The Next President is...

[drewpey]

12 hours ago, BFM this said:

FIFY.  Seriously, say what you will about JEH and his own dossier fetishes, at least he ran a tight ship, including telling pols to go fuck themselves when the occasion arose.

 

9 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Umm, given the actions of the senior leadership at the time, 'dragged' is not the verb I would pick.  Comey and Co. deliberately took the actions at the time.  If a different candidate had won the election, none of this would be seeing the light of day.  That is hardly apolitical behavior.

This and nsplayer's "told you wouldn't believe me" post illustrates the divide that will never be crossed.  Rational people can look at facts and form completely different opinions based upon them depending on their particular tinting of eyeglasses.

Assuming this is about the FISA warrant, the evidence isn't even available to us to make an informed criticism of the FBIs actions.  I'm all for having a close examination of the FISA process and how we approve things, because I think a lot of rules exist outside the knowledge of the public.  We have been provided cherry-picked data points from one side of the political spectrum that flopped when scrutinized.  The cherry-picked response to the R side was sidelined.  We are currently ignorant of the entire truth, but it seems folks are content to jump to their conclusions...much like the Trump/Russia investigation.  Just because folks don't like what the outcome was, or how the outcome was achieved, doesn't mean it was wrong or even illegal.  It's best to wait for the facts to unravel themselves and we can have an honest discussion based on the facts.

[waveshaper]

I believe this is the first time Special Counsel Mueller has indicted a foreigner that isn't a Russian?  Also, this is the first-time "ever/I think/?" a foreigner has been indicted and convicted/pleaded guilty to charges levied by any appointed Special Counsel.  Alex van der Zwaan is a citizen of the Netherlands and he pleaded guilty to making a false statement to both the FBI and Special Counsel. I wouldn't be surprised if a few other non-Russian foreign middlemen "that lied to the FBI and/or the Special Counsel or committed some other TBD crime against the USA" eventually get indicted.

 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/alex-van-der-zwaan-gates-russia-mueller.html

Edited February 21, 2018 by waveshaper

[matmacwc]

Do said foreigners have constitutional protections, and if they do, why?

[nsplayr]

24 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

Do said foreigners have constitutional protections, and if they do, why?

I'm not a constitutional law professor (let's elect more of those!), but the article below was written by one is the first result on google. TL;DR - yes, because long-held SCOTUS legal precedent says so

https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-noncitizens/

Edited February 21, 2018 by nsplayr

[matmacwc]

Cool, no more lawyers please.

[Azimuth]

15 hours ago, matmacwc said:

Do said foreigners have constitutional protections, and if they do, why?

Look at the military commissions down at GITMO. Those trials are between civilian and military courts, law wise. They have some, but not all rights, under the Constituion according to case law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZS.html

 

[Azimuth]

14 hours ago, matmacwc said:

Cool, no more lawyers please.

Only if they’re named Saul Goodman.

[Vertigo]

Someone get your boy in check.

The parade is on, boys. Gotta stroke that ego.

 

Fiscally responsible my ass. The wasted money in manhours and logistics alone...

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/23/trump-military-parade-veterans-day-423405

[sqwatch]

Imagine the OPR potential...

[Lord Ratner]

Should we have air shows?

[HeloDude]

19 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Should we have air shows?

Government funded/sponsored?  Hell no...

[gearhog]

7 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Government funded/sponsored?  Hell no...

If a US military aircraft participates in any airshow, it is by definition being sponsored (in part) by the Government. Should I assume by the implied conviction of your belief that you've never participated in or attended an airshow with military aircraft performing?

I will agree that this parade thing is a bad idea. Not because of the funding, but because I'm afraid everyone marching will look like the USAFA cadets at the Trump inauguration - embarrassing.

[waveshaper]

IMHO, CNX the parade idea. Here's a few "non-parade" options for the President to consider. These type events will showcase the US military and he can simultaneously get his rocks off/send a message to our adversaries:>) The President should attend some already scheduled DoD events (might save $$$$?) and bring lots of media along to help showcase these U.S. military capabilities.

 

Non-Parade Options for the POTUS:<)

- Attend a massive firepower demo like this previous President; The media can even use the same Headline with some minor changes; "Air Power - President Trump Sees Bigly Display".

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-F9f84F_a4

 

- IMHO, If the POTUS wants to better comprehend those pointy things tethered to the Nuclear Football then I would suggest the following;

-- Make a surprise stop at one of our bases during a scheduled NSI; He should  visit a ICBM Silo, WSA, flight line, bombers/crews, and maybe the POTUS could go thru a "SIMULATED" PRP Cert process.

 -- Visit Vandenberg AFB during the next scheduled LGM-30G (Minuteman III) JTA test launch.

- Visit Vandenberg or Alaska during the next THAAD ABM test.

- etc. 

 

 

Sent from Outlook

Edited February 24, 2018 by waveshaper

[HeloDude]

3 hours ago, torqued said:

If a US military aircraft participates in any airshow, it is by definition being sponsored (in part) by the Government. Should I assume by the implied conviction of your belief that you've never participated in or attended an airshow with military aircraft performing?

I will agree that this parade thing is a bad idea. Not because of the funding, but because I'm afraid everyone marching will look like the USAFA cadets at the Trump inauguration - embarrassing.

Attended, sure--at private fields.  Taken part in one, fortunately no.

I don't believe that taxpayer dollars should be used to entertain people. 

[Breckey]

[Azimuth]

Trump should probably focus on more important things, like convincing McMasters to stay and figuring out how his son-in-law will get a permanent TS/SCI before he gets indicted by the Mueller Special Counsel.

[HeloDude]

18 minutes ago, torqued said:

It might seem logical to desire a measurable practical benefit for each dollar spent, but dismissing airshows as simple entertainment seems a bit unreasonable. I've been to more airshows than I can count at civil and military airfields (Pope, CBM, Macdill, Homestead, Pensacola, etc to name a few) and the amount of education, inspiration, and goodwill they generate among the millions of people who attend them may not be measurable, but they are invaluable to our profession and the military.

Because you have never gone to an airshow and explained your aircraft and career to hundreds of kids, adults, vets, and others who know very little about them as they sit in amazement in the pilot seat, I can understand why you may feel the way you do. I highly recommend it, and if you do, you'll most certainly become at least a little more nuanced in your position. People should be able to see, hear, touch, and understand the things they are collectively paying for.

I disagree.  By your logic, the parade is a good idea.. 

[17D_guy]

Looks like the D memo got released. I'm sure it'll explain everything.

After initial read - much better than the first memo, though the target was different.  Answered a lot of the questions I had about timing, which the R memo "just seemed" to overlook.  I'm growing less and less enamored with the Party I've voted for, for over 20 years.

 

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/ig/ig00/20180205/106838/hmtg-115-ig00-20180205-sd002.pdf

Edited February 24, 2018 by 17D_guy
Had to find it.

[Vertigo]

Cliff Notes:

- Steele Dossier played NO role in opening the Carter Page investigation. They began their investigation prior to even receiving it.

- The DOJ did in fact inform the court of the origin of the Steele Dossier.

- They accuse Nunes of deliberately misrepresenting the underlying FISA Warrant intelligence.

- Four different judge's approved FISA warrants including judge's appointed by Bush and Reagan. Multiple DOJ officials also approved the applications prior to the court even seeing them including Trump appointees Rosenstein and Boente.

- They actually started listening to Page after he left Trump campaign so the idea they were watching him to spy on Trump is absurd.

- Page has a long history with Russia going back to 2004 and was being actively investigated once before already in 2013. The FBI had even interviewed him in 2016 again prior to receiving the Steele Dossier. The Steele dossier was referenced in the application as corroboration of certain things, and not to independently demonstrate.

- A bunch of blacked out additional evidence with a bit in the middle noting Page lied to the HIC in his testimony in 2017 about meeting with Russian officials.

- It included the footnote that discusses the Steele dossier source which SPECIFICALLY STATES ..."The FBI speculates the the unidentified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign." Candidate 1 is Trump I believe.

- DOJ timely informed the court when the FBI fired Steele and why.

- The attacks on Bruce Ohr for knowing Steele/and his wife working for Fusion GPS are 100% baseless. He was not involved in the FISA process and disclosed his relationships in November 2016.

Basically Nunes and Gowdy lied whole cloth that the FISA warrant was primarily based on a news article and the Steele Dossier. Those were in fact the least used and most minor pieces of evidence and they picked them out specifically for that reason to discredit the investigation and lied about their use.

[drewpey]

RIP Republican talking points. 

Have to see what they cling to now. My money is they flip the script and start banging the "thanks Obama" drum. Cant wait to see who is in the hot seat on today's Meet the Press, Face the Nation and State of the Union.

[HeloDude]

9 minutes ago, drewpey said:

RIP Republican talking points. 

Have to see what they cling to now. My money is they flip the script and start banging the "thanks Obama" drum. Cant wait to see who is in the hot seat on today's Meet the Press, Face the Nation and State of the Union.

Then why does Senator Coons not want the report released this summer?  Simple question yet no one can provide me a logical answer...

[brickhistory]

Hmmm, Democrat response to GOP memo disputes everything.  For some, only those "facts" contained in one or the other are valid and the other "facts" are simply partisan talking points to score political points.

Kinda like a kids' argument, "No it's not."  "Yes, it is." 

But played with my money.

I am not amused.

 

edited to add:  But not a word to the current Administration's actually releasing the opposition's memo, however redacted.  Would've been mighty easy to keep it under wraps as a 'security' measure.  But it didn't.  

Edited February 25, 2018 by brickhistory

[Vertigo]

15 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Hmmm, Democrat response to GOP memo disputes everything.  For some, only those "facts" contained in one or the other are valid and the other "facts" are simply partisan talking points to score political points.

Kinda like a kids' argument, "No it's not."  "Yes, it is." 

But played with my money.

I am not amused.

 

edited to add:  But not a word to the current Administration's actually releasing the opposition's memo, however redacted.  Would've been mighty easy to keep it under wraps as a 'security' measure.  But it didn't.  

Trump's administration didn't release it. The HIC did after the they redacted it to make it not classified. As opposed to the Republican memo which was declassified by the President and then released.

[brickhistory]

32 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

Trump's administration didn't release it. The HIC did after the they redacted it to make it not classified. As opposed to the Republican memo which was declassified by the President and then released.

I stand corrected.  Apologies.

Facts are funny things; they either they are or they aren't.

Kinda like if I had one, never mind dozens, classified e-mail on my home system, including at TS/SCI and above material.

Would the FBI proceed on my "intent" or those pesky facts?

[drewpey]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

Then why does Senator Coons not want the report released this summer?  Simple question yet no one can provide me a logical answer...

We discussed this a page or two ago. There is reason for and against, but only Coons knows the answer to that...ask him. Asking private citizens repeatedly isn't going to get you anywhere. We can only speculate, but in the end what he wants doesn't matter.