| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
KwarK
United States42290 Posts
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? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42290 Posts
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? The analogy doesn't work because Obama didn't first write a letter to Biden telling Biden that he was certain that Biden won the debate with Trump which hadn't actually happened yet, directly leading Biden to select Obama as the judge over the objections of Trump who pointed out that there was obviously an issue of lack of impartiality. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15478 Posts
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. 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 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
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 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. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
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. Perhaps could Haspel could ensure that all relevant documents are destroyed before she gets ousted. I actually would not be too surprised. Allegedly, the interrogation tapes were destroyed at the instruction of Haspel's then-boss, without the approval of the CIA director or any other higher ups (i.e., Haspel's boss was below the CIA Director). These people will do what it takes to protect the CIA. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24634 Posts
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? This apparently was not responded to, so I'll respond instead. Yes, I do see a potential conflict of interest there, for the reasons you laid out. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15478 Posts
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. So if haspel says "yes, this is everything we have", how does Barr verify that? | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
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. I think it's similar to the number of criminal investigations he was under while in office. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 19 2019 10:58 Mohdoo wrote: So if haspel says "yes, this is everything we have", how does Barr verify that? 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. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15478 Posts
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. I am confident the CIA could pull off a cover up if they put their minds to it. But I don't think it would be easy | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23010 Posts
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. I'm as sick/uninterested in Trump/Barr drama as most are revolution and climate change but in the defense of Trump I've found the criticisms of the CIA, FBI, and other similar groups fascinating. When you suggest the CIA isn't "run by loyal and responsible civil servants" or "government officials including the CIA can tend to identify the national interest with their own political preferences." it makes me wonder... Can you think of a relatively recent example where the CIA inappropriately conflated national interest and your own political preferences, resulting in a situation which you oppose on principle, rather than partisanship? | ||
|
Pangpootata
1838 Posts
On June 19 2019 14:14 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm as sick/uninterested in Trump/Barr drama as most are revolution and climate change but in the defense of Trump I've found the criticisms of the CIA, FBI, and other similar groups fascinating. When you suggest the CIA isn't "run by loyal and responsible civil servants" or "government officials including the CIA can tend to identify the national interest with their own political preferences." it makes me wonder... Can you think of a relatively recent example where the CIA inappropriately conflated national interest and your own political preferences, resulting in a situation which you oppose on principle, rather than partisanship? CIA as well as other US intelligence agencies pushed false information about weapons of mass destruction which turned out to not exist, getting the US into a costly war in Iraq. There is a culture of military interventionism within the CIA, which leads them to find a lot more false positives than false negatives. It may not be intentional, but entrenched organizational culture does result in irrational group thinking. A reasonable interventionist will be in principle against dredging up "evidence" for the sake of intervention. (Foreign interventionism not my political preference, but this is just an example for illustration.) It is a sentiment held by other presidents besides Trump that intelligence agencies must be reined in once in a while. Remember how JFK threatened to disband the CIA after Bay of Pigs. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
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. You never answered Kwark's question | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
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. Yep. I don't think that that it is going to be that hard to demonstrate whether American intelligence agencies were doing something bad during the Obama administration. There are two big and easily-knowable sets of facts that will blow the case wide open. The first is the identities of the contractors who were unlawfully accessing the NSA database as noted in the Judge Collyer report. I guarantee that there's a paper trail for this one. The second is the identity of the intelligence agency (or agencies) for whom Joseph Mifsud was working. The facts that all of his publicly known contacts are with Western intelligence and that Mueller interviewed him and let them go are huge red flags suggesting that Papadopoulos was framed. WashPo is reportedly preparing a story on Mifsud, which suggests to me that the bad actors involved in this are trying to get ahead of the freight train that's coming. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8442 Posts
Trump, a man you literally were warned about. "unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, despotic in his ordinary demeanour, known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty – when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity to join in the cry of danger to liberty to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion to flatter and fall in with all the nonsense of the zealots of the day – it may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may “ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.”-Alexander Hamilton good luck with. or maybe, just maybe a man only more divorced from reality than from his ex wives is turning this into a "let's fight the deep state" talking point because he can't even run on "the greatest economy in the history of our country." let alone on the tax cuts. 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. CNBCMarkets | ||
| ||
Road to EWC
DreamHack Dallas Group Stage
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games tarik_tv16303 gofns12834 summit1g12598 FrodaN3451 Grubby2654 mouzStarbuck299 shahzam288 ViBE144 KnowMe67 RuFF_SC215 JuggernautJason8 |
|
Replay Cast
SC Evo League
Road to EWC
BSL Season 20
Dewalt vs TT1
UltrA vs HBO
WolFix vs TBD
Afreeca Starleague
BeSt vs Soulkey
Road to EWC
Wardi Open
SOOP
NightMare vs Wayne
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
