U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)

[Fishbone Jones]

Quote from: Lumber on Today at 11:51:27

And what,  pray tell, is wrong with this situation?  I'm genuinely curious as to why anyone has a problem with globalization and internationalism. How is it any different than federalism? We have the municipal level, the provincial (or state)  level,  the federal level, and now that the world is much smaller, we have the international level; and what's wrong with that? We have a country that has regional differences, but which shares common moral and standards of conduct throughout,  thanks to the fact that we are a federal sovereign state. What's so wrong about the idea of a global federal state? Move over North Korea.

Hmmm. Let me see, EU mandarins in Brussels dictating bananas must conform to strict curvature guidelines and you can only buy something like three at a time. The guy that makes those fancy vacuums, in Britain, can't sell them there because it exceeds the EU standard for suction. Faceless unelected mandarins making law. Why would I want to have some person in Brussels telling me my banana is bent, here in Canada?


edit: spelling and insert quote

 

[Remius]

That press conference today was...interesting.

Credit to him for taking questions at least.

 

[cupper]

That press conference today was...interesting.

Credit to him for taking questions at least.

Yes, but did he actually answer the questions, or were his answers a deflection, a diatribe of unrelated subjects, or a relitigation of the election, or a rant of the dishonest press and fake news?

>

 

[mariomike]

That press conference today was...interesting.

Jake Tapper ( CNN ) described it as..."unhinged".
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/02/16/trump-press-conference-jake-tapper-unhinged.cnn/video/playlists/donald-trump-press-conference-2-16-17/

 

[Remius]

Yes, but did he actually answer the questions, or were his answers a deflection, a diatribe of unrelated subjects, or a relitigation of the election, or a rant of the dishonest press and fake news?

>

I'm going do go with d) all of the above.

 

[kkwd]

Jake Tapper ( CNN ) described it as..."unhinged".
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/02/16/trump-press-conference-jake-tapper-unhinged.cnn/video/playlists/donald-trump-press-conference-2-16-17/

What does Tapper know? Is he an expert of all the tricks and techniques of information exchange? Is there more than one way to do things? Did he accomplish the aim? I have heard said he didn't answer questions but redirected. Was that for all questions? Did he get some info out that wasn't out before? Maybe everybody before Trump did it wrong and the world is finally seeing the proper way to do things.

 

[tomahawk6]

I listened to the entire presser and came away very satisfied.Trump's goal was to speak directly to the American people and out the media for their bias. He accomplished his goal.

 

[Remius]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/16/harward-turns-down-trumps-national-security-adviser-offer-sources-say.html


Other more partisan sources are claiming the chaos is what ultimately led to his decision.  Too bad. I thought he was a good choice.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

To tap a phone in the US legally even a Russian embassy phone requires a warrant issued by the FISA Court. Evidently no warrant existed.

Actually no. From my understanding, the Attorney General can issue a warrant less tap of up to one year.*  And remember Flynn made his call back in December, before Trump was sworn in as President.**

But lets say the ambassador's phone was bugged,as soon as a US citizen is involved the tap has to be shut down.

Unless they [FBI?] believe a US citizen in question is involved in possible criminal activity and an investigation is warranted.

This clearly wasnt done,so what we now have is evidence of an illegal wiretap which then was leaked by parties unknown,but probably work at the FBI.

We don't know who released the information, let alone if if came from the FBI. Heck, it could have came from Trump's own White House staff; maybe someone who saw Flynn as a potential rival and saw a chance to get rid of him? ***

* For information on FISA, I relied on the EFF article on said subject.

** As the conversation took place in December, that means Obama was still in power and he could have authorized, knowing it could be used against Trump at an later date.

*** Channeling my inner Machiavelli.

 

[a_majoor]

More fake news coverage collapsing. In a way this will help things like the Alt-right and President Trump's "New American Party", since constantly being proven wrong will de legitimatize legacy media as a source of reliable information in the eyes of the apolitical American public, which is the real centre of gravity. As Napoleon once said, never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake....

https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2017/02/15/medias-flynn-russia-narrative-quickly-collapsing-as-fbi-reportedly-clears-former-national-security-adviser/

Media's Flynn-Russia Narrative Quickly Collapsing as FBI Reportedly Clears Former National Security Adviser
BY PATRICK POOLE FEBRUARY 15, 2017 CHAT 351 COMMENTS

The media narrative that recently ousted National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was involved in nefarious -- nay, sinister and possibly treasonous!!! -- dealings in his December call with the Russian ambassador is quickly collapsing, as CNN reports that the FBI will not be pursuing any criminal investigation involving Flynn's phone call.

So too is the hype that the Trump campaign was riddled with contacts with Russian intelligence, as reported yesterday by The New York Times.

Intercepted calls show Trump campaign members had repeated contact with Russian intelligence before the election https://t.co/9tTUPD36lb

— The New York Times (@nytimes) February 15, 2017
I addressed this story yesterday in my post-Flynn resignation roundup, noting that the screaming headline was undercut by the Times' own reporting that no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence had been found.

The New York Times got called out on its deceptive headline:

Why isn't the headline: "Officials Say No Evidence of Cooperation Betw Trump campaign and Russia"- as story states. https://t.co/8WleU06Tig

— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) February 15, 2017
These were the "smoking gun" reports that Very Serious people just spent the last 24 hours screaming about https://t.co/8K8QVa8Tnh pic.twitter.com/AHwXeMnrg8

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) February 15, 2017
Now 24 hours later, the story continues to take some serious hits:

On @NBCNightlyNews Pete Williams reports that the USG has not confirmed that the Russians in contact with Trump aides were intel officials.

— Ken Dilanian (@KenDilanianNBC) February 15, 2017
Former Trump adviser Carter Page told @JudyWoodruff he had no Russian meetings in the last year https://t.co/BMArwKvHaD

— PBS NewsHour (@NewsHour) February 16, 2017
Nevertheless, the media continues to persist:

Democrats see a scandal “bigger than Watergate.” Republicans see a Russia-size obstacle. https://t.co/gYuCwi1WY8

— The New York Times (@nytimes) February 16, 2017
Donald Trump's White House is on the verge of a raging fire over Russia allegations https://t.co/ao2Op4xm77

— Jeff Stein (@SpyTalker) February 16, 2017
Russia scare campaign has been going on for >3 months with repeated story failure not slowing it down at all. https://t.co/WKWghYKKl6

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) February 16, 2017
But the biggest story is that CNN is reporting not only that the FBI will decline to further investigate or prosecute the short-lived national security adviser, but that Flynn's FBI interview is being described as "cooperative and truthful":

More: FBI says Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) February 15, 2017
The FBI does not believe Michael Flynn will face legal jeopardy, sources tell @PeteWilliamsNBC https://t.co/EFCX1875Wc pic.twitter.com/74BMFmoCkY

— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) February 15, 2017
Even the intelligence community is pushing back against the hype involving the Flynn call to the Russian ambassador:

Intelligence Official: Transcripts Of Flynn's Calls Don't Show Criminal Wrongdoing https://t.co/h4wKxeKm8F

— NPR (@NPR) February 15, 2017
And even the Russians, most likely presuming that the intercepted call transcript will eventually be made public, denied that the Obama sanctions were even discussed:

BREAKING: Trump's national security adviser Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador to Washington did not discuss lifting sanctions - Kremlin

— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) February 13, 2017
This comports with the interview Flynn gave to Richard Pollock at The Daily Caller just hours before his resignation:

Flynn insisted that he crossed no lines in his telephone conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak: “If I did, believe me, the FBI would be down my throat, my clearances would be pulled. There were no lines crossed.”
Flynn said there was a brief discussion of the 35 Russian diplomats who were being expelled by Obama in retaliation for Moscow’s alleged interference in the 2016 campaign.

“It wasn’t about sanctions. It was about the 35 guys who were thrown out,” Flynn said. “So that’s what it turned out to be. It was basically, ‘Look, I know this happened. We’ll review everything.’ I never said anything such as, ‘We’re going to review sanctions,’ or anything like that.”

So there's still more reporting to come on that front. If and when the call transcript does emerge, as many believe it will, there may be many media outlets that will owe Flynn an apology. We'll have to wait and see if that's the case.

That leaves yet one more issue: the dangerous and highly illegal leaks of intercepted communications.

If the FBI says he didn’t lie, then the only crime is the leaking of Flynn’s phone conversations. https://t.co/1h3my8zLM7

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 16, 2017
Congress is now getting in on the act:

Tonight, @jasoninthehouse & @RepGoodlatte sent a letter to the DOJ inspector general on potentially classified national security information pic.twitter.com/wqlwjQmN1c

— Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight) February 16, 2017
On that issue, our own Michael Walsh dropped an important reminder.

Surprise: At the End, Obama Administration Gave NSA Broad New Powers https://t.co/os3tk6uAbt #trending pic.twitter.com/eiLqdZbyrv

— #PJMedia (@PJMedia_com) February 15, 2017
Meanwhile, another explosive story from Shane Harris at the Wall Street Journal is now making the rounds claiming that intelligence agencies and officials are withholding information from the Trump administration.

U.S. intelligence has kept sensitive information from Trump over leak concerns, underscoring deep mistrusthttps://t.co/Hp2gTWU8CT

— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) February 16, 2017
But this story, too, is coming under fire from the intelligence community itself:

Full DNI statement regarding @WSJ piece pic.twitter.com/OJr9aVy5qH

— Mosheh Oinounou (@Mosheh) February 16, 2017
ODNI denies WSJ report says "any suggestion that the U.S. Intelligence Community is withholding information...not true" - @meekwire pic.twitter.com/1Z8917hLRI

— Joshua Hoyos (@JoshuaHoyos) February 16, 2017
Separate Sr US intel source on WSJ report: "...and I have no idea where this baseless claim originates.” 2/2

— Joshua Hoyos (@JoshuaHoyos) February 16, 2017
Senior intelligence source pushing back on WSJ report about intel officials withholding info from POTUS, tells @meekwire "this is not true."

— Michael Del Moro (@MikeDelMoro) February 16, 2017
That is true, I was told that. https://t.co/DzfussA4Jv

— James Gordon Meek (@meekwire) February 16, 2017
Others are saying that if Harris has been duped by his sources, he should reveal them:

That the @shaneharris got published with such bad info is concerning, still. When sources burn you, I say burn ‘em back. Out ‘em.

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) February 16, 2017
Will these stories join the growing list of botched establishment media reporting since Trump's inauguration?

I’m putting together a list of all dubious reporting on Trump admin since the inauguration. It’s depressingly long:https://t.co/VZfL0ZTNAM

— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) February 9, 2017
This article listing all the half-cocked Trump reporting was published Thursday. I’ve added 4 examples since then: https://t.co/AFqwMYtxto https://t.co/KjZk3D9bhw

— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) February 11, 2017
Stay tuned...

 

[FJAG]

Quote from: Lumber on Today at 11:51:27
Hmmm. Let me see, EU mandarins in Brussels dictating bananas must conform to strict curvature guidelines and you can only buy something like three at a time. The guy that makes those fancy vacuums, in Britain, can't sell them there because it exceeds the EU standard for suction. Faceless unelected mandarins making law. Why would I want to have some person in Brussels telling me my banana is bent, here in Canada?


edit: spelling and insert quote

Always get concerned when I agree with you.  ;D

I personally see nothing wrong with "internationalism" per se but have nothing but disdain for the sorry messes that are representative of "international government" particularly the EU bureaucracy and to a significant extent that of the UN.

For me "internationalism" is better met by bilateral and multilateral agreements.

:cheers:

 

[cupper]

I listened to the entire presser and came away very satisfied.Trump's goal was to speak directly to the American people and out the media for their bias. He accomplished his goal.

How could you be satisfied with how that went? :dunno:

For example, Jewish reporter agreed that Trump was not an anti-semite and not racist, and asked what he would do to address the rise of anti-semitism over the last year. Trump proceeded to defend himself from what he heard as a personal attack on him for being a racist and anti-semite, and dressed down the reporter for launching a personal attack on him.

Trump continued to relitigate the election by continue his debunked claim of the greatest electoral college victory since Reagan. When fact checked later by a reporter about Obama having a bigger victory, he adjusted his claim to say it was the biggest victory for a Rebublican. When told that both Bush 1 & 2 had larger victories than him he shifted again and asked the reporter if he agreed that it was a large margin.

And there are more examples.

The word salad he spewed forth helped to support the view that the press isn't making stuff up.  :facepalm:

 

[cupper]

News outlets are reporting that VAdm Robert Harward has turned down the appointment as Flynn's replacement

Trump’s pick to replace Michael Flynn as national security adviser turns down offer, people familiar with decision say

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/16/trumps-pick-to-replace-michael-flynn-as-national-security-adviser-turns-down-offer-people-familiar-with-decision-say-2/?hpid=hp_rhp-banner-main_pp-harward750p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.11b6a71e4fb6

Retired Vice Adm. Robert Harward has turned down President Trump's offer to become his new national security adviser, according to two people with knowledge of the decision.

Harward would have replaced Michael Flynn, who announced his resignation late Monday amid allegations that he discussed U.S. sanctions with a Russian official before Trump took office and then misrepresented the content of that conversation to Vice President Pence and other administration officials.

One factor in Harward's decision was that he couldn't get a guarantee that he could select his own staff, according to a person close to Trump with knowledge of the discussions.

Other officials said his decision was motivated by financial concerns about leaving his job at aerospace firm Lockheed Martin, where he is a senior executive, and the impact it would have on his family.

One senior U.S. official said that “family considerations changed his mind.” A friend of Harward's added that he was also not fully comfortable with the quickly moving process. All requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

The news of Harward's decision was first reported by the Financial Times.

The administration had hoped to name Harward to the position this week, in an effort to soothe the turmoil rolling through the White House. Even before Flynn resigned, the administration was wooing Harward. The hard-charging former Navy SEAL was at the White House on Feb. 8 and then again this week, according to an administration official. Harward commanded high-risk operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and later parachuted into his own retirement ceremony from high altitude.

The resignation of national security adviser Michael Flynn comes on the heels of reports that he discussed U.S. sanctions with the Russian ambassador while a civilian, before President Trump took office. (Jason Aldag/The Washington Post)
Trump suggested at a news conference Thursday that one of the reasons he felt he could let Flynn go was because he had a good replacement in mind, without naming that person.

“I have somebody that I think will be outstanding for the position,” he said. “And that also helps, I think, in the making of my decision.”

Harward's decision not to take the job leaves the White House scrambling to find a leader for the National Security Council, which is struggling to get its bearings.

Most National Security Council staffers are traditionally on temporary duty from the Defense and State departments and the intelligence agencies, but as many as 60 of those slots are vacant, according to senior officials who denied reports that the White House was having trouble recruiting to fill them. They said the vacancies are due to rotational and turnover delays in what are normally two-year assignments.

The White House hires about 75 of a total of more than 200 staffers on the council. The staff chosen by Flynn is heavily weighted toward the small world of military intelligence officials and strategists who rotated through Iraq and Afghanistan with him over the past decade.

 

[Kirkhill]

Always get concerned when I agree with you.  ;D

I personally see nothing wrong with "internationalism" per se but have nothing but disdain for the sorry messes that are representative of "international government" particularly the EU bureaucracy and to a significant extent that of the UN.

For me "internationalism" is better met by bilateral and multilateral agreements.

:cheers:

I share your concern FJAG.

And your observations.

:cheers:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I listened to the entire presser and came away very satisfied.Trump's goal was to speak directly to the American people and out the media for their bias. He accomplished his goal.

Bafrigginzinga!!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Always get concerned when I agree with you.  ;D

I personally see nothing wrong with "internationalism" per se but have nothing but disdain for the sorry messes that are representative of "international government" particularly the EU bureaucracy and to a significant extent that of the UN.

For me "internationalism" is better met by bilateral and multilateral agreements.

:cheers:

I share your concern FJAG.

And your observations.

:cheers:

I'm in the room here guys!!! :waiting:

 

[cupper]

I'm in the room here guys!!! :waiting:

FAKE NEWS!

 

[FJAG]

I listened to the entire presser and came away very satisfied.Trump's goal was to speak directly to the American people and out the media for their bias. He accomplished his goal.

I guess you and I saw different press conferences. This is the one I saw (There's a transcript as well):

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjVAt_mzHXM

Transcript: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/click-for-a-full-transcript-of-trumps-first-solo-press-conference.html

I was thinking that perhaps some of the Trump stalwarts here would be starting to have a little tiny niggling doubt about this administration especially seeing that Vice-Admiral Harward (who I thought was a good candidate for the job of Nat Sec Adviser) turned down the offer after the press conference.

There are already some rumours circulating that the press conference sealed his rejection (no pun intended). While the Admiral said he turned the nomination for professional and personal reasons one would have thought that before the president would have named Harward as his candidate that his staff would have both vetted and received Harward's concurrence to be named. By turning it down after he was named it seems much more likely that he changed his mind today.

I'd put money on the fact that there's zero chance that the press conference won't be the cold open on SNL on Saturday.  ;D

:cheers:

 

[FJAG]

I'm in the room here guys!!! :waiting:

We know and we love you for it.  :nod:

:cheers:

 

[Remius]

I listened to the entire presser and came away very satisfied.Trump's goal was to speak directly to the American people and out the media for their bias. He accomplished his goal.

like FJAG I think I saw a different presser than you did. 

His goal wasn't to speak directly to the American people.  It was to speak to his base.  In that I agree that he accomplished his goal. 

This has been a weird month in US politics.