(05-31-2017 04:25 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 04:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 04:07 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 04:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  i guess two years from now, when the investigation closes with nothing, we can all meet back here and claim we were misquoted, and how happy we all are that it turns out there was no collusion.

Presumably this is your attitude towards Clinton and Benghazi?

Heck,no, and I was being sarcastic. i know that won't be your attitude either when it happens.

but I thought liberal, excuse me, conservative hypocrisy was not to be discussed here. we have been warned off of comparisons with Obama, Hillary, Bill, Loretta Lynch, whoever. stick to the topic, man, or Lad with pull up on the reins.

You can discuss partisan hypocrisy whenever you want. You just can't point to liberal hypocrisy as a reason for ignoring whatever Trump may have done. My point was that your logic was incorrect, not that the topic was forbidden. So, please, tirade away.

you think any of that was a tirade? am I wild eyed also?

on Benghazi, I accept the testimony of Susan Smith over the testimony of Hillary Clinton. others agree with HC that SS is a liar. to each their own.

for those who like to use smoke as proof, there were the five SusanRice Sumdat shows and the quoted words of high officials about the video. lots of Smoke. cough, cough.

i think Hillary, with the help of friends in high places, got away with a lot. i predict intwo years, if there is no collusion demonstrated, that a lot of people will think that Trump got away with something. just human nature.

c'mon, how often have you seena tirade end with "Just human nature"?


i debate. i state my opinions and the reasons for them. i don't go on tirades.

(05-31-2017 04:31 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 03:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 01:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 11:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If you are investigating a murder, you don't wait until you find a video of a person committing a crime to investigate the whereabouts of a person of interest. You can use more circumstantial evidence, like a relationship to the victim, potential motives, etc to start an investigation into someone, right?

No, but you usually start with a dead body.

Well, we know that emails were released against someone's will, and based on the preliminary investigation that they were almost certainly obtained via Russia (illegal).

Then, a lot of weird coincidences and connections between Trump's campaign team and Russia started popping up, so an investigation to confirm that there are/aren't any illicit connections was started.

Kind of makes sense to me.

Let's rewrite:

Well, we know that emails were released against someone's will, Vince Foster's body was found with a death due to gunshot and based on the preliminary investigation that they were almost certainly obtained via Russia (illegal) Foster served as the White House counsel, was affiliated with Hillary at the Rose Law Firm, and had a deep personal and professional relationship with both the Clintons.

Then, a lot of weird coincidences and connections between Trump's campaign team and Russia Vince Foster, Hillary, *and* the legal representation of the original Whitewater issue started popping up, so an investigation to confirm that there are/aren't any illicit connections was started.

-------

See, the nexus of "coincidences and connections" really doesn't hold up without actual evidence. Based on the foregoing, Hillary *should* have been investigated for Vince Foster's death, according the timeline and issue pattern that you state.

The issues surrounding Foster and the issues surrounding Russiagate are equally as specious and bereft of hard facts. And, I can wash, rinse, and substitute different phrases but same concepts to make an equally compelling case for Obama birth certificates, Bush Sr being a trilaterist stooge, etc., etc., etc.

The ironic thing about this is that Vince Foster's death was actually investigated. Hillary even managed not to fire the lead investigator while it was happening.

Nice sidestep. I'll leave it to you to see your own logical misstep.

Quote:

Quote:By the way Lad, what are your thoughts on the Obama scandal laid open in the last week or two on the flow, dissemination, and misuse (per the FISA judge's characterization of the administration's "institutional lack of candor") of intercepted NSA material? I mean that one is way wide open, with an actual crime at the center, and without the need of "weird coincidences" and smoke to prop it up. And, my guess, it will have a definite impact on Russia-gate based on the subject matter and with the last night Obama administration rules changes about dissemination of intelligence within the Executive branch.

I have to be honest - I haven't spent a lot of time around Alex Jones's ******* lately, so I missed this story. Care to provide some links so we can all check it out?

Cute snark on the Alex Jones comment. Really becoming. But from you, somewhat expected.

http://circa.com/politics/barack-obamas-...-americans

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-re...index.html

https://www.scribd.com/document/34926109...from_embed

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...t-response

-------

I see you went half-bore snide ass snark on Optimistic above as well; someone piss in your wheaties today?

(05-31-2017 04:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 04:31 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 03:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 01:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No, but you usually start with a dead body.

Well, we know that emails were released against someone's will, and based on the preliminary investigation that they were almost certainly obtained via Russia (illegal).

Then, a lot of weird coincidences and connections between Trump's campaign team and Russia started popping up, so an investigation to confirm that there are/aren't any illicit connections was started.

Kind of makes sense to me.

Let's rewrite:

Well, we know that emails were released against someone's will, Vince Foster's body was found with a death due to gunshot and based on the preliminary investigation that they were almost certainly obtained via Russia (illegal) Foster served as the White House counsel, was affiliated with Hillary at the Rose Law Firm, and had a deep personal and professional relationship with both the Clintons.

Then, a lot of weird coincidences and connections between Trump's campaign team and Russia Vince Foster, Hillary, *and* the legal representation of the original Whitewater issue started popping up, so an investigation to confirm that there are/aren't any illicit connections was started.

-------

See, the nexus of "coincidences and connections" really doesn't hold up without actual evidence. Based on the foregoing, Hillary *should* have been investigated for Vince Foster's death, according the timeline and issue pattern that you state.

The issues surrounding Foster and the issues surrounding Russiagate are equally as specious and bereft of hard facts. And, I can wash, rinse, and substitute different phrases but same concepts to make an equally compelling case for Obama birth certificates, Bush Sr being a trilaterist stooge, etc., etc., etc.

The ironic thing about this is that Vince Foster's death was actually investigated. Hillary even managed not to fire the lead investigator while it was happening.

Quote:By the way Lad, what are your thoughts on the Obama scandal laid open in the last week or two on the flow, dissemination, and misuse (per the FISA judge's characterization of the administration's "institutional lack of candor") of intercepted NSA material? I mean that one is way wide open, with an actual crime at the center, and without the need of "weird coincidences" and smoke to prop it up. And, my guess, it will have a definite impact on Russia-gate based on the subject matter and with the last night Obama administration rules changes about dissemination of intelligence within the Executive branch.

I have to be honest - I haven't spent a lot of time around Alex Jones's ******* lately, so I missed this story. Care to provide some links so we can all check it out?

Cute snark on the Alex Jones comment. Really becoming. But from you, somewhat expected.

http://circa.com/politics/barack-obamas-...-americans

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-re...index.html

https://www.scribd.com/document/34926109...from_embed

i brought that stuff up last week to deafening silence, and I don't even know who Alex Smith is.

New Heel is implying in his cute, snide, snuggly, way that the only news source that anyone who might disagree with his worldview takes a gander at is a place called Infowars that seems to believe the black helicopter type stuff.

Im somewhat embarassed to even post the link. But it'll make NewHeel kind of antsy so I guess I will....

https://www.infowars.com/

(05-31-2017 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Well, we know that emails were released against someone's will,

Yes.

Quote:and based on the preliminary investigation that they were almost certainly obtained via Russia (illegal).

Without a lot more evidence, I'm not willing to give you that. What we have is opinions by intel leaders, who were political appointees. I've spent enough time intel to know how reliable those are. Not very. And those opinions were formed without access to the most telling piece of forensic evidence--the allegedly "hacked" computers themselves. Because the DNC wouldn't allow access. I tend to smell a rat there.

Quote:Then, a lot of weird coincidences and connections between Trump's campaign team and Russia started popping up, so an investigation to confirm that there are/aren't any illicit connections was started.

Weird, except these were people who were engaged in activities where such contacts would be normal. The one that stands out is Flynn, because he lied about it. That one deserves further investigation.

Quote:Kind of makes sense to me.

Not to me. Gonna take a lot more evidence--and I mean evidence, not supposition--to get me there. I guess if you start out assuming that Hillary would have won without some sort of nefarious intervention, it doesn't take much to get you to the point where you are. I don't start out there, so it takes real evidence to get me there.

As I said before, way too much of this sounds to me like, "Well, X was possible. Therefore, since we know that X happened, then Y is possible."

(05-31-2017 04:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 04:25 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 04:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 04:07 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 04:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  i guess two years from now, when the investigation closes with nothing, we can all meet back here and claim we were misquoted, and how happy we all are that it turns out there was no collusion.

Presumably this is your attitude towards Clinton and Benghazi?

Heck,no, and I was being sarcastic. i know that won't be your attitude either when it happens.

but I thought liberal, excuse me, conservative hypocrisy was not to be discussed here. we have been warned off of comparisons with Obama, Hillary, Bill, Loretta Lynch, whoever. stick to the topic, man, or Lad with pull up on the reins.

You can discuss partisan hypocrisy whenever you want. You just can't point to liberal hypocrisy as a reason for ignoring whatever Trump may have done. My point was that your logic was incorrect, not that the topic was forbidden. So, please, tirade away.

you think any of that was a tirade? am I wild eyed also?

on Benghazi, I accept the testimony of Susan Smith over the testimony of Hillary Clinton. others agree with HC that SS is a liar. to each their own.

for those who like to use smoke as proof, there were the five SusanRice Sumdat shows and the quoted words of high officials about the video. lots of Smoke. cough, cough.

i think Hillary, with the help of friends in high places, got away with a lot. i predict intwo years, if there is no collusion demonstrated, that a lot of people will think that Trump got away with something. just human nature.

c'mon, how often have you seena tirade end with "Just human nature"?


i debate. i state my opinions and the reasons for them. i don't go on tirades.

1) No, I didn't think that was a tirade. I was simply inviting you to tirade all you wanted about liberal hypocrisy after confirming that it's a totally appropriate topic. No need to self-censor.

2) All day we've been arguing about the propriety of assuming Trump is guilty before the investigation is even over. There have been like five Benghazi investigations, (nearly?) all run by Republicans, that concluded no wrongdoing by Hillary. And you still don't buy it? If the end result of the investigation doesn't matter, why should we bother waiting for it?

(05-31-2017 04:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  New Heel is implying in his cute, snide, snuggly, way that the only news source that anyone who might disagree with his worldview takes a gander at is a place called Infowars that seems to believe the black helicopter type stuff.

Im somewhat embarassed to even post the link. But it'll make NewHeel kind of antsy so I guess I will....

https://www.infowars.com/

"Snuggly" is a new one. I kind of like it. Infowars doesn't make me antsy, just depressed.

In all seriousness, though, I regretted the snark fairly soon after I posted it. Nothing like charged political discussions coupled with internet anonymity to bring the best out of me. I apologize for that.

I don't quite have the time to make it through all 99 pages of the judge's order, but I read the Circa article (the Fox page had Baier's preview video, but I couldn't find the actual panel discussion). Believe it or not, I was never a fan of Obama's expansion of the intelligence state, and I'm sorry to say that I'm not particularly surprised by the report.

On a side note, I was never a particularly big fan of most of Obama's government expansion. Not that I didn't agree with most of his domestic goals, but I do wish they could have been accomplished legislatively, preserving the balance of powers. Half of my angst about Trump has to do with him inheriting an enlarged administrative state combined with his erratic temperament and tendency to hold very specific grudges. A dangerous combination, in my mind.

(05-31-2017 08:56 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 04:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  New Heel is implying in his cute, snide, snuggly, way that the only news source that anyone who might disagree with his worldview takes a gander at is a place called Infowars that seems to believe the black helicopter type stuff.

Im somewhat embarassed to even post the link. But it'll make NewHeel kind of antsy so I guess I will....

https://www.infowars.com/

"Snuggly" is a new one. I kind of like it. Infowars doesn't make me antsy, just depressed.

In all seriousness, though, I regretted the snark fairly soon after I posted it. Nothing like charged political discussions coupled with internet anonymity to bring the best out of me. I apologize for that.

Fair enough. All's good.

Quote:I don't quite have the time to make it through all 99 pages of the judge's order, but I read the Circa article (the Fox page had Baier's preview video, but I couldn't find the actual panel discussion). Believe it or not, I was never a fan of Obama's expansion of the intelligence state, and I'm sorry to say that I'm not particularly surprised by the report.

On a side note, I was never a particularly big fan of most of Obama's government expansion. Not that I didn't agree with most of his domestic goals, but I do wish they could have been accomplished legislatively, preserving the balance of powers. Half of my angst about Trump has to do with him inheriting an enlarged administrative state combined with his erratic temperament and tendency to hold very specific grudges. A dangerous combination, in my mind.

So you are saying that you are sad that Trump inherited the Executive branch that has been further broadened, emboldened and weaponized. Me too.

Glad to see someone from that side of the fence acknowledge the Obama era expansion of power *and* weaponization of the the executive branch and administrative power.

There is a reason I compared Obama to Nixon, and that is the main facet of that comparison.

And, to be blunt, I too am not happy with Trump inheriting that power base and structure.

(05-31-2017 10:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 08:56 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 04:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  New Heel is implying in his cute, snide, snuggly, way that the only news source that anyone who might disagree with his worldview takes a gander at is a place called Infowars that seems to believe the black helicopter type stuff.

Im somewhat embarassed to even post the link. But it'll make NewHeel kind of antsy so I guess I will....

https://www.infowars.com/

"Snuggly" is a new one. I kind of like it. Infowars doesn't make me antsy, just depressed.

In all seriousness, though, I regretted the snark fairly soon after I posted it. Nothing like charged political discussions coupled with internet anonymity to bring the best out of me. I apologize for that.

Fair enough. All's good.

Quote:I don't quite have the time to make it through all 99 pages of the judge's order, but I read the Circa article (the Fox page had Baier's preview video, but I couldn't find the actual panel discussion). Believe it or not, I was never a fan of Obama's expansion of the intelligence state, and I'm sorry to say that I'm not particularly surprised by the report.

On a side note, I was never a particularly big fan of most of Obama's government expansion. Not that I didn't agree with most of his domestic goals, but I do wish they could have been accomplished legislatively, preserving the balance of powers. Half of my angst about Trump has to do with him inheriting an enlarged administrative state combined with his erratic temperament and tendency to hold very specific grudges. A dangerous combination, in my mind.

So you are saying that you are sad that Trump inherited the Executive branch that has been further broadened, emboldened and weaponized. Me too.

Glad to see someone from that side of the fence acknowledge the Obama era expansion of power *and* weaponization of the the executive branch and administrative power.

There is a reason I compared Obama to Nixon, and that is the main facet of that comparison.

And, to be blunt, I too am not happy with Trump inheriting that power base and structure.

I don't think the amount of people on the liberal side of the spectrum that believe there were issues with Obama's use of power (either in expansion of executive via increase use in executive order or, as you say, the increase use of drones in air strikes overseas) is not as small as you may suggest. For those on the left, I think that is the one aspect of his presidency that is most resoundingly criticized by people within the party. However, those who feel that way certainly aren't in the majority.

I, like Heel, read the Circa article, and too am not surprised that the Obama security apparatus was not as observant about following internal reforms that were supposed to be in place starting in 2011. Nor that they waited until Oct 2016 to slap themselves on the wrist (what better way to avoid bad publicity than waiting until one foot is out the door?).

Not an excuse, but I was surprised when the % of violations maxed out around 5% of all queries. But based on the report, that could reach into the hundreds of violations pretty easily.

(05-31-2017 08:41 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 04:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 04:25 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 04:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 04:07 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Presumably this is your attitude towards Clinton and Benghazi?

Heck,no, and I was being sarcastic. i know that won't be your attitude either when it happens.

but I thought liberal, excuse me, conservative hypocrisy was not to be discussed here. we have been warned off of comparisons with Obama, Hillary, Bill, Loretta Lynch, whoever. stick to the topic, man, or Lad with pull up on the reins.

You can discuss partisan hypocrisy whenever you want. You just can't point to liberal hypocrisy as a reason for ignoring whatever Trump may have done. My point was that your logic was incorrect, not that the topic was forbidden. So, please, tirade away.

you think any of that was a tirade? am I wild eyed also?

on Benghazi, I accept the testimony of Susan Smith over the testimony of Hillary Clinton. others agree with HC that SS is a liar. to each their own.

for those who like to use smoke as proof, there were the five SusanRice Sumdat shows and the quoted words of high officials about the video. lots of Smoke. cough, cough.

i think Hillary, with the help of friends in high places, got away with a lot. i predict intwo years, if there is no collusion demonstrated, that a lot of people will think that Trump got away with something. just human nature.

c'mon, how often have you seena tirade end with "Just human nature"?


i debate. i state my opinions and the reasons for them. i don't go on tirades.

1) No, I didn't think that was a tirade. I was simply inviting you to tirade all you wanted about liberal hypocrisy after confirming that it's a totally appropriate topic. No need to self-censor.

2) All day we've been arguing about the propriety of assuming Trump is guilty before the investigation is even over. There have been like five Benghazi investigations, (nearly?) all run by Republicans, that concluded no wrongdoing by Hillary. And you still don't buy it? If the end result of the investigation doesn't matter, why should we bother waiting for it?

2a) I have been arguing the propriety of assuming Trump is guilty (of what, exactly?) in order to justify a witch hunt investigation with no clear goal. Not the same.

2b) As I said, I take Susan Smith's word on what happened. It fits all the "smoke" around this thing, and she has nothing to gain by lying. I wrote off H. Clinton entirely when I realized how reprehensible a person she must be to brazenly lie into the ear of a grieving mother. The investigations can show or not show whatever they are are about, she is still reprehensible and i will stay with that.

Outside of that, have your read "Thirteen Hours"?


2c) It's OK to have an opinion before the investigation is over. Just don't present the opinion as fact, and don't present the investigation as more smoke that implies guilt.

(06-01-2017 02:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 10:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 08:56 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 04:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  New Heel is implying in his cute, snide, snuggly, way that the only news source that anyone who might disagree with his worldview takes a gander at is a place called Infowars that seems to believe the black helicopter type stuff.

Im somewhat embarassed to even post the link. But it'll make NewHeel kind of antsy so I guess I will....

https://www.infowars.com/

"Snuggly" is a new one. I kind of like it. Infowars doesn't make me antsy, just depressed.

In all seriousness, though, I regretted the snark fairly soon after I posted it. Nothing like charged political discussions coupled with internet anonymity to bring the best out of me. I apologize for that.

Fair enough. All's good.

Quote:I don't quite have the time to make it through all 99 pages of the judge's order, but I read the Circa article (the Fox page had Baier's preview video, but I couldn't find the actual panel discussion). Believe it or not, I was never a fan of Obama's expansion of the intelligence state, and I'm sorry to say that I'm not particularly surprised by the report.

On a side note, I was never a particularly big fan of most of Obama's government expansion. Not that I didn't agree with most of his domestic goals, but I do wish they could have been accomplished legislatively, preserving the balance of powers. Half of my angst about Trump has to do with him inheriting an enlarged administrative state combined with his erratic temperament and tendency to hold very specific grudges. A dangerous combination, in my mind.

So you are saying that you are sad that Trump inherited the Executive branch that has been further broadened, emboldened and weaponized. Me too.

Glad to see someone from that side of the fence acknowledge the Obama era expansion of power *and* weaponization of the the executive branch and administrative power.

There is a reason I compared Obama to Nixon, and that is the main facet of that comparison.

And, to be blunt, I too am not happy with Trump inheriting that power base and structure.

I don't think the amount of people on the liberal side of the spectrum that believe there were issues with Obama's use of power (either in expansion of executive via increase use in executive order or, as you say, the increase use of drones in air strikes overseas) is not as small as you may suggest. For those on the left, I think that is the one aspect of his presidency that is most resoundingly criticized by people within the party. However, those who feel that way certainly aren't in the majority.

I, like Heel, read the Circa article, and too am not surprised that the Obama security apparatus was not as observant about following internal reforms that were supposed to be in place starting in 2011. Nor that they waited until Oct 2016 to slap themselves on the wrist (what better way to avoid bad publicity than waiting until one foot is out the door?).

Not an excuse, but I was surprised when the % of violations maxed out around 5% of all queries. But based on the report, that could reach into the hundreds of violations pretty easily.

Actually the weaponization of the Executive branch I was referring to using the power of that branch in political efforts.

There was an effort by the administration (not known by explicitly whom so I will not pin a name) to use the IRS as a political weapon, much like Nixon tried to do.

There is a parallel in the air about using that same function with intelligence intercepts, that it looks like Rice, Brennan, and Power will finally be asked about in a manner that requires a definite answer.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...telligence

This issue actually has interesting overlaps with the links yesterday when you read and digest them.

To be crass: give a Chicago pol that type of access and that type of 'police' power, I really shouldnt be surprised at that type of 'weaponization'.

And to be blunt, that is precisely why I did not vote for either Hillary or Trump; neither in my opinion can/should be trusted with those now-weaponized levers of power. Trump exhibits this to me every day with his methodology of the Presidency --- Madame pantsuit exhibited it to me with her utter disdain for both the Open Records Act and classified information with her jury-rigged server set up to shield her communications from any embarrassing disclosures.

And, by the way, 5 per cent probably represents thousands or tens of thousands based on the volumes of stuff that is thought to be analyzed.

(06-01-2017 09:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 02:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 10:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 08:56 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 04:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  New Heel is implying in his cute, snide, snuggly, way that the only news source that anyone who might disagree with his worldview takes a gander at is a place called Infowars that seems to believe the black helicopter type stuff.

Im somewhat embarassed to even post the link. But it'll make NewHeel kind of antsy so I guess I will....

https://www.infowars.com/

"Snuggly" is a new one. I kind of like it. Infowars doesn't make me antsy, just depressed.

In all seriousness, though, I regretted the snark fairly soon after I posted it. Nothing like charged political discussions coupled with internet anonymity to bring the best out of me. I apologize for that.

Fair enough. All's good.

Quote:I don't quite have the time to make it through all 99 pages of the judge's order, but I read the Circa article (the Fox page had Baier's preview video, but I couldn't find the actual panel discussion). Believe it or not, I was never a fan of Obama's expansion of the intelligence state, and I'm sorry to say that I'm not particularly surprised by the report.

On a side note, I was never a particularly big fan of most of Obama's government expansion. Not that I didn't agree with most of his domestic goals, but I do wish they could have been accomplished legislatively, preserving the balance of powers. Half of my angst about Trump has to do with him inheriting an enlarged administrative state combined with his erratic temperament and tendency to hold very specific grudges. A dangerous combination, in my mind.

So you are saying that you are sad that Trump inherited the Executive branch that has been further broadened, emboldened and weaponized. Me too.

Glad to see someone from that side of the fence acknowledge the Obama era expansion of power *and* weaponization of the the executive branch and administrative power.

There is a reason I compared Obama to Nixon, and that is the main facet of that comparison.

And, to be blunt, I too am not happy with Trump inheriting that power base and structure.

I don't think the amount of people on the liberal side of the spectrum that believe there were issues with Obama's use of power (either in expansion of executive via increase use in executive order or, as you say, the increase use of drones in air strikes overseas) is not as small as you may suggest. For those on the left, I think that is the one aspect of his presidency that is most resoundingly criticized by people within the party. However, those who feel that way certainly aren't in the majority.

I, like Heel, read the Circa article, and too am not surprised that the Obama security apparatus was not as observant about following internal reforms that were supposed to be in place starting in 2011. Nor that they waited until Oct 2016 to slap themselves on the wrist (what better way to avoid bad publicity than waiting until one foot is out the door?).

Not an excuse, but I was surprised when the % of violations maxed out around 5% of all queries. But based on the report, that could reach into the hundreds of violations pretty easily.

Actually the weaponization of the Executive branch I was referring to using the power of that branch in political efforts.

There was an effort by the administration (not known by explicitly whom so I will not pin a name) to use the IRS as a political weapon, much like Nixon tried to do.

There is a parallel in the air about using that same function with intelligence intercepts, that it looks like Rice, Brennan, and Power will finally be asked about in a manner that requires a definite answer.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...telligence

This issue actually has interesting overlaps with the links yesterday when you read and digest them.

To be crass: give a Chicago pol that type of access and that type of 'police' power, I really shouldnt be surprised at that type of 'weaponization'.

And to be blunt, that is precisely why I did not vote for either Hillary or Trump; neither in my opinion can/should be trusted with those now-weaponized levers of power. Trump exhibits this to me every day with his methodology of the Presidency --- Madame pantsuit exhibited it to me with her utter disdain for both the Open Records Act and classified information with her jury-rigged server set up to shield her communications from any embarrassing disclosures.

And, by the way, 5 per cent probably represents thousands or tens of thousands based on the volumes of stuff that is thought to be analyzed.

I wouldn't be surprised if your number at the end is correct - I was basing my estimation off the reporting, which stated thousands of reports. The only way to get into the tens of thousands is for that to be millions of reports, so I didn't want to stretch that far, based on what the article said.

And I too see the parallel with regards to the unmasking concerns some have brought up with respect to the Trump campaign - but we'll see what is found out. If there was an investigation into collusion going on at the time, I imagine that the unmasking of US citizens would be integral in trying to draw some conclusions, and would be separate from the issue you're bringing up. But it's still a good idea to confirm that.

TRUMP: "At what point do they start laughing at us as a country?"

ANSWER: They've been laughing since 11/8/16.

Next question.

(06-01-2017 07:44 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  TRUMP: "At what point do they start laughing at us as a country?"

ANSWER: They've been laughing since 11/8/16.

Next question.

I'd suggest maybe a little later. Likely by the time he touched the glowing orb. Certainly by the time he covfefe'd himself.

While y'all are chuckling, explain this to me:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...telligence

I wonder if the bloodhounds unleashed by the left might circle around and bite the left on the ass?

Quick Quiz: Which of the following people have refused to testify?

a. Susan Rice
b. Jared Kushner

I guess if one is sensitive to smoke, one might be catching a whiff of it about now. Shall we jump straight to finding the arsonist?

(06-02-2017 06:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  While y'all are chuckling, explain this to me:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...telligence

I wonder if the bloodhounds unleashed by the left might circle around and bite the left on the ass?

Quick Quiz: Which of the following people have refused to testify?

a. Susan Rice
b. Jared Kushner

I guess if one is sensitive to smoke, one might be catching a whiff of it about now. Shall we jump straight to finding the arsonist?

National review link don't work.

(06-02-2017 07:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 06:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  While y'all are chuckling, explain this to me:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...telligence

I wonder if the bloodhounds unleashed by the left might circle around and bite the left on the ass?

Quick Quiz: Which of the following people have refused to testify?

a. Susan Rice
b. Jared Kushner

I guess if one is sensitive to smoke, one might be catching a whiff of it about now. Shall we jump straight to finding the arsonist?

National review link don't work.

sorry about that. i am sitting a medical waiting room with my ancient IPAD and cannot fix it until I am home. try googling, Power, Brennan, Rice, subpoenas.

Both OO and I posted this link yesterday. Here it is once again.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...telligence

(06-01-2017 07:44 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  TRUMP: "At what point do they start laughing at us as a country?"

ANSWER: They've been laughing since 11/8/16.

Next question.

Setting aside the policy/diplomatic implications of dropping out of the Paris Accord, this is one thing that is so strange to me about many of Trump's speeches and in general the "America First" worldview, the constant whining about how we are so unfairly untreated. It fits in with Trump's act about how unfair life has been to him (!) but FFS we are the most powerful, richest country in the history of human civilization. I'm sure Bangladeshi hearts are breaking for us. Poor, poor America!

But then you look at polls of Trump's base and many of them actually think that white Christian males are the most oppressed group in America and it begins to make sense.

By pulling out of the Paris Agreement, Trump has not only angered those you'd expect - environmentalists, Democrats, etc., but also CEOs across sectors. Not just tech CEOs but the chair of Goldman Sachs, the CEO of General Electric, hell Exxon-Mobil was against pulling out.

What exactly has Trump accomplished? How is the US better off? Even if for argument's sake we say Paris wasn't necessary, what is gained by aligning ourselves with Assad's Syria? How does this make any of or other diplomatic goals easier? How much does it further weaken our "soft power"? It seems like to Trump and Bannon, the benefit is getting to give Merkel and the rest of the world the finger. That seems to have an intrinsic value to them. But what value does it have to the rest of us?

A couple articles from the lefties at the Economist and Financial Times:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracy...ate-change

"Trump climate policy risks more jobs than it saves"
https://www.ft.com/content/6a5fa710-46ea...b4dd6296b8