U.S. Politics

[villakram]

46 minutes ago, bickster said:

FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt, Gerald and Betty Ford, hell even George and Laura Bush, they all say hello

As for the FBI stuff its got absolutely nothing to do with your original point, nor has it anything to do with Trump forcing him out.

My original point was an example of the kind of dodgy behavior he was involved in, not the reason. What do married political couples have to do with a senior FBI agent involved in an investigation of the political enemies of his wife? Concentrate dear boy. This is akin to a senior member of Scotland Yard who is investigating leader May for crimes against intelligence, when this individual is married to a labor candidate who lost a hotly contested seat in the last election despite huge support from Corbyn and his crew. Dodgy behavior aka a conflict of interest. 

Saying Trump forced him out is interesting as Trump's pressure or some other means had persuaded him to seek retirement when he became eligible for full pension benefits in a few months. Then the new head of the FBI reads this Memo (tm) and he's gone immediately, with lots of interesting reporting on what Wray thought of this. Of course the new head is an evil Republican and McCabe is a nice Democrat. 

 

[bickster]

35 minutes ago, villakram said:

My original point was an example of the kind of dodgy behavior he was involved in, not the reason. What do married political couples have to do with a senior FBI agent involved in an investigation of the political enemies of his wife? Concentrate dear boy. This is akin to a senior member of Scotland Yard who is investigating leader May for crimes against intelligence, when this individual is married to a labor candidate who lost a hotly contested seat in the last election despite huge support from Corbyn and his crew. Dodgy behavior aka a conflict of interest. 

1

So as I said, your original point is irrelevant. The married couples happen to be Presidents and their spouses, three off the top of my head where the spouse had some very different political opinions to their husbands. Eleanor Roosevelt even took to writing a book that picked apart, bit by bit, her husband's foreign policy. The point is you can't accuse someone of having their spouse's politics. Do you actually know what McCabe's politics are? I don't, you've fallen into the Trump Trap

Your point about our Police investigating also really wouldn't concern me, the case would be so high profile that it would be scrutinised from all angles, the media, the politicians, the police themselves and the IPCC. I have faith in that process, in cases like this at least. I don't trust them lower down the food chain but high profile cases like this, they wouldn't be able to so much as fart in the wrong direction

[maqroll]

6 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

Last night we watched episode 6 of 'Dirty Money' on Netflix called "The Confidence Man."

It analyzes Trumps character from the late 70's particularly his use of media and his public perception. It also looks at his real estate business focussing on the last decade or so of deals in Azerbaijan, Trump Soho in NYC and Trump Moscow. All of this information I'm sure many of you have read before but this is the first well made documentary I have seen that collates it all into one place. It is worth seeking out.

it's a good one, best of the six

[StefanAVFC]

5 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

 

I guess it'll be decided in a lawsuit. But I think it's a stretch to describe this situation as 'like a dictatorship'. 

 

Okay, but what's stopping him from fragrantly ignoring the judiciary branch, just like he ignored congress?

Good thread here:

 

[snowychap]

8 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

(It's a different argument, and maybe an interesting one, whether the executive has too much power and the legislature too little. But I don't think this makes Trump a dictator, unless Obama was one as well).

Maybe not a dictator but a President with an authoritarian bent and with litle consideration for due process. It's a trend that stretches back beyond Obama. It's one that each President has sought to build, and has successfully built, upon.

Edited January 30, 2018 by snowychap

[HanoiVillan]

12 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Okay, but what's stopping him from fragrantly ignoring the judiciary branch, just like he ignored congress?

Good thread here:

 

I love the image of him 'fragrantly' ignoring people! Sadly, I think we all know he smells like a deep fat frier. 

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

Maybe not a dictator but a President with an authoritarian bent and with litle consideration for due process. It's a trend that stretches back beyond Obama. It's one that each President has sought to build, and has successfully built, upon.

I do agree with that. I'm no fan of the 'imperial presidency', and said as much during the Obama years as well. Of course the trouble with allowing 'nice' presidents like Obama to get away with, eg bombing countries to shit without congressional authorisation, is that sooner or later they're replaced by a 'nasty' one like Trump, and they might make even worse use of the same powers, or keep pushing on an open door demanding more. 

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

I do agree with that. I'm no fan of the 'imperial presidency', and said as much during the Obama years as well. Of course the trouble with allowing 'nice' presidents like Obama to get away with, eg bombing countries to shit without congressional authorisation, is that sooner or later they're replaced by a 'nasty' one like Trump, and they might make even worse use of the same powers, or keep pushing on an open door demanding more. 

I'm with you completely there.

[StefanAVFC]

Worth remembering these sanctions were approved on bipartisanship terms. Obama did overuse the executive power but mostly to be able to get things done past an obstructive GOP congress who criticised the colour of his suit and choice of mustard. Look at Merrick Garland as an example. 

[snowychap]

Blimey, that entrance started to look like the precursor to a title fight.

Could have come in with:

 

[snowychap]

 

[snowychap]

Apparently, he's looking to American infrastructure building of the past.

So, that's importing lots of immigrants to be exploited and die working on railroads?

But they don't want immigrants because they rape and kill high school students...

Edited January 31, 2018 by snowychap

[il_serpente]

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

Apparently, he's looking to American infrastructure building of the past.

So, that's importing lots of immigrants to be exploited and die working on railroads?

But they don't want immigrants because they rape and kill high school students...

tbf, I think he's referring to the more recent past, like the construction of the interstate highway system from the '50's through the '80's, which I think was  accomplished primarily by white men free to negotiate their own low wages unburdened by the interference of pesky unions.  The great influx of bad hombres who took over all our construction jobs hadn't really kicked in yet.

Trump is probably unaware that people travel by anything other than limousine or airplane; and he doesn't get into messy details about how his imported Chinese Trump-label goods get transported from the pacific ports to the rest of the country, so railroads probably aren't even on his radar.

[TheAuthority]

As a Villa fan every time I see #SOTU I just think "Shit on the United"?!

[il_serpente]

8 hours ago, villakram said:

My original point was an example of the kind of dodgy behavior he was involved in, not the reason. What do married political couples have to do with a senior FBI agent involved in an investigation of the political enemies of his wife? Concentrate dear boy. This is akin to a senior member of Scotland Yard who is investigating leader May for crimes against intelligence, when this individual is married to a labor candidate who lost a hotly contested seat in the last election despite huge support from Corbyn and his crew. Dodgy behavior aka a conflict of interest. 

Saying Trump forced him out is interesting as Trump's pressure or some other means had persuaded him to seek retirement when he became eligible for full pension benefits in a few months. Then the new head of the FBI reads this Memo (tm) and he's gone immediately, with lots of interesting reporting on what Wray thought of this. Of course the new head is an evil Republican and McCabe is a nice Democrat. 

 

Disturbing to see the Republicans' red herring attacks on the FBI are resonating beyond the Trump base and Fox News audience.

Political enemies of his wife?  Seriously?  A first-time candidate for office, new to politics, doesn't have political enemies.  I seriously doubt Trump even knew who she was while she was running given that he was new to politics himself, a little busy with his own campaign, and pretty much completely isolated from any mainstream Republican apparatus who might have been involved in working for her opponent.

She was a candidate for state office in Virginia.  A PAC associated with the previous governor of Virginia, a member of the party she was representing in the election, donated a chunk of money to her campaign.  Q'uelle surprise!  Yes, he's a long-time Clinton associate, but so what?  Why wouldn't a party's most prominent PAC in a state help fund the campaign of  one of its party's candidates in a statewide election?  It would be much more curious if they didn't.  The GOP talking point makes it out to be a Clinton puppet surreptitiously funneling money directly from Hilary to McCabe, which is just a load of BS.   Also, McCabe reported his wife's candidacy in accordance with standard protocol from the beginning, maintaining full transparency.   His boss, a life-long Republican who was himself busy handing Trump the biggest gift he would ever receive when he announced the re-opening of the Clinton e-mail investigation a week before the election, saw no issues.  As the right wingers would say, it's a nothing burger.

Whatever dodgy business the FBI and it's employees have been involved in over the years, there's scant evidence that any of it has been motivated by partisan politics, at least since the demise of J. Edgar Hoover.  Trying to imply that McCabe is biased because the FBI has done a bunch of rotten stuff to people over the years is intellectually dishonest.   As a group, FBI employees have historically been more conservative and more Republican than the general population.  (Not surprising that a group whose business is Law and Order is affiliated with a party that promotes a public image of itself as the party of Law and Order).  The Republicans never had any beef with the FBI until the decision not to charge Hilary, and were quickly back to praising them after Comey's announcement until they learned about the Russia probe.  They're using specious arguments to launch partisan attacks on and stir up the public's doubt about the neutrality of an organization that, despite it's well-documented imperfections, has had a strong reputation as staying above the political fray.   It's a dangerous game.  Is protecting the likes of Trump really worth the potential damage to the public's trust in institutions whose perceived impartiality is critical to precedence rule of law over political affiliations?

As someone quite familiar with the US government retirement system, I can tell you that there's nothing at all curious or surprising about McCabe's decision to go now.  He announced some time ago that he would retire when eligible, which I believe is in March.  He has enough annual leave (governmentese for vacation time or personal time off) accumulated that he can take the remaining time as vacation.  People do it all the time.  He could choose to stay and take his vacation time as a lump sum payment at the end, but unless he needs it why would he hang around to be the GOP's piñata for another month?

[Seat68]

14 minutes ago, il_serpente said:

 

As someone quite familiar with the US government retirement system, I can tell you that there's nothing at all curious or surprising about McCabe's decision to go now.  He announced some time ago that he would retire when eligible, which I believe is in March.  He has enough annual leave (governmentese for vacation time or personal time off) accumulated that he can take the remaining time as vacation.  People do it all the time.  He could choose to stay and take his vacation time as a lump sum payment at the end, but unless he needs it why would he hang around to be the GOP's piñata for another month?

Standard behaviour in the UK too, nothing unusual. 

[Straggler]

15 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Looking further into this, it seems that the administration were required to meet two deadlines yesterday, one to create and release a list of rich Russians connected to their defence industry, and secondly to begin imposing sanctions on companies, organisations or individuals with extensive dealings with the Russian military or security services. They have done the first, but elected not to do the second, with the justification that a] defense purchasing timelines are very long, therefore it would be unfair to begin sanctions, and b] that a large amount of potential business has already been discouraged. 

I guess it'll be decided in a lawsuit. But I think it's a stretch to describe this situation as 'like a dictatorship'. 

 

Done the first is open to interpretation too.  If the Trump White House says the sky is blue you really do need to pop your head out of the window and look up to check.

 

 

[villakram]

8 hours ago, il_serpente said:

Disturbing to see the Republicans' red herring attacks on the FBI are resonating beyond the Trump base and Fox News audience.

Political enemies of his wife?  Seriously?  A first-time candidate for office, new to politics, doesn't have political enemies.  I seriously doubt Trump even knew who she was while she was running given that he was new to politics himself, a little busy with his own campaign, and pretty much completely isolated from any mainstream Republican apparatus who might have been involved in working for her opponent.

She was a candidate for state office in Virginia.  A PAC associated with the previous governor of Virginia, a member of the party she was representing in the election, donated a chunk of money to her campaign.  Q'uelle surprise!  Yes, he's a long-time Clinton associate, but so what?  Why wouldn't a party's most prominent PAC in a state help fund the campaign of  one of its party's candidates in a statewide election?  It would be much more curious if they didn't.  The GOP talking point makes it out to be a Clinton puppet surreptitiously funneling money directly from Hilary to McCabe, which is just a load of BS.   Also, McCabe reported his wife's candidacy in accordance with standard protocol from the beginning, maintaining full transparency.   His boss, a life-long Republican who was himself busy handing Trump the biggest gift he would ever receive when he announced the re-opening of the Clinton e-mail investigation a week before the election, saw no issues.  As the right wingers would say, it's a nothing burger.

Whatever dodgy business the FBI and it's employees have been involved in over the years, there's scant evidence that any of it has been motivated by partisan politics, at least since the demise of J. Edgar Hoover.  Trying to imply that McCabe is biased because the FBI has done a bunch of rotten stuff to people over the years is intellectually dishonest.   As a group, FBI employees have historically been more conservative and more Republican than the general population.  (Not surprising that a group whose business is Law and Order is affiliated with a party that promotes a public image of itself as the party of Law and Order).  The Republicans never had any beef with the FBI until the decision not to charge Hilary, and were quickly back to praising them after Comey's announcement until they learned about the Russia probe.  They're using specious arguments to launch partisan attacks on and stir up the public's doubt about the neutrality of an organization that, despite it's well-documented imperfections, has had a strong reputation as staying above the political fray.   It's a dangerous game.  Is protecting the likes of Trump really worth the potential damage to the public's trust in institutions whose perceived impartiality is critical to precedence rule of law over political affiliations?

As someone quite familiar with the US government retirement system, I can tell you that there's nothing at all curious or surprising about McCabe's decision to go now.  He announced some time ago that he would retire when eligible, which I believe is in March.  He has enough annual leave (governmentese for vacation time or personal time off) accumulated that he can take the remaining time as vacation.  People do it all the time.  He could choose to stay and take his vacation time as a lump sum payment at the end, but unless he needs it why would he hang around to be the GOP's piñata for another month?

There's nothing wrong with who is is or who he is married to. No laws are broken.

However, in an investigation such as this where such important partisan political issues are at play, it is imperative that each and every member of the investigating team be beyond reproach, perceived or otherwise. McCabe should have stepped away from this investigation due to a conflict of interest or his institution should have a policy in effect such as to make him step aside. Change the political affiliations of all of the above and you'd be screaming blue murder just like the repubs are doing now.

Time and again, posts are made here about the investigation and what they show, yet such an obvious conflict will allow any republican to throw shit at this. Why do you wish to fight them at their game?

Your defence of the FBI is interesting. I suggest that you go read up on the "non-political" antics of Hoover, and I'm not talking about his interesting life outside work. Not to mention recent efforts during the BLM and occupy protests.

[choffer]

I know it's easy to laugh but seriously?

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

8 hours ago, Straggler said:

Done the first is open to interpretation too.  If the Trump White House says the sky is blue you really do need to pop your head out of the window and look up to check.

 

 

How does the 'Atlantic Council' or Anders Aslund know this, exactly? He doesn't quote anyone, or mention a source. 

Anyway, I'm not trying to deflect. It's pretty clear that Trump is trying to undermine the sanctions law to the greatest extent he can get away with. I can sympathise with those who say this is an outrage. However, if I'm honest, my reaction to this is coloured by my belief that sanctions are generally a bad policy, that pursuing a policy of deliberately intensifying tensions with Russia is counterproductive (or even stupid) and that this is generally an issue with which I have some sympathy with Trump (even if I think he has probably arrived at the 'correct' viewpoint for the wrong reasons). 

Despite that, I do agree that he shouldn't be above the law.