US Politics Mega-Blog - Page 7

On September 18 2018 07:12 Simberto wrote:


It is important to note that if you are into young-earth creationism, you don't "only" run afoul of evolution. You have major consistency problems with a lot of established scientific knowledge in a lot of fields. (Of course, all of those can be "solved" by claiming "god did it that way!", since there is by definition nothing an all-powerful being could not have done) You get problems with anything that dates something to before 4000 BC. So history might barely work out, but anything prehistoric doesn't work anymore. Astronomy leads to gigantic problems. You'll probably get a lot of problems with some of physics (Anything to do with nuclear radiation leads to dating methods that lead to ages larger than 6000 years.) And since a lot of sciences are interlocked, my guess would be that you cannot really deal with any science after the 18th century or so if you claim that the earth is 6000 years old.



Would you mind expounding a bit on your point with regards to white supremacists? I am a bit uncertain as to what you want to say here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kavanaugh: I have given up on predicting stuff in american politics after that 2016 election, where i was utterly certain that there is no way that any country would elect such an incompetent and unlikeable idiot. I HOPE that he doesn't get confirmed, since he seems to be an extraordinary bad choice for a lifetime appointment for a high judge.

On September 18 2018 07:09 Danglars wrote:

Finally. This is long overdue. The American people must be able to size up the scope of the problem within the FBI’s counterintelligence unit and DoJ top brass during the period the pee-tape dossier was used to justify domestic surveillance. Ohr and Comey are chief among these. Rest are basically already sunk and implicating others.

I wonder if we get some juicy Susan Rice tie-ins out of all this.

On September 18 2018 03:58 xDaunt wrote:
Nope, there definitely is not enough here to warrant opening an investigation. Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed on schedule.

Looks like this prediction missed the mark. GH's prediction that he'll be confirmed with Democrat votes is still probably the smart money though.

Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, called President Trump’s decision Monday to order the declassification of documents concerning the federal Russia investigation a “clear abuse of power.”

“President Trump, in a clear abuse of power, has decided to intervene in a pending law enforcement investigation by ordering the selective release of materials he believes are helpful to his defense team and thinks will advance a false narrative,” Schiff, D-Calif., said in a statement.

“With respect to some of these materials, I have been previously informed by the FBI and Justice Department that they would consider their release a red line that must not be crossed as they may compromise sources and methods,” Schiff added. “This is evidently of no consequence to a President who cares about nothing about the country and everything about his narrow self-interest.”

On September 18 2018 08:26 xDaunt wrote:
Schiff is squealing:



Source.

Who the hell is he kidding? The country has been through political hell over the past two years as a result of what is in those FISA documents. How is it not in the public interest to finally learn whether there was ever any basis to any of this stuff at all? And if the FISA warrants were fraudulently procured as Trump has claimed (and let's face, he knows), then confidentiality/privilege do not apply to them anyway by virtue of one of Obama's executive orders that strips confidentiality in such circumstances. Furthermore, Trump unequivocally has the power to declassify this stuff anyway. So let's see it.

On September 18 2018 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:


So then what? Are those Democrats pariahs? Or are people vociferously against this nomination going to be told by the Democratic party to go support the same Democrats that will have helped Kavanaugh get on the court (and confirmed most of Trump's team)?

On September 18 2018 09:11 ChristianS wrote:

I mean, it's kind of a whole different conversation that you've had with plenty of liberals in the thread (including me a few times, I think) but i don't know where I fall on the question. On the one hand your Manchin's and such are pretty weak Democrats. On the other hand, some big stuff really does come down to small margins sometimes. Suppose that next week two Republicans announce they're a "no" on Kavanaugh (say, Murkowski and Collins), the Democrats browbeat their Manchins and Heitkamps into toeing the line, and Kavanaugh is defeated. Wouldn't that be a pretty big policy win for the big-tent approach? That would certainly go the other way with a Blankenship type in the WV seat. That's just a hypothetical, of course, but the failure of Obamacare repeal was a real example of the same thing. And if a couple marginal Republicans could be flipped to marginal Democrats, maybe the tax bill could have been stopped too.

I know I'm not saying anything you haven't heard before, and I'm afraid I'm not confident enough in my opinion of who should or shouldn't be in the tent to argue the centrist position with you; there are other times that I think wishy-washy centrists weaken the party as a whole. Xkcd had a graphic one time on the whole ideological history of the makeup of Congress, and it seemed to show pretty convincingly that the Democratic waves of 2006 and 2008 were largely centrist Democrats flooding Congress... but the same centrists were largely the ones voted out in 2010. It's totally plausible to me that if the Democrats had a clearer idea what they stood for in 2006 and 2008 they might have done just as well in those years and weathered the storm better in 2010.

One reason this issue is hard for me to nail down is because there's really two different issues at hand. The surface question is "should we, true progressives, remain ideologically pure even if that hurts mainstream appeal, or should we allow a wider range of viewpoints into our coalition, even though it waters down our policy positions?" But the other, more awkward question is "to what degree are we, GreenHorizons and ChristianS, actually aiming for the same policy outcomes?" The big-tent people are a bit hard to pin down here, because they'll talk to the far-left ideologues like "we're both totally on the same page policy-wise, I'm just trying to be practical" when often they're actually barely left of center and don't want the same outcomes at all. The whole premise of forming broad coalitions sort of forces you to be a bit duplicitous like that.

Personally, there's a lot of issues on which I don't feel informed enough to agree or disagree with you. On the ones that are left, I agree with you a fair amount, but I'm still pretty sure I'm not far enough left for you. Some days I think we'd see eye to eye on most issues; other days I think I'm probably exactly the kind of wishy-washy center-left liberal you'd like to kick out of the party.

Anyway, sorry for the TL;DR.

On September 19 2018 02:22 ChristianS wrote:
Interesting. Before you were painting her as overeager to do a press tour. Now she just hasn't accepted Congress' invitation yet and that's proof it's just defamation. I think there's an analogy to be drawn here to the slut/prude dichotomy.

On September 19 2018 03:08 ChristianS wrote:
Yes, only a fake sexual assault victim would be scared by the prospect of being grilled by a bunch of hostile Senators about their alleged sexual assault. Real sexual assault victims would love to have that opportunity.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't he have to prove it didn't happen to win a defamation suit? Care to share how you think he could manage that? Because it rings to me of grandstanding/intimidation more than a real legal threat.

On September 19 2018 03:25 xDaunt wrote:

Perhaps she should have considered that she'd have to defend her claim before she aired it all publicly? She made the choice to put herself in this position by going public.

Because he's a public person, he would have to prove that the statements are false. Right now, I think that he's in pretty good shape to do that. The only other known witness to what happened is on Kavanaugh's side. In contrast, the accuser has no corroborating evidence, plus a host of credibility issues listed above. As other evidence surfaces (if it surfaces), the calculus will change, but right now, it looks like Kavanaugh has the upper hand when it comes to the evidence. I doubt that he pursues the claim, however. There isn't much for him to gain.

On September 19 2018 03:33 ChristianS wrote:

She didn't "go public" until her story got leaked, but w/e. TIL that if you rape a girl with your buddy and then she testifies it happened snd you both testify it didn't, that "proves" it didn't happen in a court of law.

On September 19 2018 03:38 Simberto wrote:
And of course, the fact that making live as horrible as possible for people who accuse powerful men of sexual abuse until their statements are totally and objectively proven without any remaining doubt (Which, lets be honest, will never happen, because powerful men, and especially powerful republican men, always have ways to spread additional doubt. See Hillary Email investigation) has the totally unwanted sideeffect of discouraging any additional allegations, no matter their merit, is a totally unintentional and completely unavoidable sideeffect.

Lets be honest here. If you were sexually abused by someone powerful, the smart way of dealing with that is keeping it silent, and possibly politely asking for hush money. Going public is gonna haunt you forever, and has high chances of ruining your life. That is not a good status quo to have.

A Chinese-owned company operating in the Washington, D.C., area hacked Hillary Clinton’s private server throughout her term as secretary of state and obtained nearly all her emails, two sources briefed on the matter told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Chinese firm obtained Clinton’s emails in real time as she sent and received communications and documents through her personal server, according to the sources, who said the hacking was conducted as part of an intelligence operation.

The Chinese wrote code that was embedded in the server, which was kept in Clinton’s residence in upstate New York. The code generated an instant “courtesy copy” for nearly all of her emails and forwarded them to the Chinese company, according to the sources.

The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found that virtually all of Clinton’s emails were sent to a “foreign entity,” Rep. Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican, said at a July 12 House Committee on the Judiciary hearing. He did not reveal the entity’s identity, but said it was unrelated to Russia.

Two officials with the ICIG, investigator Frank Rucker and attorney Janette McMillan, met repeatedly with FBI officials to warn them of the Chinese intrusion, according to a former intelligence officer with expertise in cybersecurity issues, who was briefed on the matter. He spoke anonymously, as he was not authorized to publicly address the Chinese’s role with Clinton’s server.

Among those FBI officials was Peter Strzok, who was then the bureau’s top counterintelligence official. Strzok was fired this month following the discovery he sent anti-Trump texts to his mistress and co-worker, Lisa Page. Strzok didn’t act on the information the ICIG provided him, according to Gohmert.

Gohmert mentioned in the Judiciary Committee hearing that ICIG officials told Strzok and three other top FBI officials that they found an “anomaly” on Clinton’s server.

The former intelligence officer TheDCNF spoke with said the ICIG “discovered the anomaly pretty early in 2015.”

“When [the ICIG] did a very deep dive, they found in the actual metadata — the data which is at the header and footer of all the emails — that a copy, a ‘courtesy copy,’ was being sent to a third party and that third party was a known Chinese public company that was involved in collecting intelligence for China,” the former intelligence officer told TheDCNF.

“The [the ICIG] believe that there was some level of phishing. But once they got into the server something was embedded,” he said. “The Chinese are notorious for embedding little surprises like this.”

The intelligence officer declined to name the Chinese company.

“We do know the name of the company. There are indications there are other ‘cutouts’ that were involved. I would be in a lot of trouble if I gave you the name,” he told TheDCNF.

A government staff official who’s been briefed on the ICIG’s findings told TheDCNF that the Chinese state-owned firm linked to the hacking operates in Washington’s northern Virginia suburbs. The source was not authorized to publicly discuss the matter.

The company that penetrated Clinton’s server was not a technology firm and it served as a “front group” for the Chinese government, the source told TheDCNF.

The Fairfax and Loudoun county governments told TheDCNF that 13 state-owned Chinese companies operate in the area. Of those, three were not technologically oriented.

Fairfax County Economic Development Authority communications manager Seth Livingston told TheDCNF that all of the nine firms operating in his county were there in 2009 when Clinton began as secretary of state.

“Our Asian folks believe that all of the companies have been around and known to us since that time period,” he said in an email.

“This is the most combed over subject in modern American political history,” Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told TheDCNF. “The FBI spent thousands of hours investigating, and found no evidence of intrusion. That’s a fact.”

“But in an age where facts are alternative and truth isn’t truth, it’s no surprise that an outlet like the Daily Caller would try to distract us from very real and very immediate threats to our democracy brought by the man occupying the White House,” he continued.

Department of State Inspector General Steven A. Linick and then-ICIG I. Charles McCullough III scrutinized Clinton’s server in 2015. McCullough told Congress in July 2015 that her emails contained classified material.

“IC IG was involved in the classification review of certain information drawn from the private email server,” an agency spokeswoman told TheDCNF. She declined to comment further.

The two IGs asked the Department of Justice to investigate whether the classified information was compromised, according to a July 23, 2015, New York Times report based on unnamed senior government officials.

The FBI issued a referral to the Justice Department in July 2015. The bureau warned that classified information may have been disclosed to a foreign power or to one of its agents.

“FBIHQ, Counterespionage Section, is opening a full investigation based on specific articulated facts provided by an 811 referral from the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, dated July 6, 2015 regarding the potential compromise of classified information,” a July 10, 2015, FBI memo stated.

An 811 referral informs the FBI of classified information that was potentially released to a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.

“This investigation is also designated a Sensitive Investigative Matter (SIM) due to a connection to a current public official, political appointee or candidate,” the memo stated.

Then-FBI Deputy Director Mark F. Giuliano sent a follow-up memo on July 21, 2015, to President Barack Obama’s deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, about two conversations he had with her about the criminal referral.

“On 13 July 2015 and 20 July 2015, I verbally advised you of a Section 811(c) referral from the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community received by the FBI on 06 July 2015. The referral addressed the mishandling of classified information on the personal e-mail account and electronic media of a former high-level us Government official,” according to the FBI memo, which was hand delivered to Yates.

Justice Department spokesman Devin M. O’Malley declined to comment on this story.

Former FBI Director James Comey acknowledged in his recent book, “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership,” that the FBI was conducting a criminal investigation into Clinton’s conduct.

London Center for Policy Research’s vice president of operations, retired Col. Anthony Shaffer, told TheDCNF that Clinton’s server was vulnerable to hacking.

“Look, there’s evidence based on the complete lack of security hygiene on the server. Fourteen-year-old hackers from Canada could have probably hacked into her server and left very little trace,” Shaffer said. “Any sophisticated organization is going to be able to essentially get in and then clean up their presence.”

And a former consultant to the U.S. trade representative, Claude Barfield, told TheDCNF: “The Chinese were in the process of really gaining technological competence in 2009 to 2010. This begins to really take off in the early years of the Obama administration. The Obama administration was kind of late and there was this slow reaction about how sophisticated the Chinese were.”

EDITOR’S NOTE:

The FBI released a statement saying they had “not found any evidence” of an intrusion of Clinton’s server.

The statement does not address a central aspect of TheDCNF’s reporting, which was that the ICIG briefed top bureau officials on three separate occasions to warn the FBI of an “anomaly” they found 30,000 in-bound and outgoing emails. Former Director of the FBI James Comey himself conceded in July 2016 that while the Bureau assessed the server could have been exploited, “given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence.”

“It is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account,” Comey concluded.

According to two independent sources, ICIG found such evidence and briefed the FBI on it three times.

After releasing the statement, the FBI refused to confirm or deny to TheDCNF that such briefings ever happened.

On September 19 2018 03:40 xDaunt wrote:

She went public as soon as she sent her letter to Feinstein. She knew exactly what she was doing and what was almost certain to happen.

I hate to break it to you, but evidence is evidence. What the buddy has to say is evidence just as her testimony is evidence and Kavanaugh's testimony is evidence. At any trial, the jury is tasked with weighing the credibility of each witness and is instructed that they can believe or disregard any and all testimony from any given witness. If this woman presented her story in court without any corroborating evidence and with all of her credibility red flags, she would get annihilated going up against Kavanaugh, who by every other account, is a total boy scout. Like I said yesterday, victim testimony never holds up on its own. If it's not corroborated, and if there is any dirt on the victim, the victim is fucked. This is just how it is.