|
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 05 2019 00:57 Nouar 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. 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 Show nested quote +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".
You left out part of the paragraph from the OIG report. Let me help you:
The LHM stated that the FBI was limited in its intrusion analysis due to the
“FBI’s inability to recover all server equipment and the lack of complete server data
for the relevant time period.” According to the LHM, the FBI also identified
vulnerabilities in Clinton’s server systems and found that there had been numerous
unsuccessful attempts by potential malicious actors to exploit those vulnerabilities.
Nonetheless, the FBI Forensics Agent told the OIG 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.”
Regardless, the OIG report does not answer the question of what the representative has seen or otherwise was basing his line of questioning on.
EDIT: And to be clear, the reason why the FBI had limited ability to evaluate the emails is explained in the very next section of report. In short, Hillary's people destroyed evidence.
|
|
|
Goes a bit farther than being upset about only getting a summary. Some of Mueller's team are now saying there was a lot of evidence for obstruction. Via NBC
WSJ also backs NYT:
|
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.
Not for nothing, but I could apply all of this reasoning to the current investigation into Trump, claiming its not clear that BLANK happened, but its being kept hush-hush for reasons. I could apply the same standard to Trump and his children's use of private email while being goverment employees and speculate of equal or greater nefarious activity.
But my question are more about the substance of the Clinton email investigation and the information that was on the server. Because my understanding that no classified information of substance would be emailed to the SoS. That isn't how top secret information is distrusted in the goverment. So absent some information that classified information that had a potential to do real harm to US interests passed through that server, I have little reason to take any of these claims as more than wild speculation.
The funny part about Barr's letter is that he somehow expected the people who conducted the investigation to remain silent.
|
That would be WashPo unsurprisingly backing the NYT, not WSJ. In fact, the WSJ editorial board is having none of this shit:
....Under Justice rules relating to special counsels, Mr. Barr has no obligation to provide anything beyond notifying Congress when an investigation has started or concluded, and whether the AG overruled a special counsel’s decisions. Mr. Barr’s notice to Congress that Mr. Mueller had completed his investigation said Mr. Mueller was not overruled.
Congress has no automatic right to more. The final subparagraph of DOJ’s rule governing special counsels reads: “The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal or administrative.”
Mr. Barr has made clear that he appreciates the public interest in seeing as much of Mr. Mueller’s report as possible. Yet his categories of information for review aren’t frivolous or political inventions. The law protecting grand-jury secrecy is especially strict, as even Democrats admit.
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff recently tweeted that “Barr should seek court approval (just like in Watergate) to allow the release of grand jury material. Redactions are unacceptable.” This is an acknowledgment that the government must apply to a judge for permission to disclose grand-jury proceedings.
A judge can grant release in certain circumstances—namely to government attorneys who need the information for their duties. None of the secrecy exceptions permit disclosure to Congress or the public. The purpose of this secrecy is to protect the innocent and encourage candor in grand-jury testimony.
It’s true that in 1974 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal judge’s decision to release a grand jury report to the House Judiciary Committee that was investigating Watergate. Such a sealed report—which juries can choose to produce—is different from raw grand-jury testimony, which is what Democrats are demanding now. The Supreme Court has never ruled on such a disclosure, so Democrats could be facing a long legal battle if Mr. Barr resists their subpoenas.
Mr. Barr should release as much of the report as possible, and on close calls he should side with public disclosure. But no one should think that Democrats are really worried about a coverup. They want to see an unredacted version before the public does so they can leak selected bits that allow them to use friendly media outlets to claim there really was collusion, or to tarnish Trump officials.
The nation is entitled to the Mueller facts in their proper context, not to selective leaks from Democrats trying to revive their dashed hopes of a collusion narrative that the Mueller probe found doesn’t exist.
In short, all of this whining about the Barr letter is political theater. No one is entitled to see anything. The House threatening to subpoena stuff is nothing but a naked bluff for political purposes. The same goes for these these NYT and WashPo stories. The fact they are politically charged nonsense should be self-evident from the fact that they're quoting anonymous sources again. More to the point, the fact that these Mueller investigators are now bleating about Barr's letter anonymously to the press should make it obvious just how political their investigation was.
|
On April 05 2019 01:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 00:57 Nouar 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. 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". You left out part of the paragraph from the OIG report. Let me help you: Show nested quote +The LHM stated that the FBI was limited in its intrusion analysis due to the
“FBI’s inability to recover all server equipment and the lack of complete server data
for the relevant time period.” According to the LHM, the FBI also identified
vulnerabilities in Clinton’s server systems and found that there had been numerous
unsuccessful attempts by potential malicious actors to exploit those vulnerabilities.
Nonetheless, the FBI Forensics Agent told the OIG 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.” Regardless, the OIG report does not answer the question of what the representative has seen or otherwise was basing his line of questioning on. EDIT: And to be clear, the reason why the FBI had limited ability to evaluate the emails is explained in the very next section of report. In short, Hillary's people destroyed evidence.
Come on, there are vulnerabilities in all servers around the world, even the most secure ones. I'm well placed to know that. The first server (Apple) was unrecoverable because it had been retired and repurposed years prior...
You cannot reasonably expect either, that server backups or logs would be kept for more than 3/4 years... Logs are usually rolling logs, and server backups themselves are maybe kept for a few years. The earliest backup they could recover was from 2013, which is already really good.
"Lack of complete server data", well obviously. Even on government computers, the retention period is usually no more than 5 or 7 years on the highest possible levels of classification. Since that one was not supposed to host classified data, going back more than a year is already a miracle, especially since the server is private.
(note for non-tech : I am not talking about mail retention in the mailboxes, but full/differential server backups and server logs)
Of course the FBI was unable to recover a server retired in 2009, then repurposed as a workstation. Then the data was migrated to an iMac in 2014 and the old hard disk discarded. That iMac was examined, and no mails were found on it from her tenure as SoS (2009-2013).
Of course the FBI will say there is a lack of complete server data. Nowhere will you find complete server data. You have to look at the details to know exactly what that means. In this case they are talking about a server retired two monthes after she became SoS... hardly relevant looking at the overall period.
In 2013, the second server (Pagliano) was moved to a datacenter, along with the third server (PRN), and reconnected there. In late 2013 Exchange was uninstalled on the Pagliano but it was kept alive (with its logs) and was examined, along with the PRN server.
They found unsuccessfull intrusion attempts, which already means the firewalls and server security in place, as well as logging were good enough to get this kind of information. Further allegations of wrongdoing, or Chinese access, will have to be proven to me seriously, in a technical manner, and not via generic comments like the part of paragraph I didn't quote.
I have already tried twice to explain the technicalities behind the review and timeline of events on these servers, I would like if it was taken into account, for once.
Evaluating the emails, is again, completely different from a forensic examination of intrusions on the server themselves. It as already covered as well, there were 2 occurences of deletion. A "oh shit" moment from someone who thought he had implemented a retention policy but didn't (from a fellow sysadmin : you're a fucking idiot to have done that), and the lawyers deleting mails they identified as personal after their review. Hardly a coverup.
There were issues. But it's still a nothingburger.
|
On April 05 2019 01:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 00:57 Nouar 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. 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". You left out part of the paragraph from the OIG report. Let me help you: Show nested quote +The LHM stated that the FBI was limited in its intrusion analysis due to the
“FBI’s inability to recover all server equipment and the lack of complete server data
for the relevant time period.” According to the LHM, the FBI also identified
vulnerabilities in Clinton’s server systems and found that there had been numerous
unsuccessful attempts by potential malicious actors to exploit those vulnerabilities.
Nonetheless, the FBI Forensics Agent told the OIG 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.” Regardless, the OIG report does not answer the question of what the representative has seen or otherwise was basing his line of questioning on. EDIT: And to be clear, the reason why the FBI had limited ability to evaluate the emails is explained in the very next section of report. In short, Hillary's people destroyed evidence.
Here's my theory.
Conservatives have to come back to relitigating Hilary over whatever investigation has already been completed, only because if they actually had to defend their leadership at this moment in time, it would be an impossible task for them.
Cause the Hilary thing is over man, it was never big to begin with.
Here's an almost current list.
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/the-complete-listing-so-far-atrocities-1-546
|
On April 05 2019 01:18 Plansix wrote:
But my question are more about the substance of the Clinton email investigation and the information that was on the server. Because my understanding that no classified information of substance would be emailed to the SoS. That isn't how top secret information is distrusted in the goverment. So absent some information that classified information that had a potential to do real harm to US interests passed through that server, I have little reason to take any of these claims as more than wild speculation.
I disagree with that. Mishandling of classified information on a systematic basis is an issue, it doesn't matter what was the actual information, potentially harmful or not. That's not what you look at in this kind of investigation as it would create double standards for the same behaviour.
However, mishandling is not dissemination. This is why the submarine guy sending pictures to unauthorized people was prosecuted and Clinton was not.
|
On April 05 2019 01:52 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 01:18 Plansix wrote:
But my question are more about the substance of the Clinton email investigation and the information that was on the server. Because my understanding that no classified information of substance would be emailed to the SoS. That isn't how top secret information is distrusted in the goverment. So absent some information that classified information that had a potential to do real harm to US interests passed through that server, I have little reason to take any of these claims as more than wild speculation.
I disagree with that. Mishandling of classified information on a systematic basis is an issue, it doesn't matter what was the actual information, potentially harmful or not. That's not what you look at in this kind of investigation as it would create double standards for the same behaviour. However, mishandling is not dissemination. This is why the submarine guy sending pictures to unauthorized people was prosecuted and Clinton was not.
I completely agree. It is serious. And I would have been all about those hearings if I felt they would have lead to substantive changes in policy going forward. But that is not what congress was trying to do and the hearings did not lead to substantial policy changes. Or even suggestions. They were all dropped the instant Trump won and they only bring them up when they want to try to change the subject from Trump's malfeasance.
|
On April 05 2019 00:57 Nouar wrote:
[...]
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.)
The USA are a plutocracy. Trump and Obama are the only two presidents ever who won vs opponents despite having less donations than their opponent and the top 10% in the USA own 77% of the total wealth (again incredibly top heavy, with the top 1% owning half of that). So if you make those 10% happy, you have a very good chance to win the election.
The Clinton's combined net worth is estimated at 110 million $, Trump's is roughly two times that. Trump actually financed roughly 1/6th of his campaign's spendings for the election himself, with a sum higher than Macron's and Merkel's combined net worth.
|
The obstruction evidence is what Congress and potentially the public needs to see, and I'd bet a lot of it can legally be released under the special counsel regulations because its "in the public interest." There is quite possibly significant obstruction evidence, for example trump ordering McGahn to fire Mueller and install a loyalist. Mcgahn then threatened to resign. Recall trump asking Comey for loyalty. Trump isn't going to say "make sure I do not get charged," but his coded language of loyalty has clear meaning to all honest observers.
Barr, of course, was hired because of his expansive opinions on executive power as it relates to the special counsel. Barrs legal opinion, expressed before he got hired, is essentially that the president can't obstruct justice. So that legal opinion is likely a significant basis of his whole summary letter.
But I think this info on obstruction will all come out in due time. The public interest demands it. Congress especially is entitled to it, because otherwise the president is above the law, which is an untenable legal opinion. It may well become the basis of impeachment in the house. The story on obstruction is far from over.
|
On April 05 2019 02:01 Archeon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 00:57 Nouar wrote:
[...]
In other news, 14 (fourteen) large donors to the Trump inauguration were appointed as ambassadors. (not all got a go from the Senate). I mean, even one would be an issue in France. In fact, Macron tried to appoint 20 consuls, and was sharply rebuked by a high court. He tried to appoint one (not even talking about donors here, just "friends") and got a huge backlash immediately. Meanwhile POTUS casually gets 14 ambassadorships to people that donated on average 350000$ 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.) The USA are a plutocracy. Trump and Obama are the only two presidents ever who won vs opponents despite having less donations than their opponent and the top 10% in the USA own 77% of the total wealth (again incredibly top heavy, with the top 1% owning half of that). So if you make those 10% happy, you have a very good chance to win the election. The Clinton's combined net worth is estimated at 110 million $, Trump's is roughly two times that. Trump actually financed roughly 1/6th of his campaign's spendings for the election himself, with a sum higher than Macron's and Merkel's combined net worth.
You're wrong on two counts. First off, Obama outraised/outspent his presidential opponents McCain and Romney. Did you mean to specify Presidential Primary Campaigns, where more historical underdogs would undermine your statement?
Second off, you're forgetting about the 60s. Goldwater vs Johnson, and Kennedy vs Nixon both were won by the underdog in campaign spending.
I suggest moderating the extreme "only two presidents ever" to something more relational instead of absolute. You might be right that there's a plutocratic element, but you won't make that point ignoring the contrary examples from history.
|
It should also be noted that fund raising in the past was not what it is now post 2008 elections and internet fund raising efforts. National campaigns ran out of money and needed federal assistance to even exist. The debates and party national conventions had trouble getting on the major networks. The media treated politics and the news about politics as money losing programming. There are stories of congress members having to lean pretty heavily on the majority network(pre-cable TV) to carry political events, reminding them it was the US citizens that owned the airwaves. An election from the 1970s would seem completely alien given what we are used to these days.
|
|
|
On April 05 2019 03:00 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 01:24 xDaunt wrote:That would be WashPo unsurprisingly backing the NYT, not WSJ. In fact, the WSJ editorial board is having none of this shit: ....Under Justice rules relating to special counsels, Mr. Barr has no obligation to provide anything beyond notifying Congress when an investigation has started or concluded, and whether the AG overruled a special counsel’s decisions. Mr. Barr’s notice to Congress that Mr. Mueller had completed his investigation said Mr. Mueller was not overruled.
Congress has no automatic right to more. The final subparagraph of DOJ’s rule governing special counsels reads: “The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal or administrative.”
Mr. Barr has made clear that he appreciates the public interest in seeing as much of Mr. Mueller’s report as possible. Yet his categories of information for review aren’t frivolous or political inventions. The law protecting grand-jury secrecy is especially strict, as even Democrats admit.
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff recently tweeted that “Barr should seek court approval (just like in Watergate) to allow the release of grand jury material. Redactions are unacceptable.” This is an acknowledgment that the government must apply to a judge for permission to disclose grand-jury proceedings.
A judge can grant release in certain circumstances—namely to government attorneys who need the information for their duties. None of the secrecy exceptions permit disclosure to Congress or the public. The purpose of this secrecy is to protect the innocent and encourage candor in grand-jury testimony.
It’s true that in 1974 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal judge’s decision to release a grand jury report to the House Judiciary Committee that was investigating Watergate. Such a sealed report—which juries can choose to produce—is different from raw grand-jury testimony, which is what Democrats are demanding now. The Supreme Court has never ruled on such a disclosure, so Democrats could be facing a long legal battle if Mr. Barr resists their subpoenas.
Mr. Barr should release as much of the report as possible, and on close calls he should side with public disclosure. But no one should think that Democrats are really worried about a coverup. They want to see an unredacted version before the public does so they can leak selected bits that allow them to use friendly media outlets to claim there really was collusion, or to tarnish Trump officials.
The nation is entitled to the Mueller facts in their proper context, not to selective leaks from Democrats trying to revive their dashed hopes of a collusion narrative that the Mueller probe found doesn’t exist. In short, all of this whining about the Barr letter is political theater. No one is entitled to see anything. The House threatening to subpoena stuff is nothing but a naked bluff for political purposes. The same goes for these these NYT and WashPo stories. The fact they are politically charged nonsense should be self-evident from the fact that they're quoting anonymous sources again. More to the point, the fact that these Mueller investigators are now bleating about Barr's letter anonymously to the press should make it obvious just how political their investigation was. If Barr had concluded that Trump had obstructed and should be impeached, would you just take his word for it? Or would you like to see the full report? I mean I wanted to see the full report either way, and apparently Trump is(was) ok with it, so lets get on with it.
Yes I am really wondering if, when Trump publicly said he wanted the full release to the public (since it got granted a while ago that his Twitter feed was official US POTUS communication channel), it means he waived executive privilege and other kind of privileges on information that would be inside the report... I mean, legally.
|
Northern Ireland23897 Posts
On April 04 2019 11:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2019 10:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really understand the whole reticence towards clean energy. Outside of those with obvious vested interests anyway
Hypothetically even if global warming wasn’t a thing wouldn’t it be a good idea anyway, if you’re someone like the US anyway.
Tear yourself away from certain fuel sources, untether yourself from their geopolitical influence as well. Insulated yourself from price fluctuations on fuel etc etc. What’s not to like there? We basically went over it not that many pages ago. Don’t make current renewables do what they’re not good at. Now if this is just your entry into transitioning into “we ought to use less power anyways,” then that’s a broader look at the energy situation. The big boys that deliver at the levels needed for peak usage are nuclear, gas, coal. You can imagine less power demands (energy NOW) in the future, and maybe renewables meet that if you go extreme enough. Energy density, land area, and storage are just crazy bad. (Apologies if next-gen nuclear was included in your renewables)
Thanks for this and other responses.That wasn't so much what I was getting at, reading back I didn't really phrase this at all well. In a sense I meant more, there's a certain type of person that is a climate skeptic, and that seems to be a growing number at least within a certain rough political situation. Consensus doesn't seem to break through that skepticism. 'Save the planet' certainly doesn't because in the minds of these folks that threat doesn't even exist.
Why not market it to other self-interests as well? They're definitely there, I don't see them invoked much.
Political isolationists - Well you can get some of them on board by stressing more energy independence unshackles us from certain countries. If they happen to dislike Muslims and Arabs this will be even more appealing.
Cheaper gas? - Yeah it might take a while, but fluctuations in oil prices are big shifters of political ire when they're passed down.
Jobs - Someone has to build new infrastructure, especially as Trump (for a change) hasn't met his promise to revitalise coal jobs, why not cover that niche too?
I mean I'm vaguely spitballing, I think you get the idea better than my original post.
I think part of the reason Brexit happened in the UK was Remain appealed too much to people's better natures and too much to high-minded ideas of internationalism and cooperation. In the absence of more clear articulations of the benefits to individuals in actuality, the forces of Brexit populism have more room to wriggle.
|
Northern Ireland23897 Posts
On April 05 2019 02:01 Archeon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 00:57 Nouar wrote:
[...]
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.) The USA are a plutocracy. Trump and Obama are the only two presidents ever who won vs opponents despite having less donations than their opponent and the top 10% in the USA own 77% of the total wealth (again incredibly top heavy, with the top 1% owning half of that). So if you make those 10% happy, you have a very good chance to win the election. The Clinton's combined net worth is estimated at 110 million $, Trump's is roughly two times that. Trump actually financed roughly 1/6th of his campaign's spendings for the election himself, with a sum higher than Macron's and Merkel's combined net worth.
Yes, it's rather. If memory serves the last US Presidential election alone cost more than every single UK election of every kind since 2000 or something insane. Even our biggest campaign finance scandals wouldn't even be counted as a scandal over there.
It seems of late, outside those who are at least semi-bipartisan or at least capable of it, money in politics is only an issue if the 'other guys' are doing it, be that at governmental level or at voter level.
Trump's corruption is absolutely blatant to my particular sensibilities of what constitutes conflicts of interest and vulnerability to influence. It appears the lines have been re-drawn around the guy, so the benchmark has moved up to purely criminally prosecutable actions and everything else is 'exoneration'. In many senses we're not really in a 'normal' political moment, some of the previously drawn lines and behavioural expectations have been redrawn in chalk, my hope is much more that those lines get rubbed out and at least some return to the previous standards in the world of statesmanship occurs. I think that's far, far more important to things moving forward than turfing out Donald Trump next election. I'm a lefty myself, I don't want to see a left wing version of Trump peddling as much bullshit as he does getting elected.
|
On April 05 2019 03:21 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2019 11:21 Danglars wrote:On April 04 2019 10:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really understand the whole reticence towards clean energy. Outside of those with obvious vested interests anyway
Hypothetically even if global warming wasn’t a thing wouldn’t it be a good idea anyway, if you’re someone like the US anyway.
Tear yourself away from certain fuel sources, untether yourself from their geopolitical influence as well. Insulated yourself from price fluctuations on fuel etc etc. What’s not to like there? We basically went over it not that many pages ago. Don’t make current renewables do what they’re not good at. Now if this is just your entry into transitioning into “we ought to use less power anyways,” then that’s a broader look at the energy situation. The big boys that deliver at the levels needed for peak usage are nuclear, gas, coal. You can imagine less power demands (energy NOW) in the future, and maybe renewables meet that if you go extreme enough. Energy density, land area, and storage are just crazy bad. (Apologies if next-gen nuclear was included in your renewables) Thanks for this and other responses.That wasn't so much what I was getting at, reading back I didn't really phrase this at all well. In a sense I meant more, there's a certain type of person that is a climate skeptic, and that seems to be a growing number at least within a certain rough political situation. Consensus doesn't seem to break through that skepticism. 'Save the planet' certainly doesn't because in the minds of these folks that threat doesn't even exist. Why not market it to other self-interests as well? They're definitely there, I don't see them invoked much. Political isolationists - Well you can get some of them on board by stressing more energy independence unshackles us from certain countries. If they happen to dislike Muslims and Arabs this will be even more appealing. Cheaper gas? - Yeah it might take a while, but fluctuations in oil prices are big shifters of political ire when they're passed down. Jobs - Someone has to build new infrastructure, especially as Trump (for a change) hasn't met his promise to revitalise coal jobs, why not cover that niche too? I mean I'm vaguely spitballing, I think you get the idea better than my original post. I think part of the reason Brexit happened in the UK was Remain appealed too much to people's better natures and too much to high-minded ideas of internationalism and cooperation. In the absence of more clear articulations of the benefits to individuals in actuality, the forces of Brexit populism have more room to wriggle.
I guess my point was well taken.
Now on to the matter of political self-interest. My country just had a huge shale oil boom that really extended our energy dependence. I don't think independence in the span of the next two hundred years really ends up pushing people into the renewables camp. Secondarily, advances in the last two decades put our proven oil reserves ahead of both Saudi Arabia and Russia. Wind and solar don't stand out from the other two compared to existing buffers on foreign reliance.
I would need more specifics on "cheaper gas" as it relates to "market it to other self-interests" to know exactly what you mean there.
For jobs, let me say first off that I'm supportive of research efforts to improve our clean energy technology. I include in this new solar panels, mirror-solar, MSR nuclear, and certain wind turbine advances. The trouble with selling the production of new renewables as new jobs is that any real government investment is new jobs, not just renewables. Replacing coal with natural gas burners is new jobs too.
I think you're going too far on "My political side failed because we trusted too much in the good of humanity" for Brexit. + Show Spoiler +I think part of the reason Brexit happened in the UK was Remain appealed too much to people's better natures and too much to high-minded ideas of internationalism and cooperation.
|
Northern Ireland23897 Posts
On April 05 2019 03:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 03:21 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 04 2019 11:21 Danglars wrote:On April 04 2019 10:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really understand the whole reticence towards clean energy. Outside of those with obvious vested interests anyway
Hypothetically even if global warming wasn’t a thing wouldn’t it be a good idea anyway, if you’re someone like the US anyway.
Tear yourself away from certain fuel sources, untether yourself from their geopolitical influence as well. Insulated yourself from price fluctuations on fuel etc etc. What’s not to like there? We basically went over it not that many pages ago. Don’t make current renewables do what they’re not good at. Now if this is just your entry into transitioning into “we ought to use less power anyways,” then that’s a broader look at the energy situation. The big boys that deliver at the levels needed for peak usage are nuclear, gas, coal. You can imagine less power demands (energy NOW) in the future, and maybe renewables meet that if you go extreme enough. Energy density, land area, and storage are just crazy bad. (Apologies if next-gen nuclear was included in your renewables) Thanks for this and other responses.That wasn't so much what I was getting at, reading back I didn't really phrase this at all well. In a sense I meant more, there's a certain type of person that is a climate skeptic, and that seems to be a growing number at least within a certain rough political situation. Consensus doesn't seem to break through that skepticism. 'Save the planet' certainly doesn't because in the minds of these folks that threat doesn't even exist. Why not market it to other self-interests as well? They're definitely there, I don't see them invoked much. Political isolationists - Well you can get some of them on board by stressing more energy independence unshackles us from certain countries. If they happen to dislike Muslims and Arabs this will be even more appealing. Cheaper gas? - Yeah it might take a while, but fluctuations in oil prices are big shifters of political ire when they're passed down. Jobs - Someone has to build new infrastructure, especially as Trump (for a change) hasn't met his promise to revitalise coal jobs, why not cover that niche too? I mean I'm vaguely spitballing, I think you get the idea better than my original post. I think part of the reason Brexit happened in the UK was Remain appealed too much to people's better natures and too much to high-minded ideas of internationalism and cooperation. In the absence of more clear articulations of the benefits to individuals in actuality, the forces of Brexit populism have more room to wriggle. I guess my point was well taken. Now on to the matter of political self-interest. My country just had a huge shale oil boom that really extended our energy dependence. I don't think independence in the span of the next two hundred years really ends up pushing people into the renewables camp. Secondarily, advances in the last two decades put our proven oil reserves ahead of both Saudi Arabia and Russia. Wind and solar don't stand out from the other two compared to existing buffers on foreign reliance. I would need more specifics on "cheaper gas" as it relates to "market it to other self-interests" to know exactly what you mean there. For jobs, let me say first off that I'm supportive of research efforts to improve our clean energy technology. I include in this new solar panels, mirror-solar, MSR nuclear, and certain wind turbine advances. The trouble with selling the production of new renewables as new jobs is that any real government investment is new jobs, not just renewables. Replacing coal with natural gas burners is new jobs too.
I think you're going too far on "My political side failed because we trusted too much in the good of humanity" for Brexit. The Lord Ashcroft polling right afterwards showed a clear preference to home rule and low input from the UK in the operating of the EU. The famous populist counterargument to EU-style internationalism is that it concentrates power in disconnected elites who no longer serve their individual nation's interests. That hurdle isn't clearly overcome by simply saying all the wonderful things that have happened. It must include showing how responsive to citizens concerns it actually is. The full argument on global citizen vs national citizen is very multifaceted, but I bet you've already seen elsewhere the common arguments on the failings of global cooperation and supranational entities.
Last post on this for me, I am enjoying this tangent but I feel I'm derailing the thread from its ostensible purpose.
Gas as in the American usage for whatever they stick in their cars. Granted I've been poisoned in the last year or two, I'm getting to the point where I question whether it's worthwhile even being truthful if it's for the 'greater good', haven't quite crossed over yet. I should probably actually think before my fingers touch the keyboard occasionally, might help. Essentially (assuming one is pro such a transition) and there's a significant cohort out there who are impediments to this one one way or another, and the same argument is not working, why not throw in other arguments tailored to get around this? Even purely hypothetical scenarios, or ones that aren't exactly 100% realisable either, it still provides some alternative angles and food for thought.
I don't think I am, I think I phrased it pretty badly. I should have put 'good of humanity' in quotation marks. General internationalism or 'the economy' on a macro level are arguments that some will take on board, by and large they're abstract things devolved away from the day-to-day lives of people. Brexit did a much better job of pulling things down from there into the kind of daily life that people can actually recognise with, or engaged with views that people actually held.
There was an arrogance in the campaigning that they'd win the day and people would fall into line, I don't think they were at all receptive to what ears on the ground thought, by and large and didn't alter things accordingly. You'll always have self-interested pragmatists floating around amongst those who on principle want UK to who have full sovereignty untethered from the EU, or folks like me who lean internationalist. You've got to sell it to those people who don't care either way particularly and have no ideological leaning.
I live here, I just think they did a terrible job at marketing it, as you said in the bolded part. I'm from Northern Ireland as well, which is a net beneficiary of the EU's regional development fund, and also extremely reliant on agriculture. We did actually vote to Remain, although every taxi driver I talked to for the pre-vote period voted Brexit, I imagine the rural areas might have carried a big chunk of that, haven't checked either way. Most people I talked to did not know any of these things, which isn't a matter of them being ignorance but a matter of it not being communicated to them at all in media. I voraciously consumed media at the time, much, much more than the average person did and I didn't see much of this there, most of it was knowledge I already had from university when I studied the EU.
The full argument is more complicated for sure, I've had it with people who vaguely know the area. I enjoy such arguments, tbh it's rare I can have them in my day-to-day, very few people I know actually know the area at at all, so it's to the internet I go.
|
On April 05 2019 03:00 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 01:24 xDaunt wrote:That would be WashPo unsurprisingly backing the NYT, not WSJ. In fact, the WSJ editorial board is having none of this shit: ....Under Justice rules relating to special counsels, Mr. Barr has no obligation to provide anything beyond notifying Congress when an investigation has started or concluded, and whether the AG overruled a special counsel’s decisions. Mr. Barr’s notice to Congress that Mr. Mueller had completed his investigation said Mr. Mueller was not overruled.
Congress has no automatic right to more. The final subparagraph of DOJ’s rule governing special counsels reads: “The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal or administrative.”
Mr. Barr has made clear that he appreciates the public interest in seeing as much of Mr. Mueller’s report as possible. Yet his categories of information for review aren’t frivolous or political inventions. The law protecting grand-jury secrecy is especially strict, as even Democrats admit.
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff recently tweeted that “Barr should seek court approval (just like in Watergate) to allow the release of grand jury material. Redactions are unacceptable.” This is an acknowledgment that the government must apply to a judge for permission to disclose grand-jury proceedings.
A judge can grant release in certain circumstances—namely to government attorneys who need the information for their duties. None of the secrecy exceptions permit disclosure to Congress or the public. The purpose of this secrecy is to protect the innocent and encourage candor in grand-jury testimony.
It’s true that in 1974 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal judge’s decision to release a grand jury report to the House Judiciary Committee that was investigating Watergate. Such a sealed report—which juries can choose to produce—is different from raw grand-jury testimony, which is what Democrats are demanding now. The Supreme Court has never ruled on such a disclosure, so Democrats could be facing a long legal battle if Mr. Barr resists their subpoenas.
Mr. Barr should release as much of the report as possible, and on close calls he should side with public disclosure. But no one should think that Democrats are really worried about a coverup. They want to see an unredacted version before the public does so they can leak selected bits that allow them to use friendly media outlets to claim there really was collusion, or to tarnish Trump officials.
The nation is entitled to the Mueller facts in their proper context, not to selective leaks from Democrats trying to revive their dashed hopes of a collusion narrative that the Mueller probe found doesn’t exist. In short, all of this whining about the Barr letter is political theater. No one is entitled to see anything. The House threatening to subpoena stuff is nothing but a naked bluff for political purposes. The same goes for these these NYT and WashPo stories. The fact they are politically charged nonsense should be self-evident from the fact that they're quoting anonymous sources again. More to the point, the fact that these Mueller investigators are now bleating about Barr's letter anonymously to the press should make it obvious just how political their investigation was. If Barr had concluded that Trump had obstructed and should be impeached, would you just take his word for it? Or would you like to see the full report? I mean I wanted to see the full report either way, and apparently Trump is(was) ok with it, so lets get on with it.
Sure, if Barr came out and said, "I have concluded that Trump obstructed justice, and I have reached that conclusion based upon X, Y, and Z reasons," where the reasons given actually form a basis for obstruction of justice, then yes, I'd be fine with an impeachment referral.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
