The Next President is...

[Azimuth]

13 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Ironic reply, since your “counter argument” to TK’s very detailed post was simply to call POTUS a moron. 

Disagree as much as you please, but calling POTUS a “fucking moron” is unsat behavior.  More info available here.  cheers

I guess you’re assuming I’m in the military, according to my DD-214, I’m not. Thanks for playing.

Very detailed to include a Fox News link. Copy.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Azimuth

[tk1313]

Maybe I'm having an off day, but I don't think tac airlifter lost that one...

[Azimuth]

10 minutes ago, tk1313 said:

Maybe I'm having an off day, but I don't think tac airlifter lost that one...

Referencing a post about politics while someone in said post quotes Article 88, which only applies to Officers, and can also apply to retirees, but doesn’t apply to those who separated and had IRR (i.e. me).

I think you had an off day.

[HeloDude]

37 minutes ago, Azimuth said:

Very detailed to include a Fox News link. Copy.

Would you rather him post a link from another biased "news" source such as CNN, NY Times, Wash Post, MSNBC, ABC, etc?  They're all biased, so why are you only against Fox News?

[tk1313]

36 minutes ago, Azimuth said:

Referencing a post about politics while someone in said post quotes Article 88, which only applies to Officers, and can also apply to retirees, but doesn’t apply to those who separated and had IRR (i.e. me).

I think you had an off day.

Just seemed weird that you'd be bragging about being out to a dude who did/does cool shit in the military, simply because he had the audacity to give a craniums up on ways to avoid getting in trouble just in case it applied to you. I vehemently disagree with nsplayr on a bunch of political shit, but I respect his opinion and take his advice on other stuff when its offered...

Anyways, back to the text messages from left-leaning sources...

Anti-Trump (CNN): https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/12/politics/peter-strzok-texts-released/index.html
Not as many, but it's CNN so...

Pro-Obamas: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/the-fbis-principal-loyalty-is-to-the-bureau-itself/552686/

Edited April 9, 2018 by tk1313

[drewpey]

6 hours ago, tk1313 said:

Strzok compromised: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/12/texts-between-ex-mueller-team-members-emerge-calling-trump-loathsome-human-idiot.html
NOTE: I honestly tried to find a left-leaning site with the story, but they all seem to want to downplay every single negative text about Trump... Obviously Fox is trying to play into the conspiracy theorists, but you're free to interpret the texts as you wish. Bottom line: a bunch of negative texts about Trump and his family (and the idiot American voting public for voting for him), and a lot of positive texts about the Obamas.

 

You have only provided evidence of someone with a political opinion.  You then make the assumption that they are then compromised without facts to back it up.  There is no evidence this compromised his ability to be on the investigation team.  Regardless, Mueller removed him to eliminate any doubts...but that doesn't stop the (R) propaganda machine.  Can you only be investigated by someone who views you favorably?  Do drug dealers, murderers and sexual assaulters deserve a prosecutor that doesn't view them or their actions negatively?  It blows my mind that Republicans think they are entitled to have a red-hatter investigate Trump and Co.  Are YOU compromised from doing your job because of your opinions?  Am I?  Probably not.  Just because people have political opinions doesn't suddenly make us incapable of doing the jobs we've taken an oath to do.

 

6 hours ago, tk1313 said:

Comey's leak: https://www.factcheck.org/2017/07/trumps-unfounded-leak-claim/
1. Comey acknowledged that he had “asked a friend of mine [later identified as Columbia University professor Daniel C. Richman] to share the content of the memo with a reporter.” Comey testified that after the president had tweeted that Comey had better hope there were no “tapes” of their conversation, Comey gave the memo to the Columbia Law School professor to provide to the media so that it “might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.”
2. “It was a classified briefing and so I wrote that on a classified device,” Comey said in response to a question on whether all the memos were unclassified. “The one I started typing … in the car — that was a classified laptop that I started working on.”But Comey said the memo he shared with a friend was unclassified. In his written testimony, Comey says of the Feb. 14 memo: “I immediately prepared an unclassified memo of the conversation about Flynn and discussed the matter with FBI senior leadership.”
“So you didn’t consider your memo or your sense of that conversation to be a government document?” Sen. Roy Blunt asked in the June 8 Senate hearing. “You considered it to be, somehow, your own personal document that you could share with the media as you wanted to through a friend?”
“Correct,” Comey said. “I understood this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the president. As a private citizen, I felt free to share that. I thought it important to get it out.”The Hill noted that when the memos — which Comey said he had turned over to Special Counsel Robert Mueller — were recently shown to Congress “the FBI claimed all were, in fact, deemed to be government documents.”

It seems as if Comey is trying to make the case that he decides which info is unclassified and which info isn't (don't know the answer to this one)... and that meeting with the President when he was the FBI director was a meeting he had as a "private citizen", and therefore his notes are his property and not government documents (which the FBI seems to disagree with).

The initial claim I requested a citation for was that Comey leaked classified memos.  The citation you provided gives no proof he did, and actually suggests the opposite (unfounded).  Faux News made that claim, and then actually had to retract the statement.  It's been 11 months since Comey was dismissed and he provided his memo to be passed to the press.  If it was in fact classified...then it was illegal.  Why hasn't the DoJ gone after him for leaking?  Seems like it would be a very quick open-and-shut case since they know what memo it was, and Comey admitted under oath that he did it.  It would go over very well with his base.  That would be the logical thing to do unless the facts don't support the claim.  I guess we can always blame this "deep state" I keep hearing about for not going after Comey.

[TreeA10]

It's hard not to form opinions regarding behavior.  What is a rational person to think when classified information is found on a home brew server and nothing comes of it?  Was that server subpoenaed and searched by the FBI?  No.  Did the FBI conduct a dawn no-knock raid of the home to search for documents/computers/etc. that contained classified information?  No.  Did legal advisors, also under investigation, to the person who concocted the home brew server have their home(s) raided and searched?  No.  Those persons were also given legal immunity.  Did the FBI record any interviews with the people connected with the improper handling of classified information?  No.  Again,  the legal counsel that was under investigation that was given legal immunity also served as legal counsel to another person under investigation.  Were any indictments brought about after requested phones and computers were destroyed by those that were under investigation?  No.  Lastly, does the legal statute governing the prosecution for improper handling of classified information contain the word "intent" anywhere within it?  No.  A common thread through this process and the lack of prosecutorial interest happens to be a couple of names who happen to be investigators with the power to drive the scope and direction of the investigation.  I'm sure that it's just coincidence.

If you have any doubt of this, I would suggest you duplicate the home brew server in your house and store some classified information on it.  Tip off the FBI and let us know how that works out.

[Vertigo]

20 hours ago, tk1313 said:

You're really not a huge fan of any even-numbered amendment... 0/3 so far

I'm a huge fan of all the amendments. The presumption of innocence doesn't mean police shouldn't investigate crimes when evidence shows crimes may have been committed. When a detective finds child porn images on a suspect's computer, his/her impartiality towards the type of person the suspect is gets tainted. The judge and jury are the only ones required to be impartial at that point on. 

Edited April 10, 2018 by Vertigo
a word

[ClearedHot]

17 hours ago, Vertigo said:

I'm a huge fan of all the amendments. The presumption of innocence doesn't mean police shouldn't investigate crimes when evidence shows crimes may have been committed. When a detective finds child porn images on a suspect's computer, his/her impartiality towards the type of person the suspect is gets tainted. The judge and jury are the only ones required to be impartial at that point on. 

How about when investigators find TS/SCI information on an unauthorized , unclassifed, and unprotected email server?

[Vertigo]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

How about when investigators find TS/SCI information on an unauthorized , unclassifed, and unprotected email server?

It should be dealt with appropriately. I said at the time had it been me, or anyone else I serve with, that was found with that we would currently be in prison.

How about when a son in law of the President sits in on TS/SCI briefings and meetings, and has access to TS/SCI materials for  a year and a half but doesn't even have a clearance and lied or omitted things multiple times on his SF86?

[tk1313]

On ‎4‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 8:24 PM, drewpey said:

You have only provided evidence of someone with a political opinion.  You then make the assumption that they are then compromised without facts to back it up.  There is no evidence this compromised his ability to be on the investigation team.  Regardless, Mueller removed him to eliminate any doubts...but that doesn't stop the (R) propaganda machine.  Can you only be investigated by someone who views you favorably?  Do drug dealers, murderers and sexual assaulters deserve a prosecutor that doesn't view them or their actions negatively?  It blows my mind that Republicans think they are entitled to have a red-hatter investigate Trump and Co.  Are YOU compromised from doing your job because of your opinions?  Am I?  Probably not.  Just because people have political opinions doesn't suddenly make us incapable of doing the jobs we've taken an oath to do.

Bad comparison... Dealing drugs, murder, and sexual assault are all crimes. Being the Republican candidate for President is not. Strzok wasn't removed because of his political opinions or the mighty Fox propaganda machine (talk about hypocrisy), he was removed because of his personal opinion of Trump as an individual. I think a lot of Bernie's political ideals are crap, but I don't necessarily think he's a bad person... I work around people who I don't agree with politically, but still get along very well with, and I have a positive personal view of them. I can separate my distaste for someone's views from my distaste for a person... Something people on both sides have trouble with. Strzok said some pretty nasty things about Trump and his family, things I would never say about Bernie or other people I know, despite thinking they have stupid political views.

19 hours ago, Vertigo said:

I'm a huge fan of all the amendments. The presumption of innocence doesn't mean police shouldn't investigate crimes when evidence shows crimes may have been committed. When a detective finds child porn images on a suspect's computer, his/her impartiality towards the type of person the suspect is gets tainted. The judge and jury are the only ones required to be impartial at that point on. 

The presumption of innocence isn't meant to protect a person who has kiddie porn, it's meant to protect a person who doesn't have kiddie porn from having their rights violated. But fair enough, who are the judge and jury? Who are the accusers? What is the accusation/crime? And what are the consequences of intentional false accusation? If a guy's ex-wife accuses him of having child porn in an attempt to get full custody of their kids (knowing that he doesn't have child porn anywhere), and they search his residence and find an unpaid parking ticket, can't the wife be charged with making false accusations?

[ClearedHot]

39 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

It should be dealt with appropriately. I said at the time had it been me, or anyone else I serve with, that was found with that we would currently be in prison.

How about when a son in law of the President sits in on TS/SCI briefings and meetings, and has access to TS/SCI materials for  a year and a half but doesn't even have a clearance and lied or omitted things multiple times on his SF86?

Two issues here:

1.  Sitting in on TS/SCI meetings without a clearance is troubling....HOWEVER, the President of the United States is the ULTIMATE declassification authority...IF he approves the adminstrivia is meaningless.  Is it a bad optic, absolutely...illegal, nope.

2.  Lying or emitting details on an SF-86 - 100% a crime that should be punished.

[Vertigo]

18 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Two issues here:

1.  Sitting in on TS/SCI meetings without a clearance is troubling....HOWEVER, the President of the United States is the ULTIMATE declassification authority...IF he approves the adminstrivia is meaningless.  Is it a bad optic, absolutely...illegal, nope.

2.  Lying or emitting details on an SF-86 - 100% a crime that should be punished.

if POTUS is the declassification authority, does that mean he declassifies the material or he waives the requirement to have a clearance to possess classified material? There's quite a difference between the two. 

[ClearedHot]

2 hours ago, Vertigo said:

if POTUS is the declassification authority, does that mean he declassifies the material or he waives the requirement to have a clearance to possess classified material? There's quite a difference between the two. 

Both.

[Azimuth]

On 4/10/2018 at 8:11 AM, TreeA10 said:

If you have any doubt of this, I would suggest you duplicate the home brew server in your house and store some classified information on it.  Tip off the FBI and let us know how that works out.

I’ll just send a letter from prison to Trump saying how I got screwed breaking the law like Hilary.  Then I’ll get a pardon.

[Azimuth]

6 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

How about when investigators find TS/SCI information on an unauthorized , unclassifed, and unprotected email server?

Investigators don’t do the charging.

[Azimuth]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/11/paul-ryan-do-not-fire-mueller-rosenstein-515215

[ClearedHot]

16 minutes ago, Azimuth said:

Investigators don’t do the charging.

Odd, I seem to recall Comey saying Hillary should not be charged...

[Azimuth]

22 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Odd, I seem to recall Comey saying Hillary should not be charged...

It’s a recommmendation, sorta like how the legal office made recommendations to you as a Commander.  So, did the legal office advise you as a Commander, or did they just do whatever they wanted when it came time to charge someone via the UCMJ?

And to be really shitty about it, Comey is a barred attorney by trade. So, if he was doing a legal analysis on the investigative report and offering an opinion, he was qualified to do so.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Azimuth

[Homestar]

3 hours ago, Azimuth said:

It’s a recommmendation, sorta like how the legal office....

This is where you lost me.  When the Director of the FBI says something, it's not "sorta like a recommendation."

Now when an internet lawyer says something, yeah, that's sorta like a recommendation.

[HU&W]

13 hours ago, Vertigo said:

if POTUS is the declassification authority, does that mean he declassifies the material or he waives the requirement to have a clearance to possess classified material? There's quite a difference between the two. 

Starting point is EO 12968.  POTUS can add/delete/grant/etc as desired.  Security is an executive (presidential) program.

Edited April 12, 2018 by HU&W

[drewpey]

16 hours ago, tk1313 said:

Bad comparison... Dealing drugs, murder, and sexual assault are all crimes. Being the Republican candidate for President is not. Strzok wasn't removed because of his political opinions or the mighty Fox propaganda machine (talk about hypocrisy), he was removed because of his personal opinion of Trump as an individual. I think a lot of Bernie's political ideals are crap, but I don't necessarily think he's a bad person... I work around people who I don't agree with politically, but still get along very well with, and I have a positive personal view of them. I can separate my distaste for someone's views from my distaste for a person... Something people on both sides have trouble with. Strzok said some pretty nasty things about Trump and his family, things I would never say about Bernie or other people I know, despite thinking they have stupid political views.

Again, even investigators are allowed to have opinions, politically or personally.  In all likelihood he was removed just because he brought extra baggage to the investigation through his affair and his political opinions which would eventually come to light.  He likely wasn't necessary for the investigation, so it's best to cut and run. 

To be honest if you read the texts they had plenty of shade to throw around to pretty much every politician they spoke of...and what they said about Trump was relatively tame for 2016 election standards.  In fact most of what he said about Trump I know I've said about my own party leaders from time to time.  Sure Trumps no murderer, but he has provided enough material so just about anyone from any walk of life has a very understandable reason to have a strong dislike of him.  He's an "Equal opportunity offender", which ironically is part of what his base loves so much about him..."telling it like it is" as they say.

Strzok and Page are making news today as Rand Paul is aghast that they still have security clearances.  The base is quite riled up over it as well.  Do you think they should have had their security clearances stripped?

[ClearedHot]

18 hours ago, Azimuth said:

It’s a recommmendation, sorta like how the legal office made recommendations to you as a Commander.  So, did the legal office advise you as a Commander, or did they just do whatever they wanted when it came time to charge someone via the UCMJ?

Except when the Legal Office made recommendations to me as a Commander they did so in private, not on the public stage after calling a news conference.

18 hours ago, Azimuth said:

And to be really shitty about it, Comey is a barred attorney by trade. So, if he was doing a legal analysis on the investigative report and offering an opinion, he was qualified to do so.

Legal analysis like drafting a memo clearing Clinton before she was even interviewed...

Do you actually believe any of this tripe?

 

[Lord Ratner]

Legal analysis like drafting a memo clearing Clinton before she was even interviewed...
Do you actually believe any of this tripe?
 

He does, which is ridiculous since he's seen the process corrupted first-hand at the lowest levels.

[brickhistory]

BLUF:  Still not Hillary in the White House.  Which is enough.

Or any of the 16 other Republican candidates in 2016.

Yet the party in the majority in the House and Senate are acting more as the opposition than the current victors.