT community from consideration by the new human rights ministry.
In a move favorable to his allies in agribusiness, which have criticized giving large swaths of lands to the indigenous, Bolsonaro transferred the responsibilities for delineating indigenous territories from the Justice Ministry to the Agriculture Ministry. The new agriculture minister, Tereza Cristina, is part of the agribusiness caucus in Brazil’s lower house and has opposed requests from native communities.
www.nbcnews.com
To their credit a handful of Democrats at least tried something meek:
Besides wreaking havoc on marginalized people and the enviroment there's one more reason Trump likes him and they could only rally a handful of Democrats:
Bolsonaro will also be pushing a project known as Escola Sem Partido (School Without Political Parties), with the goal of banning from the classroom political opinions, debates, and any issues that could be construed as leftist.
www.thenation.com
But I suppose because I trash Democrats as well as Republicans they'd rather discuss the banal drama they do.
|
On January 04 2019 05:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2019 05:24 IgnE wrote:
theres a lot of fake evidence for a lot of things. i still wouldnt want to be uyghur in china. One of the ironies is that Uyghur food is super popular in China right now and may secretly be the best variety of Chinese food. It's right up there with Sichuan food. Too bad it is almost impossible to find in the US.
too many bell peppers and too much fried dough
|
On January 04 2019 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:I guess I'm not talking about Republicans contributions to our problems enough (I feel it's clear I think they are worse than Democrats, so much worse they aren't even worth consideration (at the politician level). The operating presumption (I thought was clear) is that they are offering the worst possible ideas strictly in the interest of their donors and their donors are some heartless sob's. I just think a bunch of Democrats/liberals are wasting their time talking about how terrible Trump and Republicans are and how Democrats funding Trump's horrific border policy, or much of the other ~60% of Trumps agenda people like Manchin support, is the best people should expect and they shouldn't express their concerns. That said worse than Democrats or even Republicans is Bolsonaro Show nested quote +Newly installed President Jair Bolsonaro targeted Brazil’s indigenous groups, descendants of slaves and the LGBT community with executive orders in the first hours of his administration, moving quickly after a campaign in which the far-right leader said he would radically overhaul many aspects of life in Latin America’s largest nation.
Sao Paulo’s stock market, meanwhile, jumped 3.56 percent to a record closing of 91,012 points as new Cabinet ministers reinforced the intent to privatize state-owned companies and a Brazilian arms maker benefited from Bolsonaro’s plans to loosen gun controls. Similar spikes in stock prices also occurred during the presidential campaign.
One of the orders issued late Tuesday, hours after Bolsonaro’s inauguration, likely will make it all but impossible for new lands to be identified and demarcated for indigenous communities. Areas set aside for “Quilombolas,” as descendants of former slaves are known, are also affected by the decision.
Another order removed the concerns of the LGBT community from consideration by the new human rights ministry.
In a move favorable to his allies in agribusiness, which have criticized giving large swaths of lands to the indigenous, Bolsonaro transferred the responsibilities for delineating indigenous territories from the Justice Ministry to the Agriculture Ministry. The new agriculture minister, Tereza Cristina, is part of the agribusiness caucus in Brazil’s lower house and has opposed requests from native communities. www.nbcnews.comhttps://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1080164786330132480To their credit a handful of Democrats at least tried something meek: Besides wreaking havoc on marginalized people and the enviroment there's one more reason Trump likes him and they could only rally a handful of Democrats: Show nested quote +Bolsonaro will also be pushing a project known as Escola Sem Partido (School Without Political Parties), with the goal of banning from the classroom political opinions, debates, and any issues that could be construed as leftist. www.thenation.comBut I suppose because I trash Democrats as well as Republicans they'd rather discuss the banal drama they do.
Boy I like that Bolsonaro guy. I can read right trough the fake news anti propaganda.
After decades of big government socialist policies thar ruined the country, a historically leftist country took a 180 degree turn and voted massively for a pro-market conservative.
Since commenting after the fact is typical leftist bullshit "it wasn't real socialism" "it was the US fault" I can assure you in 10 years Brazil will be way better than it is know; exactly how I predicted Venezuela was gonna go down the drain with Chavez and his lunacy.
|
All brazilian media was against PT and Lula, and the Wall Street Journal endorsed Bolsonaro... gotta love how the fake news talking point is so prevalent that it doesn't even require the media attacking your guy in order to appear.
|
On January 04 2019 12:46 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2019 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:I guess I'm not talking about Republicans contributions to our problems enough (I feel it's clear I think they are worse than Democrats, so much worse they aren't even worth consideration (at the politician level). The operating presumption (I thought was clear) is that they are offering the worst possible ideas strictly in the interest of their donors and their donors are some heartless sob's. I just think a bunch of Democrats/liberals are wasting their time talking about how terrible Trump and Republicans are and how Democrats funding Trump's horrific border policy, or much of the other ~60% of Trumps agenda people like Manchin support, is the best people should expect and they shouldn't express their concerns. That said worse than Democrats or even Republicans is Bolsonaro Newly installed President Jair Bolsonaro targeted Brazil’s indigenous groups, descendants of slaves and the LGBT community with executive orders in the first hours of his administration, moving quickly after a campaign in which the far-right leader said he would radically overhaul many aspects of life in Latin America’s largest nation.
Sao Paulo’s stock market, meanwhile, jumped 3.56 percent to a record closing of 91,012 points as new Cabinet ministers reinforced the intent to privatize state-owned companies and a Brazilian arms maker benefited from Bolsonaro’s plans to loosen gun controls. Similar spikes in stock prices also occurred during the presidential campaign.
One of the orders issued late Tuesday, hours after Bolsonaro’s inauguration, likely will make it all but impossible for new lands to be identified and demarcated for indigenous communities. Areas set aside for “Quilombolas,” as descendants of former slaves are known, are also affected by the decision.
Another order removed the concerns of the LGBT community from consideration by the new human rights ministry.
In a move favorable to his allies in agribusiness, which have criticized giving large swaths of lands to the indigenous, Bolsonaro transferred the responsibilities for delineating indigenous territories from the Justice Ministry to the Agriculture Ministry. The new agriculture minister, Tereza Cristina, is part of the agribusiness caucus in Brazil’s lower house and has opposed requests from native communities. www.nbcnews.comhttps://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1080164786330132480To their credit a handful of Democrats at least tried something meek: Besides wreaking havoc on marginalized people and the enviroment there's one more reason Trump likes him and they could only rally a handful of Democrats: Bolsonaro will also be pushing a project known as Escola Sem Partido (School Without Political Parties), with the goal of banning from the classroom political opinions, debates, and any issues that could be construed as leftist. www.thenation.comBut I suppose because I trash Democrats as well as Republicans they'd rather discuss the banal drama they do. Boy I like that Bolsonaro guy. I can read right trough the fake news anti propaganda. After decades of big government socialist policies thar ruined the country, a historically leftist country took a 180 degree turn and voted massively for a pro-market conservative. Since commenting after the fact is typical leftist bullshit "it wasn't real socialism" "it was the US fault" I can assure you in 10 years Brazil will be way better than it is know; exactly how I predicted Venezuela was gonna go down the drain with Chavez and his lunacy.
I'm sure a handful of Brazilians will get wealthy, further develop a "middle class" to guard them and their fortunes in exchange for some security and a false sense of superiority likely supported by being of light or white complexion. Meanwhile indigenous and marginalized people are devastated everyone distracted with Iphones and other shiny objects meant to make them feel like the exploitation is a gift and the environmental disaster merely the cost of business.
Without fail those that ride the wave of exploitation and find themselves momentarily afloat claim those that are drowning need only kick as they themselves trample the marginalized to assure themselves solid footing.
Oh and a decade or few from now the Amazon (river and forest) will be devastated to a degree almost unfathomable.
|
AOC is young and has plenty to learn but she's got Republicans shook and is the first signs of the kinda fight I've been saying Democrats have needed since Obama got elected.
|
From ZeroCool in the other thread
Could have sworn I mentioned that a few pages back. Anyway, as P6 has stated, the things you don't think about, will slowly stop working. NASA, FCC, SEC, HUD, etc. When these services, that affect a very, very large portion of citizens are stopped, those affected will make their voices heard. You'll see some very lively town hall meetings with politicians.
The stock market and by extension, the economy, will slowly tank as this standoff ensues, and the US will lose a credit rating or two because of it. That in turn will make borrowing more expensive, which in turn, makes other necessary things expensive. Taxes will rise but because they have to in order to pay the borrowed money, not because we want to improve infrastructure or handout free education and universal healthcare.
this is actually a really important observation. Trump is creating yet another crisis he alone can solve and Republicans have to blame Democrats or rebuild their entire world view, pretty easy to imagine which of those will happen. Trump's got everyone by the balls and he knows it because no one blames the kid for acting like a kid, they blame the adults for failing to keep him in check and Democrats have conditioned their base to expect Democrats to be the adult.
So despite Trump screwing over plenty of Republican voters for a childish fit over a "wall" they won't blame him, they'll blame Democrats like they do for everything else. Most Democrats will blame Republicans, but just enough Democrats, independents, and Republicans will blame Trump, but expect Democrats to prevent all of those problems. If they start hitting those voters will blame Democrats for failing as one half of Trump's "parents" and Democrats will have to cave.
Best case for Democrats if they want to go the veto-proof route it has to favor Republicans because nothing even slightly Dem favored can clear a veto-proof Senate majority.
No one knows if Trump even cares about getting re-elected or can comprehend in any real way what the government being shutdown for a year could mean so Democrats in the house cna either give Trump what he wants or give 67 Republican senators something that won't upset their base for stopping the wall.
~67
|
On January 05 2019 05:38 GreenHorizons wrote:From ZeroCool in the other thread Show nested quote +Could have sworn I mentioned that a few pages back. Anyway, as P6 has stated, the things you don't think about, will slowly stop working. NASA, FCC, SEC, HUD, etc. When these services, that affect a very, very large portion of citizens are stopped, those affected will make their voices heard. You'll see some very lively town hall meetings with politicians.
The stock market and by extension, the economy, will slowly tank as this standoff ensues, and the US will lose a credit rating or two because of it. That in turn will make borrowing more expensive, which in turn, makes other necessary things expensive. Taxes will rise but because they have to in order to pay the borrowed money, not because we want to improve infrastructure or handout free education and universal healthcare. this is actually a really important observation. Trump is creating yet another crisis he alone can solve and Republicans have to blame Democrats or rebuild their entire world view, pretty easy to imagine which of those will happen. Trump's got everyone by the balls and he knows it because no one blames the kid for acting like a kid, they blame the adults for failing to keep him in check and Democrats have conditioned their base to expect Democrats to be the adult. So despite Trump screwing over plenty of Republican voters for a childish fit over a "wall" they won't blame him, they'll blame Democrats like they do for everything else. Most Democrats will blame Republicans, but just enough Democrats, independents, and Republicans will blame Trump, but expect Democrats to prevent all of those problems. If they start hitting those voters will blame Democrats for failing as one half of Trump's "parents" and Democrats will have to cave. Best case for Democrats if they want to go the veto-proof route it has to favor Republicans because nothing even slightly Dem favored can clear a veto-proof Senate majority.
The only thing stopping the Senate from supporting a clean bill to reopen the government is Trump not giving them cover.
They'll support whatever Trump comes around to.
Everyone but immigration hardliners seem amenable to a deal involving "wall" money for a fix to DACA. I expect Trump will eventually go for something like that and declare victory.
|
On January 04 2019 09:43 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2019 05:28 xDaunt wrote:On January 04 2019 05:24 IgnE wrote:
theres a lot of fake evidence for a lot of things. i still wouldnt want to be uyghur in china. One of the ironies is that Uyghur food is super popular in China right now and may secretly be the best variety of Chinese food. It's right up there with Sichuan food. Too bad it is almost impossible to find in the US. too many bell peppers and too much fried dough
I have three words for you: da pan ji. And the Uyghur dumplings are the bomb.
That said, I am thrilled that there is another person out there who agrees with me that bell peppers ghetto-up most every dish that they're in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
