Today in hypocrisy...

[FLEA]

11 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I mean I think there might be a conflict of interest either way, which is why the FBI & DOJ definitely should not personally involve the President or anyone at the White House in their investigations. What if the case was iffy, and the DOJ was inclined to not pursue the case against Trump. But Garland takes the issue to Biden and Biden says, "FUCK YEA investigate Trump! I order you to pursue this warrant, and if you can get him in cuffs on camera even better!" Trump is not only a former political opponent but is also a likely future political opponent for Biden, and there absolutely is a conflict of interest there if Biden is hands-on directing an investigation against him. I would not support that - I'm interested to hear if you would, with the remedy being that Biden could be voted out in 2 years time. That seems like a long time for some authoritarian BS to just be locked-in because of prior election.

In this case, the top of the food chain is the AG, who signed off. There are pre-briefed ROEs that no one from the WH will be involved in DOJ investigations. Per above, it would be a scandal precisely if Biden did get personally involved and either approved of or waived off an investigation. Play by your ROEs at all times, even if your organization has violated them in the past.

Military operations are completely different, as the pre-brief ROE is that the CINC has final say unless delegated, and in fact the targeting process for all high-level or sensitive targets will explicitly state the level of strike approval authority, from say TF Commander up through POTUS himself as required. Again, play by your ROEs.

I'm not sure exactly who you are talking about (Comey? Wray? Biden? Trump? Barr? Garland?), but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree overall. Comey was fired, McCabe was shown an early retirement, there were congressional investigations, a different President was elected at the next cycle and control of the Senate also changed hands. Seems like the system of accountability you're looking for is working.

I am an unelected government official, and yet with the approval of the JTAC (via the CC with appropriate delegated authority) I can squeeze a trigger and kill people. That's pretty powerful if you ask me. And based on existing law and ROE, the system is operating exactly as intended.

The same types of laws, policy memos and chains of command that govern my drone strike exist for DOJ/FBI investigations, even if you're not super familiar with them. Just because you disagree with the results of a particular FBI investigation (as you may disagree with the results of my drone strike), that doesn't mean the system isn't doing exactly what it was intended to do by the exact rules of accountability and authority baked into ahead of time, which can of course be updated as time goes on and/or new administrations or operational-level leaders take over.

That doesn't mean crews have never shot without clearance, it doesn't mean the FBI has never lied to a judge to get a warrant (or wiretapped MLK Jr. 😬), but at least to me, our current form of government isn't some kind of radically out-of-check maniacal force that should be corrected via dictatorship.

You need to brush up on your constitution/DoD doctrine my friend. You do not have those powers. The POTUS does and via delegation you have received authority to execute those powers on his behalf. Your authority is very clearly laid out in DoD doctrine. POTUS is the commander-in-chief. He has delegated national command authority to the SECDEF. From there this is further delegated into COCOM authorities who further delegates OPCON and TACON. Your TACON of a single MQ-9 is but a tiny sliver of what is ultimately the President's power. This is all covered in ACSC as well (though not nearly detailed enough). 

Fun fact because I just went through this. When you get separation orders as an officer, your orders no shit say in the comments, "the President of the United States has accepted your resignation." 

The FBI was built in the early 20th century at the direction of President Roosevelt. It was under his authority an autonomous agency of law enforcement was stood up. Not congress, not the Supreme Court, solely the President. 

Edited August 20, 2022 by FLEA

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

You need to brush up on your constitution/DoD doctrine my friend. You do not have those powers. The POTUS does and via delegation you have received authority to execute those powers on his behalf. Your authority is very clearly laid out in DoD doctrine. POTUS is the commander-in-chief. He has delegated national command authority to the SECDEF. From there this is further delegated into COCOM authorities who further delegates OPCON and TACON. Your TACON of a single MQ-9 is but a tiny sliver of what is ultimately the President's power. This is all covered in ACSC as well (though not nearly detailed enough). 

Fun fact because I just went through this. When you get separation orders as an officer, your orders no shit say in the comments, "the President of the United States has accepted your resignation." 

The FBI was built in the early 20th century at the direction of President Roosevelt. It was under his authority an autonomous agency of law enforcement was stood up. Not congress, not the Supreme Court, solely the President. 

Yea dude, I am a prestigious graduate of *the* Air Command and Staff College too 😆

All executive branch authority does indeed flow through the President, and like I said in my drone strike example, that authority is delegated down to, say, a TF Commander via pre-briefed policy memos and ROE, passed through the JTAC for practical purposes, and arrives in my lap in order to pull the trigger. I'm not a rogue unelected agent of the state and neither are FBI agents doing their jobs.

In a similar way law enforcement authority is delegated down to the FBI agents working the Trump case. Biden ain't gonna be out there serving warrants just like he's not flying my plane, even while retaining ultimate responsibility for how each of those operations goes and the authority to conduct them in the first place.

In the FBI investigation of Trump that's ongoing, the President, though retaining all executive branch powers, has also determined ahead of time that it's inappropriate to be personally informed of or involved in DOJ investigations, and has laid out that ROE in policy memos. I'm arguing this is normal, good, and is a practice that's been observed by all Presidents since Nixon more or less. Some other folks are saying that they want the President to be personally involved and I think that's incredibly bad and dangerous and should not happen no matter who is President or who is being investigated.

Just like POTUS isn't always giving the yay/nay call on each individual drone strike, he has delegated DOJ investigation authority down to the AG and laid out specific rules about communications between the WH and DOJ. He also often delegates down strike authority to SECDEF, COCOM/CC, or TF/CC as needed, while choosing to not limit any communications up or down the chain in that case. While the President occasionally does approve specific airstrikes personally, he has determined that he never will approve of specific DOJ investigative actions before hand, just like every President before him since Nixon.

So no, there's no law, no sentence in the Constitution that keeps the President from personally puppeteering the FBI to investigate all of his personal and political opponents and to block law enforcement agencies from investigating his allies. Our system of government is a bit dangerous in that the President is indeed clothed in immense power and can abuse it pretty readily compared to, say, a PM in a parliamentary system.

But Presidents almost always do not do this and never should do this and in fact all since Nixon, including Trump, have put out policy memos detailing how they will not interfere or be informed about DOJ investigations in ways that would tip the scales of justice one way or the other.

[nsplayr]

BLUF…except not up front 😅

Drone strike: Presidential authority -> delegated to a TF Commander -> JTAC used to conduct the operation -> pilot pulls the trigger, comms flow up and down throughout as required

DOJ investigation: Presidential authority -> delegated to the Attorney General -> FBI used to conduct the operation -> individual agents do their jobs, comms flow up and down minus flowing all the way to POTUS; POTUS will not direct or stop any investigation, the AG is the top of the comms chain even if he/she is not the ultimate legal authority. The President explicitly agrees to this and set this as his policy.

Edited August 20, 2022 by nsplayr

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

BLUF…except not up front 😅

Drone strike: Presidential authority -> delegated to a TF Commander -> JTAC used to conduct the operation -> pilot pulls the trigger, comms flow up and down throughout as required

DOJ investigation: Presidential authority -> delegated to the Attorney General -> FBI used to conduct the operation -> individual agents do their jobs, comms flow up and down minus flowing all the way to POTUS; POTUS will not direct or stop any investigation, the AG is the top of the comms chain even if he/she is not the ultimate legal authority. The President explicitly agrees to this and set this as his policy.

That's all well and good but I think the point being made is as the chief executive for the state, it would have been important for Biden to be informed of an operation of that magnitude. At the end of the day any autonomy given to DOJ is autonomy given to them at his discretion. Given the enormous political consequences of this decision, he didn't neccessarily have to steer it but he should have been informed. If he wasn't, I would have serious questions about my AG. If he did want to steer it, he is absolutely in his right to, so long as he does so within the law. The FBI did not HAVE to raid Trumps home, that was a decision that was made. Perhaps it was the right one, I dunno. But to suggest that Biden doesn't have the right or authority to direct the DOJ or the FBI for that matter is complete fallacy and needs to be called out. Biden IS the chief executive. 

 

 

Edited August 20, 2022 by FLEA

[LookieRookie]

17 hours ago, nsplayr said:

The entire executive branch is accountable to the President, who is accountable to Congress, term limits and the American voters, but he does not control the entire executive branch. Nor should he! Nor can he!

This statement is false.

“Article II, Sec 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

And Sec 2

”he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices,”

 

 

[nsplayr]

It’s not that the President doesn’t have sufficient authority to turn the DOJ into his personal vendetta police, it’s that he shouldn’t do that and all presidents, in writing, have agreed to limit comms between the WH and DOJ ahead of time in order to prevent even the appearance of impropriety.

Maybe some of y’all are a lot younger than me or weren’t taught proper contemporary US history or IDK, but if you want to go back to a pre-Nixonian setup I mean ok, but that’s not a popular opinion among any stripe of expert nor IMHO a wise one.

Nixon committed crimes, directed others to commit crimes, and when the crimes started coming to light he tried to order the DOJ to cover it all up. I would prefer for that not to be an option available to any American President, and since Nixon, other relevant authorities eg Congress and voters have largely felt the same way.

Edited August 20, 2022 by nsplayr

[nsplayr]

I 1000% guarantee you that if Garland has gone to Biden ahead of time and Biden personally signed off on the FBI paying Trump a visit, the right wing media outlets would have absolutely lost their f-ing minds about how improper that all was and how Biden would have massive conflicts of interest and how he was a dictator going against his own written policy and long-standing norms.

And ya know what, had that happened, they would be right!

Like I can’t believe some of y’all are wishcasting for Dark Brandon, fresh off of big legislative victories, to personally direct the dark forces of The State against his chief political opponent 😂 I mean…if I were a Republican I would not want that but 🤷‍♂️

Edited August 20, 2022 by nsplayr

[disgruntledemployee]

Fighting over Trump reminds me of this little TV series clip.

 

[jazzdude]

The FBI was built in the early 20th century at the direction of President Roosevelt. It was under his authority an autonomous agency of law enforcement was stood up. Not congress, not the Supreme Court, solely the President. 

And where does the funding for the FBI come from?

Presidents can start initiatives, but without funding (i.e. consent) from Congress those ideas for pretty quickly.

[FLEA]

57 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

And where does the funding for the FBI come from?

Presidents can start initiatives, but without funding (i.e. consent) from Congress those ideas for pretty quickly.

 

And.....?

 

Edited August 20, 2022 by FLEA

[FLEA]

So sort of spin back to hypocrisy here and what to do about it. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/media/desantis-press-secretary-roasts-abc-news-double-standard-for-bill-coverage.amp

Ignore the fact it's fox and it's one sided, but the content of the tweets themselves. This is honestly a fantastic analysis of political press hypocrisy. It's not that Fox News doesn't use similar techniques, but when they are pointed out it is incredibly pointed at showing how language can alter the take away from an article. I'm wondering if a tool that scans and points out loaded press language would be useful at increasing the size of the first two standard deviations of the electorate. 

[MCO]

5 hours ago, FLEA said:

So sort of spin back to hypocrisy here and what to do about it. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/media/desantis-press-secretary-roasts-abc-news-double-standard-for-bill-coverage.amp

Ignore the fact it's fox and it's one sided, but the content of the tweets themselves. This is honestly a fantastic analysis of political press hypocrisy. It's not that Fox News doesn't use similar techniques, but when they are pointed out it is incredibly pointed at showing how language can alter the take away from an article. I'm wondering if a tool that scans and points out loaded press language would be useful at increasing the size of the first two standard deviations of the electorate. 

I regularly flip between Fox and CNN to see the spin words each use in an article. It’s frustrating to not have a neutral main stream media, but it seems like most people just want to watch whatever confirms their own views.

[nsplayr]

I’ve found the BBC to be pretty neutral when covering American news. In fact it’s the only TV news I can ever stand to watch on occasion.

[GrndPndr]

10 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I’ve found the BBC to be pretty neutral when covering American news. In fact it’s the only TV news I can ever stand to watch on occasion.

Regretfully however, their website is all about victims.  Every story describes a victim and what they've suffered.  It's tiring.

You can try the Times of London, but like the WSJ, it is a pay site (I am paying $4./mo).  They hate Trump and BoJo (I know, no longer a factor), but the opinions seem a little more to the middle and right.

[Prozac]

21 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I’ve found the BBC to be pretty neutral when covering American news. In fact it’s the only TV news I can ever stand to watch on occasion.

PBS isn’t bad either of you must “watch” your news. I think many conflate it with NPR but I’ve found PBS (particularly the News Hour) to be much more neutral in addition to being willing to do deeper dives on important topics vs the sound bite warfare conducted by the likes of MSNBC, Fox, and CNN. Reading multiple sources remains the best way to stay informed. I don’t have access anymore but I always appreciated the Early Bird as a daily conglomeration of stories that affected my life as a military member. Not sure if the EB is even still being compiled, but if so, it might be a good place to start for generally well written articles from across the journalism spectrum. 

[Pooter]

Reuters is also good for basic facts and the breaking points podcast (recommended ad nauseum by Rogan) is great for in depth analysis. 

[FourFans]

Holy hell.  This thread is what happens when graduated assistant-to-the-deputy group commanders are now 737 FOs and no longer have O-3 execs to pontificate at concerning their immense, hard earned, and expansively broad wisdom.

 

Oh yeah, BrightNeptune: You should go home.  You're drunk.

[JBueno]

[ClearedHot]

On 8/20/2022 at 9:29 AM, nsplayr said:

I 1000% guarantee you that if Garland has gone to Biden ahead of time and Biden personally signed off on the FBI paying Trump a visit, the right wing media outlets would have absolutely lost their f-ing minds about how improper that all was and how Biden would have massive conflicts of interest and how he was a dictator going against his own written policy and long-standing norms.

And ya know what, had that happened, they would be right!

You were saying...

White House Counsel asked the nationbal Archives to give the FBI Access to Trump documents

 

[timberlin]

5 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

You were saying...

White House Counsel asked the nationbal Archives to give the FBI Access to Trump documents

 

 

[nsplayr]

5 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

You were saying...

White House Counsel asked the nationbal Archives to give the FBI Access to Trump documents

 

Maybe I don’t get it…the FBI wanted to look at documents collected by the archives in January (that were also marked classified, up to TS/SCI and SAPs!), and the archives officials wanted the executive branch to adjudicate on the question of Trump’s claim of executive privilege.

The WH council, not Biden personally, said, “Yea go ahead FBI, we are the executive now and we assert no privilege over these documents.”

That’s how I read it anyways.

ps the NY Post website is an virtual bazar of ads and spam…please tell me you use reader view on there 😅

Edited August 24, 2022 by nsplayr

[ClearedHot]

Come on man...it wasn't up to the Biden admin to assert executive privileged on those documents.  The WH had zero business being any part of that discussion.

More will come out, just like the whistle blowers form the FBI that have come forward and said the FBI purposely tried to minimize the laptop. 

I do use reader view, but don't read the Post all that often, just happened to see the link to their story.  There has an will continue to be a flurry of legal filings around the constitutionality of what happened, but just like buying votes...I mean forgiving student debt, timing just before the mid-terms is key to both of these stories.

[nsplayr]

Didn’t the archives as the WH whether or not they wanted to assert privilege?

Because trump wanted to do so, but since he’s no longer in office that opinion no longer matters for the docs in question.

I will admit I am not as tied in to the right-wing outrage-o-sphere as you are, so I’m open to being not up to speed on some detail here, so long as you’re open to it being well short of tyranny when the FBI looks into someone having boxes and boxes of TS/SCI in their Florida gold club 🍻

Edited August 25, 2022 by nsplayr

[ClearedHot]

4 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Didn’t the archives as the WH whether or not they wanted to assert privilege?

Because trump wanted to do so, but since he’s no longer in office that opinion no longer matters for the docs in question.

I will admit I am not as tied in to the right-wing outrage-o-sphere as you are, so I’m open to being not up to speed on some detail here, so long as you’re open to it being well short of tyranny when the FBI looks into someone having boxes and boxes of TS/SCI in their Florida gold club 🍻

It wasn't up to current WH to ask about Trump's privilege.

I am open to and hope the FBI will look into such things, legally...and hold those who violate the law accountable...you know like when Hillary had TS/SCI SAP on her wide open server...by the way in your so called Whataboutism defense, you completely ignore the fact that the FBI has officially said the stuff on her server WAS compromised by foreign actors...isn't that just peachy...I know I know, nothing to see her because she is a democrat and the outrage only applies when Trump has classified.

There are some serious shenanigans around the timing of the raid when all they had to do was ask, instead they let it sit there in the "Florida Gold Club."  Trump is claiming he declassified the documents...a crappy argument if he is trying to make it after the fact, but by law he did have the authority when his people took the documents.

[Sim]

 

Quote

“Whistleblowers have recently contacted my office to share serious concerns about the FBI’s handling of Hunter Biden’s laptop,” Johnson wrote, adding that FBI leaders at the local level told employees that “you will not look at that Hunter Biden laptop” when it was discovered at a Delaware computer repair shop in 2019.

The new claims “allege that the FBI did not begin to examine the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop until after the 2020 presidential election—potentially a year after the FBI obtained the laptop in Dec. 2019,” Johnson said.

The whistleblower also allegedly said the leadership essentially said that employees are “not going to change the outcome of the election again,” possibly referring to former FBI Director James Comey’s 2016 letter to Congress about Hillary Clinton’s private email server that came just days before the 2016 General Election.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-whistleblower-claims-fbi-leaders-delayed-key-investigation-sen-johnson_4685738.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport

 

Nothing political about FBI, right? right?