hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 2409 of 3021 FirstFirst ... 1409190923092359239924062407240824092410241124122419245925092909 ... LastLast
Results 48,161 to 48,180 of 60410

Thread: US Politics Thread

  1. #48161
    Kai's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 2, 2012
    Posts
    6,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Frug View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    it means that it's attacks against the conservatives (the Liberal and National coalition) are generally more scathing (climate change and economic evidence tends to suggest that their policies are fucking bonkers; whereas Labour tends to cop it merely for being incompetent).

    Which is what most ABC coverage of Trump focuses on: will his policies do what he says they will, and are they being competently executed. As a result their coverage is almost entirely negative.
    Oh, I miss those days.
    Yeah. The Liberals did cotton on that the ABC was actually producing News based on actual facts. This was a grave sin against unbiased reporting: truth should not be favoured over one's budget.

  2. #48162
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    14,035
    Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump demanded Sunday that his Justice Department look into whether it or the FBI spied on his presidential campaign for political reasons.

    "I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes - and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!" Trump wrote on Twitter.

    The tweet comes after it was reported that the FBI dispatched a confidential source to speak with some aides to Trump's presidential campaign about its possible ties to Russia, according to multiple reports Friday.

    Later Sunday, the Justice Department asked its inspector general to expand its review of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act application process to include whether there was any impropriety or political motivation in how the FBI conducted its counterintelligence investigation of persons suspected of involvement with the Russian agents who interfered in the 2016 presidential election, Justice Department spokesperson Sarah Isgur Flores said in a statement.

    Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said in the statement, "If anyone did infiltrate or surveil participants in a presidential campaign for inappropriate purposes, we need to know about it and take appropriate action."

    The New York Times, citing individuals familiar with the matter, reported Friday that the confidential intelligence source interacted with Trump campaign advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. The newspaper said it has uncovered the identity of the informant, who it described as "an American academic who teaches in Britain," but noted that it "typically does not name informants to preserve their safety."

    The Washington Post also reported that in addition to Page and Papadopoulos, the source met with Sam Clovis, the Trump campaign's co-chairman, to talk about relations with China. Clovis' attorney told the Post Russia never came up in their conversation.

    Although Trump has suggested the source was embedded in his campaign, US officials have told CNN that was not the case.

    The officials say that the identity of the source had been closely held at the highest levels of the FBI and intelligence community, and the individual has been a source for the FBI and CIA for years.

    Officials from the Justice Department, FBI and Office of the Director of National Intelligence have maintained that turning over that information that congressional Republicans have requested on the source would pose a grave risk to the source's life.

    Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told CNN that he and the President talked over the weekend and agreed Trump should call for the Justice Department investigation involving the confidential source, adding that he expected the President to send a follow-up letter.

    "I mean, he's got to clean house in his agency," Giuliani said. "If there was an informant, we're entitled to know it. We're entitled to know the fact. We're entitled to know what he knows. I think we should know the identity under seal on the confidentiality rules. But, the identity is not nearly as important right now as what did it reveal, because we're convinced it just revealed exculpatory information -- namely, no evidence of a connection with Russia."

    Giuliani also said he would want access to the information, adding that he did not see Trump doing an interview with special counsel Robert Mueller unless he had access to details about the confidential source.

    "It really would also help the possibility of an interview because I can't imagine we'd allow an interview under the circumstances that there was some kind of informant that planted in our campaign that we didn't know about."

    The Justice Department's inspector general and US Attorney John Huber are already investigating whether department protocols were properly followed when the department and FBI applied for surveillance orders on Carter Page pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Those investigations almost certainly include whether anyone was surveilled for "political purposes."

    House Republicans have also been pressuring the Justice Department to reveal more information about the source. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-California, said Sunday that he won't meet with department officials until he obtains more documents related to the source.

    Earlier this month, Nunes threatened to hold Justice Department officials in contempt of Congress if they don't release documents related to the source that he has subpoenaed. The department consulted with the White House before it sent a letter to Nunes this month declining to turn over the documents, and the White House agreed the documents should not be disclosed.

    The President on Saturday called for his Justice Department to allow Congress to review documents related to the source.

    "If the FBI or DOJ was infiltrating a campaign for the benefit of another campaign, that is a really big deal," Trump tweeted.

    Giuliani told The Wall Street Journal on Saturday that federal prosecutors would need to make clear the role played by the confidential source and whether the person had compiled any "incriminating information" about Trump's associates before the President would agree to any interview with Mueller. Otherwise, Giuliani said, Trump could be "walking into a trap."

    Democrats respond

    House Democrats stood by the Justice Department following the President's demand for an inquiry into the department's actions regarding the Trump campaign.

    "This is appalling that President Trump would be so uninformed and that his chief of staff, his counselors, the White House counsel, would allow him to spew into the thinking of Americans that he has any right or authority to dictate to what the Department of Justice does," Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, told CNN Sunday afternoon.

    "That would skew the independence of the Department of Justice to fairly go after individuals who have broken the law," Lee added. "It is a decision that is made by thoughtful staff lawyers in the Department of Justice in many different areas, from civil rights to antitrust to the criminal justice division. They are all separate divisions and they review information."

    California Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu said on CNN that Trump's demand could amount to obstruction of justice.

    "If he is trying to influence a federal investigation against him by saying we now need to investigate that investigation, depending on how he does it, that could be obstruction of justice," Lieu said. "He needs to let the investigation against him proceed without any political interference."
    Lieu also said in a tweet that he looks forward to the inquiry.

    "It will show the professional agents of the @FBI engaged in a counterintelligence operation. Which means @realDonaldTrump associates & perhaps @POTUS himself should be very, very scared of what the @TheJusticeDept knows about what happened in 2016," he added.
    Giuliani told CNN when asked that the President's tweet could not be seen as obstructing the case.

    "No. I mean, this person either got or didn't get information," Giuliani said. "Nothing is going to affect it. It's been made a matter internally. Now that's it. Nobody can obstruct that at this point. And if you can't answer relevant information under investigation conducted by your department concerning you, I mean, my goodness, that can't possibly be obstruction."

    CNN's Matt Korade, Clare Foran, Alessia Grunberger, Shimon Prokupecz, Jim Sciutto, Laura Jarrett, Manu Raju and Laine Mackey contributed to this report.


  3. #48163
    Banned
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    5,555
    bit late mate /chuckle

    also where's the article source

  4. #48164
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    14,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Washington (CNN)

    .......

    CNN's Matt Korade, Clare Foran, Alessia Grunberger, Shimon Prokupecz, Jim Sciutto, Laura Jarrett, Manu Raju and Laine Mackey contributed to this report.
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    also where's the article source
    Do you need me to show you how to find CNN on the internet Xenosis?


  5. #48165

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    7,036
    I don't think anyone is going to be shocked if the FBI is snooping on political campaigns. This is the FBI we're talking about.

  6. #48166
    Banned
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    5,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Washington (CNN)

    .......

    CNN's Matt Korade, Clare Foran, Alessia Grunberger, Shimon Prokupecz, Jim Sciutto, Laura Jarrett, Manu Raju and Laine Mackey contributed to this report.
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    also where's the article source
    Do you need me to show you how to find CNN on the internet Xenosis?
    I was looking for an article link thanks

  7. #48167
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    18,550
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    I don't think anyone is going to be shocked if the FBI is snooping on political campaigns. This is the FBI we're talking about.
    It also seems fair enough?

    Why shouldn't the FBI be making sure elections are run according to the law? At the very least they might catch some criminals instead of wasting time with the war on drugs or whatever.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  8. #48168

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    7,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    I don't think anyone is going to be shocked if the FBI is snooping on political campaigns. This is the FBI we're talking about.
    It also seems fair enough?

    Why shouldn't the FBI be making sure elections are run according to the law? At the very least they might catch some criminals instead of wasting time with the war on drugs or whatever.
    Because covertly infiltrating the free assembly of your own people is generally not ok. Remember we don't actually live in your authoritarian dreamworld.

  9. #48169
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    18,550
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    I don't think anyone is going to be shocked if the FBI is snooping on political campaigns. This is the FBI we're talking about.
    It also seems fair enough?

    Why shouldn't the FBI be making sure elections are run according to the law? At the very least they might catch some criminals instead of wasting time with the war on drugs or whatever.
    Because covertly infiltrating the free assembly of your own people is generally not ok. Remember we don't actually live in your authoritarian dreamworld.
    >is an anarchist
    >gets called authoritatian

    wew lad.

    'Free assembly of your own people' is a fucking misleading description of the American government
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  10. #48170

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    7,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    >is an anarchist
    Are you shite

    the American government
    you mean a political party, right? because we're talking about political parties.

  11. #48171
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,676
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    I don't think anyone is going to be shocked if the FBI is snooping on political campaigns. This is the FBI we're talking about.
    It also seems fair enough?

    Why shouldn't the FBI be making sure elections are run according to the law? At the very least they might catch some criminals instead of wasting time with the war on drugs or whatever.
    Because covertly infiltrating the free assembly of your own people is generally not ok. Remember we don't actually live in your authoritarian dreamworld.
    How about if those people are under reasonable suspicion of working with hostile foreign agents?
    meh

  12. #48172
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    14,035
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    I don't think anyone is going to be shocked if the FBI is snooping on political campaigns. This is the FBI we're talking about.
    It also seems fair enough?

    Why shouldn't the FBI be making sure elections are run according to the law? At the very least they might catch some criminals instead of wasting time with the war on drugs or whatever.
    Because covertly infiltrating the free assembly of your own people is generally not ok. Remember we don't actually live in your authoritarian dreamworld.
    How about if those people are under reasonable suspicion of working with hostile foreign agents?
    Then, in such a case, they should be able to easily and clearly show what the evidence was that supported an administration engaging in investigating/spying on the Presidential campaign of the opposing party.

    So the called for review/investigation is something pro-collusion/pro-obstruction Trump critics should applaud.

    If they had evidence worthy to warrant the actions taken, their investigation will be shown to be 100% legitimate and doubly legitimize the Mueller Investigation once and for all.

    If, however, politics played any role whatsoever....

    This is why these agencies have oversight bodies, like Congress (lolbroken today like anything political, so of no real use sadly) and their own Inspector General (not broken at all, and while internal, the best route to an objective review of things).

    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    I was looking for an article link thanks
    I posted the entire article.


  13. #48173
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    I don't think anyone is going to be shocked if the FBI is snooping on political campaigns. This is the FBI we're talking about.
    It also seems fair enough?

    Why shouldn't the FBI be making sure elections are run according to the law? At the very least they might catch some criminals instead of wasting time with the war on drugs or whatever.
    Because covertly infiltrating the free assembly of your own people is generally not ok. Remember we don't actually live in your authoritarian dreamworld.
    How about if those people are under reasonable suspicion of working with hostile foreign agents?
    Then, in such a case, they should be able to easily and clearly show what the evidence was that supported an administration engaging in investigating/spying on the Presidential campaign of the opposing party.

    So the called for review/investigation is something pro-collusion/pro-obstruction Trump critics should applaud.

    If they had evidence worthy to warrant the actions taken, their investigation will be shown to be 100% legitimate and doubly legitimize the Mueller Investigation once and for all.

    If, however, politics played any role whatsoever....

    This is why these agencies have oversight bodies, like Congress (lolbroken today like anything political, so of no real use sadly) and their own Inspector General (not broken at all, and while internal, the best route to an objective review of things).

    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    I was looking for an article link thanks
    I posted the entire article.
    Fine, but why don’t we give respected republican appointee Bob Mueller time to present his case. We’re still more than a year away from when the watergate timeline came to a close.

  14. #48174
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    14,035
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    I don't think anyone is going to be shocked if the FBI is snooping on political campaigns. This is the FBI we're talking about.
    It also seems fair enough?

    Why shouldn't the FBI be making sure elections are run according to the law? At the very least they might catch some criminals instead of wasting time with the war on drugs or whatever.
    Because covertly infiltrating the free assembly of your own people is generally not ok. Remember we don't actually live in your authoritarian dreamworld.
    How about if those people are under reasonable suspicion of working with hostile foreign agents?
    Then, in such a case, they should be able to easily and clearly show what the evidence was that supported an administration engaging in investigating/spying on the Presidential campaign of the opposing party.

    So the called for review/investigation is something pro-collusion/pro-obstruction Trump critics should applaud.

    If they had evidence worthy to warrant the actions taken, their investigation will be shown to be 100% legitimate and doubly legitimize the Mueller Investigation once and for all.

    If, however, politics played any role whatsoever....

    This is why these agencies have oversight bodies, like Congress (lolbroken today like anything political, so of no real use sadly) and their own Inspector General (not broken at all, and while internal, the best route to an objective review of things).

    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    I was looking for an article link thanks
    I posted the entire article.
    Fine, but why don’t we give respected republican appointee Bob Mueller time to present his case. We’re still more than a year away from when the watergate timeline came to a close.
    Last I checked, Mueller and his team is still working and investigating, isn't he?

    The media is the only one really pounding the "Trump is going to fire Mueller!!!" drum.

    If/when Trump fires Mueller, then the will really get rolling. Because doing so would directly lead to his impeachment IMO. An impeachment I know I'd 100% support if he did that.

    And just curious, but why is "Watergate took X" relevant here? Every investigation is different. Maybe this one should take 5 years? Or maybe it should be over already? I wouldn't want people back here in a year saying "it has to be over, Watergate was over by now!".

    It should also be pointed out that, as with Clinton, people who support Trump will want it over, and people who think he;s guilty will want it to go on and on. There is political gain in these investigations, and any claim that that doesn't play a role in how our elected leaders respond would be naive.

    With all that said, if wrongdoing occurred or is occurring in the investigation or it's genesis, that doesn't have to wait, nor should it, till after Mueller is done. The FBI IG is perfectly capable of running a concurrent review of how the FBI handled things and if they broke rules/laws along the way.

    End of the day, I neither want a President who colluded with Russia nor an FBI who may have engaged in political bias on investigatory malfeasance.


  15. #48175
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    18,550
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    >is an anarchist
    Are you shite

    the American government
    you mean a political party, right? because we're talking about political parties.
    Political parties are sacrosanct all of a sudden? They're almost universally some of the dodgiest institutions in western democracies. There's an interesting hypocrisy when it comes to investigating the ruling classes for crimes impossible for the lower classes to commit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  16. #48176

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    7,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    They're almost universally some of the dodgiest institutions in western democracies.
    For an anarchist you sure are keen on damning other groups of people as illegitimate.

  17. #48177
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    18,550
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    They're almost universally some of the dodgiest institutions in western democracies.
    For an anarchist you sure are keen on damning other groups of people as illegitimate.
    Are you trying to demonstrate your ignorance of anarchist thought and philosophy or of the organisation of western ruling classes now? It's difficult to keep up.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  18. #48178
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    14,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    They're almost universally some of the dodgiest institutions in western democracies.
    For an anarchist you sure are keen on damning other groups of people as illegitimate.
    Are you trying to demonstrate your ignorance of anarchist thought and philosophy or of the organisation of western ruling classes now? It's difficult to keep up.
    In fairness, "Anarchists" are so fringe, with so many sub-groups and sub-beliefs, that I'd wager most people (even educated people) would be described as ignorant of anarchist thought.....by an anarchist.

    Maybe instead of getting mad, explain your view and why it's in-line with your brand of Anarchism instead? I know :effort:.
    Last edited by Alistair; May 21 2018 at 04:32:12 PM.


  19. #48179
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    I don't think anyone is going to be shocked if the FBI is snooping on political campaigns. This is the FBI we're talking about.
    It also seems fair enough?

    Why shouldn't the FBI be making sure elections are run according to the law? At the very least they might catch some criminals instead of wasting time with the war on drugs or whatever.
    Because covertly infiltrating the free assembly of your own people is generally not ok. Remember we don't actually live in your authoritarian dreamworld.
    How about if those people are under reasonable suspicion of working with hostile foreign agents?
    Then, in such a case, they should be able to easily and clearly show what the evidence was that supported an administration engaging in investigating/spying on the Presidential campaign of the opposing party.

    So the called for review/investigation is something pro-collusion/pro-obstruction Trump critics should applaud.

    If they had evidence worthy to warrant the actions taken, their investigation will be shown to be 100% legitimate and doubly legitimize the Mueller Investigation once and for all.

    If, however, politics played any role whatsoever....

    This is why these agencies have oversight bodies, like Congress (lolbroken today like anything political, so of no real use sadly) and their own Inspector General (not broken at all, and while internal, the best route to an objective review of things).

    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    I was looking for an article link thanks
    I posted the entire article.
    Fine, but why don’t we give respected republican appointee Bob Mueller time to present his case. We’re still more than a year away from when the watergate timeline came to a close.
    Last I checked, Mueller and his team is still working and investigating, isn't he?

    The media is the only one really pounding the "Trump is going to fire Mueller!!!" drum.

    If/when Trump fires Mueller, then the will really get rolling. Because doing so would directly lead to his impeachment IMO. An impeachment I know I'd 100% support if he did that.

    And just curious, but why is "Watergate took X" relevant here? Every investigation is different. Maybe this one should take 5 years? Or maybe it should be over already? I wouldn't want people back here in a year saying "it has to be over, Watergate was over by now!".

    It should also be pointed out that, as with Clinton, people who support Trump will want it over, and people who think he;s guilty will want it to go on and on. There is political gain in these investigations, and any claim that that doesn't play a role in how our elected leaders respond would be naive.

    With all that said, if wrongdoing occurred or is occurring in the investigation or it's genesis, that doesn't have to wait, nor should it, till after Mueller is done. The FBI IG is perfectly capable of running a concurrent review of how the FBI handled things and if they broke rules/laws along the way.

    End of the day, I neither want a President who colluded with Russia nor an FBI who may have engaged in political bias on investigatory malfeasance.
    Yep, that's fine. Again. Was an undercover operation justified by reasonable suspicion that was documented (and appropriate legal permission was acquired, where necessary) and executed according to policy?

    That's the only bar that needs to be met, imo.

    Presidential campaign, MS-13 members, people planning fraud. There should be absolutely no difference in the application of the process.
    meh

  20. #48180
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    2,243
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-de...e-the-midterms

    The Democrats Need to Get Much Tougher on These Trump Scandals or They Will Lose the Midterms
    By trying a ‘clever’ midterm strategy that focuses on policy not scandal, the Democrats are failing to hold this White House to account. It will cost them the election.
    Personally I think he's wrong.

    The reason why Dems could still lose is they're absolutely terrible at getting people enthused. There would be nothing wrong with focusing on whats wrong with the country, if Democrats actually had the ability to get people riled up. A bunch of stale, anodyne Hillary-bot style statements on how the economy 'needs to work for everyone' wont get people fired up

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •