|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 04 2019 22:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2019 17:38 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Washington Post reports Muellers team already had summaries for each section prepared for public release. They were displeased when they saw Barr's version. Some members of the office were particularly disappointed that Barr did not release summary information the special counsel team had prepared, according to two people familiar with their reactions.
“There was immediate displeasure from the team when they saw how the attorney general had characterized their work instead,” according one U.S. official briefed on the matter.
Summaries were prepared for different sections of the report, with a view that they could made public, the official said.
The report was prepared “so that the front matter from each section could have been released immediately — or very quickly,” the official said. “It was done in a way that minimum redactions, if any, would have been necessary, and the work would have spoken for itself.”
Mueller’s team assumed the information was going to be made available to the public, the official said, “and so they prepared their summaries to be shared in their own words — and not in the attorney general’s summary of their work, as turned out to be the case.” source Of course Mueller’s team is displeased. They have always been a political operation, and they don’t like that Barr has stripped them of their ability to do that job. This was stated quite explicitly in yesterday’s NYT article discussing the Mueller teams displeasure with Barr’s initial letter on the Mueller report.
A political operation full of registered republicans? At least try to make your lies a bit more believable please.
|
Live long civil servants upset at a political appointee for paraphrasing 2 years of work into a 4 page letter that does not fully encompass the efforts or findings. You don’t say.
We need to disregard folks who try to frame the investigation as a “political” operation like there is some pure, non-political shit going on in Washington DC. Everything is political, it is just a question of how much we trust the people doing the thing to rise above base political motives. It was called statesmanship back when we championed that sort of stuff. Now there is an entire political party that just mocks it.
|
On April 04 2019 22:40 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2019 22:37 xDaunt wrote:On April 04 2019 17:38 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Washington Post reports Muellers team already had summaries for each section prepared for public release. They were displeased when they saw Barr's version. Some members of the office were particularly disappointed that Barr did not release summary information the special counsel team had prepared, according to two people familiar with their reactions.
“There was immediate displeasure from the team when they saw how the attorney general had characterized their work instead,” according one U.S. official briefed on the matter.
Summaries were prepared for different sections of the report, with a view that they could made public, the official said.
The report was prepared “so that the front matter from each section could have been released immediately — or very quickly,” the official said. “It was done in a way that minimum redactions, if any, would have been necessary, and the work would have spoken for itself.”
Mueller’s team assumed the information was going to be made available to the public, the official said, “and so they prepared their summaries to be shared in their own words — and not in the attorney general’s summary of their work, as turned out to be the case.” source Of course Mueller’s team is displeased. They have always been a political operation, and they don’t like that Barr has stripped them of their ability to do that job. This was stated quite explicitly in yesterday’s NYT article discussing the Mueller teams displeasure with Barr’s initial letter on the Mueller report. A political operation full of registered republicans? At least try to make your lies a bit more believable please.
First, it was not full of registered Republicans. Second, you and the rest of the posters who ludicrously shout that figures like Mueller and Comey are Republicans as if that is significant to their bias or lack thereof need to get up to speed. The relevant political divide as it pertains to Trump is not Republican vs Democrat. Any analysis that fails to account for the fact that there is still a large, significant class of establishment-type Republicans who are entirely opposed to Trump is simply foundationally deficient and laughable on its face.
|
On April 04 2019 22:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2019 22:40 hunts wrote:On April 04 2019 22:37 xDaunt wrote:On April 04 2019 17:38 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Washington Post reports Muellers team already had summaries for each section prepared for public release. They were displeased when they saw Barr's version. Some members of the office were particularly disappointed that Barr did not release summary information the special counsel team had prepared, according to two people familiar with their reactions.
“There was immediate displeasure from the team when they saw how the attorney general had characterized their work instead,” according one U.S. official briefed on the matter.
Summaries were prepared for different sections of the report, with a view that they could made public, the official said.
The report was prepared “so that the front matter from each section could have been released immediately — or very quickly,” the official said. “It was done in a way that minimum redactions, if any, would have been necessary, and the work would have spoken for itself.”
Mueller’s team assumed the information was going to be made available to the public, the official said, “and so they prepared their summaries to be shared in their own words — and not in the attorney general’s summary of their work, as turned out to be the case.” source Of course Mueller’s team is displeased. They have always been a political operation, and they don’t like that Barr has stripped them of their ability to do that job. This was stated quite explicitly in yesterday’s NYT article discussing the Mueller teams displeasure with Barr’s initial letter on the Mueller report. A political operation full of registered republicans? At least try to make your lies a bit more believable please. First, it was not full of registered Republicans. Second, you and the rest of the posters who ludicrously shout that figures like Mueller and Comey are Republicans as if that is significant to their bias or lack thereof need to get up to speed. The relevant political divide as it pertains to Trump is not Republican vs Democrat. Any analysis that fails to account for the fact that there is still a large, significant class of establishment-type Republicans who are entirely opposed to Trump is simply foundationally deficient and laughable on its face.
You mean like how the team was full of "13 angry Democrats"?
|
Aaah yes, the world in which the FBI are simultaneously doing god's work when they investigate Hillary Clinton, but are also partisan hacks when they do their job investigating trump.
|
The framing of the rift in the Republican party is always interesting to me because it depicts those who are more moderate as advisories to folks like Trump. Very much the “If you are not with us, you are against us” mindset that lumps the moderates in with the Democrats. So lifelong Republicans like Mueller have any creditability stripped away because they are not working exclusively for the advancement of the party’s goals. And this attitude is the dream of anyone trying to grift and enrich themselves in office, because it is easy to discredit any investigation as a “political hit job”.
And many conservatives don't care about that, so long as they get their political victories in the short term. However, they might be real bummed out if they end up in the minority in the senate and the filibuster goes away and their victories are curtailed in short order.
|
“Kiss the ring” as a mode of political allegiance only works if you clearly identify and criticize those who refuse.
|
I like the idea of "The Mueller investigation is a political maneuver" as a critique of the investigation, as though the umpteen investigations of Hillary Clinton were somehow apolitical. Surely someone who's not happy with the outcome of those investigations could understand why Mueller's team is unsatisfied here, yes?
|
On April 04 2019 23:05 hunts wrote:
Aaah yes, the world in which the FBI are simultaneously doing god's work when they investigate Hillary Clinton, but are also partisan hacks when they do their job investigating trump.
Yeah, about that. The problem is that the FBI didn't properly investigate Hillary Clinton, which is why the IG is currently crawling up their ass and trying to figure out what happened with that investigation. Passing out immunity agreements like candy, drafting exoneration statements before interviewing the main suspect, allowing the main suspect's interview to be tainted by the presence of other witnesses under the guise of them being counsel, and potentially ignoring and/or covering up evidence that the Chinese were reading her emails in real time are all very bad looks. There's a reason why almost everyone associated with the Midyear investigation has been fired, demoted, or otherwise punished in one way or another.
|
On April 04 2019 23:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2019 23:05 hunts wrote:
Aaah yes, the world in which the FBI are simultaneously doing god's work when they investigate Hillary Clinton, but are also partisan hacks when they do their job investigating trump. Yeah, about that. The problem is that the FBI didn't properly investigate Hillary Clinton, which is why the IG is currently crawling up their ass and trying to figure out what happened with that investigation. Passing out immunity agreements like candy, drafting exoneration statements before interviewing the main suspect, allowing the main suspect's interview to be tainted by the presence of other witnesses under the guise of them being counsel, and potentially ignoring and/or covering up evidence that the Chinese were reading her emails in real time are all very bad looks. There's a reason why almost everyone associated with the Midyear investigation has been fired, demoted, or otherwise punished in one way or another.
I love this line more than I thought I could love anything from xDaunt
|
China was reading her emails in real time? When did that happen and how much quality information could they have obtained? Because for all the drama around those emails, I never heard much about what super secret stuff was passed to the SoS through email. Mostly stuff marked “confidential” a/k/a very low level security stuff that mostly involved her schedule.
|
If your worried about China reading Hillary's emails your going to absolutely love the giant gaping holes in security under Trump, but I guess those somehow don't matter.
|
On April 05 2019 00:11 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2019 23:46 xDaunt wrote:On April 04 2019 23:05 hunts wrote:
Aaah yes, the world in which the FBI are simultaneously doing god's work when they investigate Hillary Clinton, but are also partisan hacks when they do their job investigating trump. Yeah, about that. The problem is that the FBI didn't properly investigate Hillary Clinton, which is why the IG is currently crawling up their ass and trying to figure out what happened with that investigation. Passing out immunity agreements like candy, drafting exoneration statements before interviewing the main suspect, allowing the main suspect's interview to be tainted by the presence of other witnesses under the guise of them being counsel, and potentially ignoring and/or covering up evidence that the Chinese were reading her emails in real time are all very bad looks. There's a reason why almost everyone associated with the Midyear investigation has been fired, demoted, or otherwise punished in one way or another. I love this line more than I thought I could love anything from xDaunt
For once he's right, it's a very major problem. When you perform an investigation into someone's shady character and dealings, you need to get word from the horse's mouth, and not just the people that surround them. Otherwise, how are you supposed to say the matter is settled? The horse could then go on to claim windmills cause cancer, for example. That would be one bad horse.
|
On April 05 2019 00:30 Plansix wrote:
China was reading her emails in real time? When did that happen and how much quality information could they have obtained? Because for all the drama around those emails, I never heard much about what super secret stuff was passed to the SoS through email. Mostly stuff marked “confidential” a/k/a very low level security stuff that mostly involved her schedule.
It's not clear. It's all hush-hush for obvious reasons. We do know that there was some special access information on her server among a larger batch of confidential information. With regards to whether the Chinese had access to the server, this shows up in the questioning of Priestap and Strzok during their behind-the-doors congressional hearings. Both denied having any knowledge about it, which was also the official FBI position given last summer when Gohmert let it leak. But the lines of questioning were very specific and the questioners were incredulous at the answers from Priestap and Strzok. My recollection is that there was, at one point last summer, news about a whistleblower FBI agent who said that he gave the information to Strzok, who clearly didn't want to hear about it, whatever that means. But yeah, this is why I said "potentially" when referring to the China thing because it's not at all clear that it happened based upon information currently available publicly.
However, do I find it curious that there has been a stunning lack of curiosity on the part of the mainstream media to investigate why Priestap and Strzok were asked these questions during their hearings. Either there really is something to the allegation or the congressmen asking these questions need to be scrutinized for bringing up this highly charged, baseless stuff.
|
On April 05 2019 00:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 00:30 Plansix wrote:
China was reading her emails in real time? When did that happen and how much quality information could they have obtained? Because for all the drama around those emails, I never heard much about what super secret stuff was passed to the SoS through email. Mostly stuff marked “confidential” a/k/a very low level security stuff that mostly involved her schedule. But yeah, this is why I said "potentially" when referring to the China thing because it's not at all clear that it happened based upon information currently available publicly.
Unless you'd like to modify your post, the "potentiality" you pointed out was the hiding/ignoring of evidence. You seemed rather certain that China was actually reading her emails, just not sure if folks were covering it up or not. Awfully convenient word choice, in any case.
|
On April 05 2019 00:46 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 00:41 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 00:30 Plansix wrote:
China was reading her emails in real time? When did that happen and how much quality information could they have obtained? Because for all the drama around those emails, I never heard much about what super secret stuff was passed to the SoS through email. Mostly stuff marked “confidential” a/k/a very low level security stuff that mostly involved her schedule. But yeah, this is why I said "potentially" when referring to the China thing because it's not at all clear that it happened based upon information currently available publicly. Unless you'd like to modify your post, the "potentiality" you pointed out was the hiding/ignoring of evidence. You seemed rather certain that China was actually reading her emails, just not sure if folks were covering it up or not. Awfully convenient word choice, in any case.
I don’t need to modify anything. You just need to read my posts better.
|
On April 05 2019 00:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 00:46 NewSunshine wrote:On April 05 2019 00:41 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 00:30 Plansix wrote:
China was reading her emails in real time? When did that happen and how much quality information could they have obtained? Because for all the drama around those emails, I never heard much about what super secret stuff was passed to the SoS through email. Mostly stuff marked “confidential” a/k/a very low level security stuff that mostly involved her schedule. But yeah, this is why I said "potentially" when referring to the China thing because it's not at all clear that it happened based upon information currently available publicly. Unless you'd like to modify your post, the "potentiality" you pointed out was the hiding/ignoring of evidence. You seemed rather certain that China was actually reading her emails, just not sure if folks were covering it up or not. Awfully convenient word choice, in any case. I don’t need to modify anything. You just need to read my last post better.
I read it just fine. You posted that nonsense hoping people would gloss over it and take it as fact. Someone called it out, and now it's a "well I just said it might have happened." And aliens might have been responsible for Stonehenge. But until I provide moving evidence, you don't need to take my claim seriously, do you?
|
Your entire case rests on career intelligence agents being careful in how they answer questions while under oath?
Wow... simply brilliant.
Makes you wonder why nothing came of this during the 2 years where Republicans were in control of everything, oh right, because as always there is nothing and this is just more boogeyman creating because Hillary Clinton's political corpse isn't dead enough yet.
|
On April 05 2019 00:54 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 00:49 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 00:46 NewSunshine wrote:On April 05 2019 00:41 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 00:30 Plansix wrote:
China was reading her emails in real time? When did that happen and how much quality information could they have obtained? Because for all the drama around those emails, I never heard much about what super secret stuff was passed to the SoS through email. Mostly stuff marked “confidential” a/k/a very low level security stuff that mostly involved her schedule. But yeah, this is why I said "potentially" when referring to the China thing because it's not at all clear that it happened based upon information currently available publicly. Unless you'd like to modify your post, the "potentiality" you pointed out was the hiding/ignoring of evidence. You seemed rather certain that China was actually reading her emails, just not sure if folks were covering it up or not. Awfully convenient word choice, in any case. I don’t need to modify anything. You just need to read my last post better. I read it just fine. You posted that nonsense hoping people would gloss over it and take it as fact. Someone called it out, and now it's a "well I just said it might have happened." And aliens might have been responsible for Stonehenge. But until I provide moving evidence, you don't need to take my claim seriously, do you?
If that's really your interpretation of the exchange, then no, you did not read anything "just fine."
|
On April 05 2019 00:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 00:30 Plansix wrote:
China was reading her emails in real time? When did that happen and how much quality information could they have obtained? Because for all the drama around those emails, I never heard much about what super secret stuff was passed to the SoS through email. Mostly stuff marked “confidential” a/k/a very low level security stuff that mostly involved her schedule. It's not clear. It's all hush-hush for obvious reasons. We do know that there was some special access information on her server among a larger batch of confidential information. With regards to whether the Chinese had access to the server, this shows up in the questioning of Priestap and Strzok during their behind-the-doors congressional hearings. Both denied having any knowledge about it, which was also the official FBI position given last summer when Gohmert let it leak. But the lines of questioning were very specific and the questioners were incredulous at the answers from Priestap and Strzok. My recollection is that there was, at one point last summer, news about a whistleblower FBI agent who said that he gave the information to Strzok, who clearly didn't want to hear about it, whatever that means. But yeah, this is why I said "potentially" when referring to the China thing because it's not at all clear that it happened based upon information currently available publicly. However, do I find it curious that there has been a stunning lack of curiosity on the part of the mainstream media to investigate why Priestap and Strzok were asked these questions during their hearings. Either there really is something to the allegation or the congressmen asking these questions need to be scrutinized for bringing up this highly charged, baseless stuff.
I have already commented on that in the other thread. The ONLY information we have is ONE republican rep that asked specific questions about that, and sounded like "Ahah, got you". Do you really believe if there was any truth to these allegations, it wouldn't have gone public a long time ago ? If that rep had real sources and information, he wouldn't have got that out in the open ? That the ICIG wouldn't have followed it up ? I mean, that's Nunes-level allegations.
("source" : https://gohmert.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398652 Please note code in the server forwarding email on a permanent basis would have turned up during an inspection, and having some mailboxes of associates compromised by social engineering or other methods is entirely irrelevant to the server itself being hacked)
There is an ongoing lawsuit by a conservative watchdog on that topic, since the ODNI failed to answer to an FOIA request.
A full search of all known hacked mail databases of the US and allies intelligence systems turned up 0 mail coming from the clinton servers, and the in-depth tech report of the FBI (I know you are not going to trust that one), mentioned that they didn't find any traces of intrusion, and
However, as the OIG report recounted, the FBI's computer forensics agent who was involved in the Clinton email investigation told OIG investigators that: ...although he did not believe there was "any way of determining...100%" whether Clinton's servers had been compromised, he felt "fairly confident that there wasn't an intrusion." When asked whether a sophisticated foreign adversary was likely to be able to cover its tracks, he stated, "They could. Yeah. But I, I felt as if we coordinated with the right units at headquarters... for those specific adversaries... And the information that was returned back to me was that there was no indication of a compromise."
I appreciate that you used "potentially".
Could you elaborate on that one ? I can't find anything on that.
We do know that there was some special access information on her server among a larger batch of confidential information.
In other news, 14 (fourteen) large donors to the Trump inauguration were appointed as ambassadors. (not all got a go from the Senate). I mean, even one would be an issue in France. In fact, Macron tried to appoint 20 consuls, and was sharply rebuked by a high court. He tried to appoint one (not even talking about donors here, just "friends") and got a huge backlash immediately. Meanwhile POTUS casually gets 14 ambassadorships to people that donated on average 350000$ to his inauguration. In what world is that ok ? It's like, in your face corruption... (Seems Obama did it for one, Bush for a couple)
This is under investigation, like the whole inauguration I believe (yeah, raising record amounts of money to spend it at lavish rates in your own hotels while having shady accounting is somehow under investigation, too. I'm glad.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
