[E]ach day brings credible reports suggesting there is a massive scandal involving the top ranks of America’s premier law enforcement agency. The reports, which feature talk among agents of a “secret society” and suddenly missing text messages, point to the existence both of a cabal dedicated to defeating Donald Trump in 2016 and of a plan to let Hillary Clinton skate free in the classified email probe.
If either one is true — and I believe both probably are — it would mean FBI leaders betrayed the nation by abusing their powers in a bid to pick the president.
More support for this view involves the FBI’s use of the Russian dossier on Trump that was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. It is almost certain that the FBI used the dossier to get FISA court warrants to spy on Trump associates, meaning it used the opposition research of the party in power to convince a court to let it spy on the candidate of the other party — likely without telling the court of the dossier’s political link.
Even worse, there is growing reason to believe someone in President Barack Obama’s administration turned over classified information about Trump to the Clinton campaign.
As one former federal prosecutor put it, “It doesn’t get worse than that.”
It's doubtful whether Donald Trump, the businessman, ever gave a second thought to the issue of individual liberties. But having personally been the target of a concerted government witch hunt involving some of the most appallingly unconstitutional infringements imaginable, it's almost certain that he now understands what's at stake. I expect that in Year 2 of this administration the issue of individual liberties will be receiving a great deal more attention.
So it's terrible that Russia might be meddling in the US elections, but not so terrible that the FBI might be doing it? And what about the DNC itself? Odd that this hasn't been reported anywhere else...
In a similar vein, there's a big debate now on whether a citizenship question should be added to the 2020 census - because that would enable redrawing of Congressional districts based on citizens (i.e. eligible voters) instead of total population (which includes lots of people not eligible to vote especially in urban areas - which of course tend to vote Democratic). For some things e.g. distribution of Medicaid funding, it would make sense to stick with the current system of basing on total population. But for voting districts...well, should green card holders or undocumented/illegal residents be allowed to interfere in the electoral process? Because maybe that's not so great either. While we're on the subject.
[E]ach day brings credible reports suggesting there is a massive scandal involving the top ranks of America’s premier law enforcement agency. The reports, which feature talk among agents of a “secret society” and suddenly missing text messages, point to the existence both of a cabal dedicated to defeating Donald Trump in 2016 and of a plan to let Hillary Clinton skate free in the classified email probe.
If either one is true — and I believe both probably are — it would mean FBI leaders betrayed the nation by abusing their powers in a bid to pick the president.
More support for this view involves the FBI’s use of the Russian dossier on Trump that was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. It is almost certain that the FBI used the dossier to get FISA court warrants to spy on Trump associates, meaning it used the opposition research of the party in power to convince a court to let it spy on the candidate of the other party — likely without telling the court of the dossier’s political link.
Even worse, there is growing reason to believe someone in President Barack Obama’s administration turned over classified information about Trump to the Clinton campaign.
As one former federal prosecutor put it, “It doesn’t get worse than that.”
It's doubtful whether Donald Trump, the businessman, ever gave a second thought to the issue of individual liberties. But having personally been the target of a concerted government witch hunt involving some of the most appallingly unconstitutional infringements imaginable, it's almost certain that he now understands what's at stake. I expect that in Year 2 of this administration the issue of individual liberties will be receiving a great deal more attention.
I would love if Trump came out of this a civil libertarian rather than the bumbling war-mongering police statist he is.
But how do you know this article isn't "Fake News"? 1) It's the New York Post. 2) It's Michael Goodwin. 3) The only sources are links to a few other New York Post articles... with only a few links themselves... consisting mostly of Twitter, other Post articles, and one Breitbart article.
I made one small observation regarding Trump's response to an investigation that has caused even Alan Derschowitz, the famed liberal civil libertarian, to cry foul. Forget the article. It simply provided context for my observation. It doesn't matter in the least whether it's reliable or not.
stuper1 wrote:Hmmm, I wonder, has Mexico ever meddled in US elections? Has anyone ever raised a stink about that? How about Israel?
The fact is that there are a lot of parties with a stake in the outcome of US Presidential elections, and they don't hesitate to weigh in - by legal or illegal means. Israel has most certainly done so. Also there is no shortage of international political figures who have endorsed one candidate over another - you could certainly consider that meddling as well.
I guess the difference with Russia is that the target was the DNC. Covert operations by foreign governments are nothing new. I still think the DNC simply should have had better security on their email server, especially given that they were engaging in not quite legal activity.
A good deal of the reporting surrounding the investigation--particularly the FISA component--features uncontroverted statements from high-ranking officials, as well as documents the authenticity of which has never been challenged. When primary-source stuff like this is being reported and the naysayers continue to focus on the political leanings of the particular publisher, it's their credibility that suffers.
Really good article on what options republicans have with releasing the memo. Based on my limited ability to digest the stream of facts/bs/etc that comes out of Washington and the punditry, I've found Scahill & Greenwald (as-well as some other anti-war civil libertarian podcast/youtubers) to be the best sources on this stuff.
Really good article on what options republicans have with releasing the memo. Based on my limited ability to digest the stream of facts/bs/etc that comes out of Washington and the punditry, I've found Scahill & Greenwald (as-well as some other anti-war civil libertarian podcast/youtubers) to be the best sources on this stuff.
Actually that is not a very good article.
Yes, Trump could declassify the memo himself. But then the left would scream about his interference with Congress.
No one can leak it because it is kept in a secret room where no phones, etc., are allowed, nor can they take it out of that room.
I have heard that the committee in question is going to vote on releasing the memo sometime in the next week or two, and will approve doing so.
If that doesn't happen, then I'll accept that the article has some validity.
If it truly is the worst thing since Water Gate, let them scream, just like the right supported Nixon right until the end only to look like idiots.
And if the intelligence committee does release it, it doesn't invalidate the article, but simply refers to one of the points the article was trying to make... that the intelligence committee can release the memo.
He's (rightfully) said the same things about dems accusations of spy agency reports of Russian collusion to affect the election.
Just because this article isn't pointed at "the left" doesn't mean it's not important to understand. He's got plenty of those articles too. Unlike Breitbart contributors, he really beats down both wings of the establishment hydra.
Really good article on what options republicans have with releasing the memo. Based on my limited ability to digest the stream of facts/bs/etc that comes out of Washington and the punditry, I've found Scahill & Greenwald (as-well as some other anti-war civil libertarian podcast/youtubers) to be the best sources on this stuff.
There are some that disagree with Greenwald's analysis:
Really good article on what options republicans have with releasing the memo. Based on my limited ability to digest the stream of facts/bs/etc that comes out of Washington and the punditry, I've found Scahill & Greenwald (as-well as some other anti-war civil libertarian podcast/youtubers) to be the best sources on this stuff.
There are some that disagree with Greenwald's analysis:
So Greenwald is "dangerous" because he got Manning's sentence commuted, huh? And we're worried about what senators accidentally follow his advice and have negative consequences?
As for his analysis that politicians can't speak to congress or leak to the media, this happens all the time with no consequences. A real civil libertarian, not just some temporary defender of an orange slime-ball, would understand some of these things. Or at least be curious about them. Greenwald was probably trying to highlight some of these hypocrisies, and not ACTUALLY thinking it would be in a Republican's best interest to release this to congress or the media. But they don't work in their own best interests... they are supposed to work in OUR bests interest, and Greenwald is right that one could easily argue that they have a DUTY to release this memo, and similar to reports of Russian spying, shouldn't be able to just use it as a political prop.
Of course, we will see if it released. I sincerely hope it is. The more transparency, the better. I don't care what politicians or FBI agents have to go to jail.
Maybe show the memo to some Democrats and have them comment, so it's not just the Republicans crying foul?
If Trump were to declassify this memo I can only imagine the outcry, due to the incredibly obvious conflict of interest involved. I'm afraid there will be no instant gratification here. An independent counsel (yes another one - and one with no ties whatsoever to the FBI) needs to be appointed to investigate, which will take time. You can't do much on the basis of a memo, whether it's classified or not. It will be up to the Congress members who viewed the memo to decide whether there is enough evidence to take this step.
Libertarian666 wrote:
Every member of Congress can read it.
Only one Democrat has done so as far as I'm aware.
I wonder why they don't want to know what it says?
By not actually knowing what it says, they are free to make whatever claims they want about it.
I don't think knowledge of anything has ever gotten in their way of making ridiculous claims before. But maybe they don't look as shifty if they are ignorant.
