US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1561

On June 19 2019 09:02 JimmiC wrote:
I'm not sure what your goal of this concern trolling is. I'm not saying anything anti republican or controversial, and it just makes you look further disingenuous when you make it out like I am.

You would think he could appoint someone who had some sort of credibility with most people so that any findings that were made would also be considered credible.

Since it seems like you are obsessed with analogies. If Trump and Biden had a debate and they named Obama the judge, would you believe it if said Biden was the winner? Or would you want a different judge?

On June 19 2019 07:07 Danglars wrote:
If the CIA wants to continue to enjoy some of its historical secrecy privilege, it better be ready to discuss at length with Barr what sources are too sensitive to disclose, even with anonymous non-identifying information. Barr's first job was at the CIA. He doesn't even think the term "spying" is pejorative. This will probably go along just fine from the head-honcho perspective, and who knows what kind of delays and hurdles with various deputies and counsels.

On June 19 2019 09:29 Mohdoo wrote:

Barr can at best take haspel at her word. He has no capability to force haspel to do or tell him anything. The CIA simply outmatches Barr in terms of ability to collect and protect information. Perhaps not from a legal standpoint, but you can't prosecute what you don't know about.

And the fact that secrets are always safer with fewer people will never stop being true and will always be a valid justification for secrecy

On June 19 2019 10:02 Danglars wrote:

The CIA is not the fourth branch of the government. It’s a subordinate department under the executive. If they pull another “sources and methods” like they did with the Nunes Memo, and won’t even show Barr, then Trump fires Haspel and finds himself an acting director that complies.

Now, Barr’s familiar with redactions and the CIA needs to preserve relationships and sources. Haspel knows this. I think she turns over the goods and argue about redactions before publications.

The CIA is still subject to civilian authority, similar to the military. They have no ultimate capacity to shield themselves from executive control. It might sound like a good idea to thumb their nose at the hierarchy, and even desirable if you can presume they’re run by loyal and responsible civil servants, but that isn’t their design or state of being. If Haspel valued her job, and the reputation of her department (such as it is), she’ll comply with the investigation. In the worst case scenario, very little of it is ultimately declassified for release, but Barr and his deputies see every last bit of it.

Trust me, I really wish we could find civic angels to run the CIA on our behalves. I would totally agree to shield the CIA from any executive or executive-directed DoJ probing in that case. But as I’ve quoted before, government officials including the CIA can tend to identify the national interest with their own political preferences.

On June 19 2019 09:00 KwarK wrote:
Out of curiousity Danglars, do you see any kind of potential conflict of interest in Barr writing to Trump's legal defence team with an offer to defend Trump and an assertion that the Mueller investigation was a sham and Trump subsequently selecting Barr as the individual who decided what to do with the Mueller investigation?

Do you think that it looks terrible but Barr happened to independently draw conclusions that matched up with the conclusions he'd already assured Trump he would draw?
Or do you think, as every rational individual out there thinks, that he's not independent of Trump?

On June 19 2019 10:02 Danglars wrote:

The CIA is not the fourth branch of the government. It’s a subordinate department under the executive. If they pull another “sources and methods” like they did with the Nunes Memo, and won’t even show Barr, then Trump fires Haspel and finds himself an acting director that complies.

Now, Barr’s familiar with redactions and the CIA needs to preserve relationships and sources. Haspel knows this. I think she turns over the goods and argue about redactions before publications.

The CIA is still subject to civilian authority, similar to the military. They have no ultimate capacity to shield themselves from executive control. It might sound like a good idea to thumb their nose at the hierarchy, and even desirable if you can presume they’re run by loyal and responsible civil servants, but that isn’t their design or state of being. If Haspel valued her job, and the reputation of her department (such as it is), she’ll comply with the investigation. In the worst case scenario, very little of it is ultimately declassified for release, but Barr and his deputies see every last bit of it.

Trust me, I really wish we could find civic angels to run the CIA on our behalves. I would totally agree to shield the CIA from any executive or executive-directed DoJ probing in that case. But as I’ve quoted before, government officials including the CIA can tend to identify the national interest with their own political preferences.

On June 19 2019 10:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Before I get to searching online, does anyone know the amount of higher officers of the military that left because of Obama was in office? Just a curious thought.

On June 19 2019 10:58 Mohdoo wrote:


So if haspel says "yes, this is everything we have", how does Barr verify that?

On June 19 2019 11:48 Danglars wrote:

Cross-checks with Brennan's statements, dates we already have for the investigation, sworn testimony of big players, and evidence obtained from the IG's investigations. This is all not to mention the ongoing leaks that have happened. Even the bare minimum to satisfy the dates we know and the people we know to be involved involves quite a bit of memoranda. Papadopoulos and Page's testimony alone means it will be tough to obscure documents.

On June 19 2019 10:02 Danglars wrote:

The CIA is not the fourth branch of the government. It’s a subordinate department under the executive. If they pull another “sources and methods” like they did with the Nunes Memo, and won’t even show Barr, then Trump fires Haspel and finds himself an acting director that complies.

Now, Barr’s familiar with redactions and the CIA needs to preserve relationships and sources. Haspel knows this. I think she turns over the goods and argue about redactions before publications.

The CIA is still subject to civilian authority, similar to the military. They have no ultimate capacity to shield themselves from executive control. It might sound like a good idea to thumb their nose at the hierarchy, and even desirable if you can presume they’re run by loyal and responsible civil servants, but that isn’t their design or state of being. If Haspel valued her job, and the reputation of her department (such as it is), she’ll comply with the investigation. In the worst case scenario, very little of it is ultimately declassified for release, but Barr and his deputies see every last bit of it.

Trust me, I really wish we could find civic angels to run the CIA on our behalves. I would totally agree to shield the CIA from any executive or executive-directed DoJ probing in that case. But as I’ve quoted before, government officials including the CIA can tend to identify the national interest with their own political preferences.

On June 19 2019 21:33 Danglars wrote:
Hawkish interventionism politics, sure. You can find that political bias. Even executive-as-king political leanings could be at play when Brennan hacked the Senate during the Obama administration. Those are the only two recent examples relating to political ideology, but certainly not mine.

On June 19 2019 11:48 Danglars wrote:

Cross-checks with Brennan's statements, dates we already have for the investigation, sworn testimony of big players, and evidence obtained from the IG's investigations. This is all not to mention the ongoing leaks that have happened. Even the bare minimum to satisfy the dates we know and the people we know to be involved involves quite a bit of memoranda. Papadopoulos and Page's testimony alone means it will be tough to obscure documents.

More than half of Americans who were adults amid the Great Recession said they endured some type of negative financial impact, Bankrate found. And half of those people say they're doing worse now than before the crisis.
...
Fewer than half (46%) of those who were adults at the time of the recession say they've seen their paychecks grow since before it began. More than a third of those who say they, or their partner, lost a job during the recession say their pay has actually dropped from before the recession. More than 2,700 adults were interviewed online in May.