The Glade 4.0

To be fair, I think this more sums up the problems with politics for the last several presidential terms. It's not about whether something is right or wrong, but about who's doing it and whether you like them or not.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

It is, but remember the Benghazi investigation was in fact over a legitimate concern, and while it didn't bear out once it was pursued, it did in part lead to the revelation that Hillary Clinton had no business anywhere near classified information because she likes storing it in her house - and not in a little black book that you have to physically steal, but on an email server.

The Republicans did, in fact, eventually accept that Benghazi was going nowhere, although it took making public fools of themselves to do it. The Democrats are already way past that point. They were past it prior to the inauguration.

You're right that it is a politics problem. However, it is not equally intense on both sides. There is an underlying view that unwritten rules were supposed to have prevented Trump from winning (which to be fair everyone - me included - thought would be the case). However, when they failed to do that the Left and the press embarked on a campaign to turn those rules into written rules retroactively - except it doesn't work that way. Trump, of course, would be well advised to stop tweeting and further aggravating this nonsense, but no amount of ill-advised tweets legitimizes the attempts to fabricate wrongdoing out of nothing more than Russia being Russia.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

While there's an accuracy to this (Ben Shapiro has made some of the same points), there's also a reason for it - The average, everyday Republican, and even those Trump voters that went for Obama twice, wants this. They want someone who is not going to subject themselves to a press-activist-outrage veto.

The tactic of getting leftist activists on TV with a sympathetic anchor to interview them (who tries to maintain a plausible veneer of neutrality and generally fails at it) and creating the impression the public agrees with some outraged fat woman on some simplistic point of identity politics combined with funding has worked because for too long Republicans have been too craven to directly call out this tactic.

Trump just doesn't give a ****. What's good is not that people are taking "if it pisses off the left then it's good" as a viewpoint, but rather that Republicans might learn to not give a ****.

Using the word "racist" or "misogynist" shouldn't be a veto - it should result in instant marginalization as a name-calling idiot and probably a bigot so the adults can talk. If racial slurs are unacceptable, then slinging hate labels at people ahs to be equally unacceptable. Racism, on those occasions it actually exists, can be called out for why it's wrong, not just by name-calling.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

And now there's an outcry that Trump's disclosing classified information in a meeting with the Russians. Trump undercut statements from his staff about the reason for firing Comey, and he just undercut via tweet his staff's denial of the disclosure of the classified information.

Look, I didn't vote for Trump - he's not my guy. However, I'm doing everything I can to give him a fair chance. I'm really trying. At every turn, though, he appears completely incompetent. He and his staff need to get their **** straight.

Its ok. It was "totally appropriate". Nothing to see here citizen.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

A much better parallel to the Trump and Russia **** from the right is the claim that the Clintons/the DNC had Seth Rich murdered. It's backed by about the same amount of non-evidence

There's 3 problems with this outcray:

1) The President has unlimited declassification authority and can disclose anything at any time he wishes.
2) LTG McMaster specifically stated that he was in the room and named others in the room and that the incident did not happen as reported. Those claiming it DID happen are "anonymous sources".
3) Putin just offered to release the Russian transcripts of the meeting, saying he doesn't have such information



McMaster specifically said what was not disclosed - specifically, sources and methods. There is a major difference between disclosing classified, already-analyzed and processed information, information that is raw and unanalyzed and again between overtly disclosing sources and methods.

Furthermore, Trump's tweet said "facts", not "classified information". There is a large category of information called "sensitive but unclassified" as well, which has none of the legal status of classified information (an example, though not pertinent to this case, is PII, such as employee SSNs, addresses, and other personal information that could be used for identity theft. It has to be protected, but it does not legally or administratively constitute classified information). This can be very confusing, because there are caveats to classifications, and numerous "sensitive but unclassified" statuses. I know, because I regularly deal with people referring to "classified information" and "security clearances" when no such thing is involved, because terminology is thrown around loosely. Sometimes people put "confidential" on information that is not classified "confidential" because they mean it's not for public release; using the term in its common use rather than its administrative one (contractors do this all the time).



I can see that you're trying, and I didn't vote for him either. However, "giving him a fair chance" involves understanding that things as reported to the public are not the same as the way things actually work. This "intelligence leak" is a perfect example. The press makes zero real effort to understand how classification actually works, and who has authority to do what, and promulgates the story as if the President does not have authority he actually does have.

One of the major problems of reportage on Trump is that those reporting frequently forget that he is, in fact, the President, and often try to portray his actions as if he does not actually have the office, or as if they are out of bounds simply because they're different from his predecessors - and in many cases, the actions aren't different, just the communication about them. Many Presidents have expressed in the past that being President is hard, just in more oblique and eloquent language; when Trump says that, the press instantly whips itself into a frothing rage.

This is why I find myself defending Trump so frequently - not because he's so wonderful, but because the criticisms of him are so frequently far more idiotic than he is. The other side of "if it pisses off the left, it must be right" is, "if it's critical of Trump it must be right".

Hell, we spent 4 or 5 pages discussing the ins and outs of Tomahawk missiles because of this ****.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Seeing as the President has ultimate authority over classification (unlike, for example.... the former Secretary of State), there is, indeed, nothing to see here.

Putting "Nothing to see here" isn't you being snarky; it's you demonstrating you don't know enough to have an opinion and yet doing so anyhow.



That's fair, although this story is newly breaking and evidence - or lack thereof - hasn't had time to develop yet. However, I predict that it will not turn out to be the case.

Also, it won't get the same desperate attempts to promote it from the press. Even FOX is handling it with "well, so far this is from Assange, and he hasn't given anything solid yet" rather than the spasmodic attempts to create an investigation to create a crime to investigate.

Let's look at a discussion of how things actually work here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447662/donald-trump-russia-obstruction-justice-charged











The continuing narrative of an "obstruction" of an investigation and "obstructing justice" is a ploy by Democrats and the Press to exploit the public's lack of knowledge of what is actually being investigated, and of how counterintelligence differs from criminal justice to invent a scandal out of whole cloth - and people who are bound and determined to protect their own world view are eating it up like pizza.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I am actually aware that the president has the "authority" to declassify whatever the hell he wants to. I didn't read all those Tom Clancy books for nothin you know.

Doesn't make it not idiotic for him to have done so to the Sergeis.

And yes, it *was* me being snarky. That's kinda my schtick.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Putting authority in quotes doesn't make it less real.



"doesn't make it not" is not an argument. You would need to show that there was, in fact, a misjudgement - something you are distinctly unqualified to determine. I think we'll take LTG McMaster's assessment over that of.. well, whatever it is you do these days.



Yeah, sorry, dribbling in your driveway doesn't make you a basketball player either, your schtick or not.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Fair enough. I hope you can let this go.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

Arafys, you have been corrected Politifact-style. Please return to your hole where technicalities rule.

_________________

No ****? I know the president has the authority to declassify information. Not saying it was illegal, just stupid. But that's been the entirety of Trump's "presidency" so far. Much like his most fervent supporters.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

American-generated intelligence. This was provided by an ally under the condition that it remain classified.



The WaPo reporter addressed this. McMaster came out and said that sources and methods were not disclosed, but that was not alleged in the article. It's basically like if I accused you of being a heroine addict, and you responded that you'd never done crack in your life.



You don't see any problem with the Russians offering to release "transcripts" of an unrecorded intelligence meeting?

I don't think you'll be able to convince me that this was an intentional, thoughtful declassification of material. Supposedly, he was boasting about the great intel he gets. Even if not, and IF it happened as reported, it's more than likely just gross incompetence. Which is what I was saying before.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/kfile-susan-collins-constant-chaos/index.html

A complete train wreck.

Discussions of obstruction of justice now. GOP lawmakers starting to distance themselves.

Aww. Pobrecito. So hard done by.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Said ally is free to rescind any agreement in the future, but the fact remains that Presidential authority is not limited in this regard.



McMaster's very first sentence was that the report was false. Period.

I won't bother going into why not disclosing sources and methods means that the intelligence was no longer tied to its origin and therefore that it's contradictory to both complain sources and methods weren't disclosed and also claim it came from a foreign country.



I'm using transcripts loosely here, meaning the Russian version of what happened. Obviously Putin is not trustworthy, but the fact that he is not does not automatically mean the opposite of what he said is true.

The fact is that we have a source on the record, and one known to be of high integrity, saying the report is false, and an anonymous source making the claim. For all we know, the source is a Russian plant. At this point, if I were Putin, I'd be planting stories like this all the time, keeping us tied up in conspiracy theories.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I addressed this already. You have to have a criminal investigation to obstruct in the first place. The trainwreck is the intentional misunderstanding of the nature of the investigation being portrayed to the public.

If there is a criminal investigation, furthermore, the FBI has used its counterintelligence investigation to evade the requirement to engage in normal CJ procedures, and if Comey interpreted what Trump said as an order, rather than simply a hope (as was stated) then he, himself, is culpable as he had an obligation to act on that at the time and did not.

People are inventing law out of whole cloth at this point, while ignoring the law that does exist.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

*as reported. A very important qualification.

Which... Trump later confirmed was spin.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Relevant. Just sayin.

Also, the yt tag doesn't like timestamp part. Forward to 5:23 or so.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Which is irrelevant. Not only is it not relevant to the illegality, you, like Mus, are not in a position to evaluate whether it was "competent" or not.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

We're just as qualified as you are spanky. Being US citizens and all that.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

"The report was false as reported" is a qualification.

Do you work for the department of redundancy department?



Previously addressed. Trump did no such thing. "Facts" is not a synonym for "classified."

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."