Republican Hypocracies

[MindTrap028]

Even if that were true her use f the private server was hashed out and arguments were made that it was wrong.

I think the end conclusion was that she "badly mishandled classified info".
So that is what was "hashed out". The concern about her "private" server was specifically in relation to that, and that statement by the FBI was and is considered direct validation of the original complaint and concern.

You seem to have missed all that.

[CowboyX]

I think the end conclusion was that she "badly mishandled classified info".
So that is what was "hashed out". The concern about her "private" server was specifically in relation to that, and that statement by the FBI was and is considered direct validation of the original complaint and concern.

You seem to have missed all that.

Doesn't matter as long as I have at least one person making it about her private server it repudiates your point that it never was. That the situation developed is irrelevant to that.

---------- Post added at 07:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:18 AM ----------

A great deal was made of the supposed lie about the tape causing the Benghazi attack.

I assume the same will be made if it turns out Trump lied about his having been wiretapped:

"How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"

"But if the allegation is not true and is unsupported by evidence, that too should be a scandal on a major scale. This is the kind of accusation that, taken as part of a broader course of conduct, could get the current president impeached. We shouldn’t care that the allegation was made early on a Saturday morning on Twitter.

False and defamatory speech isn’t protected by the First Amendment.

And an allegation of potentially criminal misconduct made without evidence is itself a form of serious misconduct by the government official who makes it.

Given how great the executive’s power is, accusations by the president can’t be treated asymmetrically. If the alleged action would be impeachable if true, so must be the allegation if false. Anything else would give the president the power to distort democracy by calling his opponents criminals without ever having to prove it."

[MindTrap028]

Doesn't matter as long as I have at least one person making it about her private

HA! hilarious!
Sure you can find whatever you want, we do have he internet after all. That doesn't make it the driving force behind the criticism or the issue that is worth discussing.
If your argument is that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE was upset because Hillary (insert frivolity). Then I gladly concede...
If however your argument is that Republicans in general are being hypocritical. Well, then you need a lot more to support your position than "one guy said such and such".

So, no you have in no way repudiated what I have demonstraited.

----
Yay, new issue.

--

A great deal was made of the supposed lie about the tape causing the Benghazi attack.

I assume the same will be made if it turns out Trump lied about his having been wiretapped:

Not sure if it should.
We have never had a tweeting President like this before. Not sure where to place it. Is it official national policy? Or is it a live stream of consciousness?

On the substance side, Trump was apparently referencing a news articular. Where as the tape thing was a calculated decision to deceive the people and became central policy repeated even to the family of those who were killed.
So I'm not sure how comparable it is.

Though I haven't been keeping up with the news .. so. new info would be nice.

"But if the allegation is not true and is unsupported by evidence, that too should be a scandal on a major scale. This is the kind of accusation that, taken as part of a broader course of conduct, could get the current president impeached. We shouldn’t care that the allegation was made early on a Saturday morning on Twitter.

Not sure I see it. Impeached over twitter? seems far fetched.

False and defamatory speech isn’t protected by the First Amendment.

And an allegation of potentially criminal misconduct made without evidence is itself a form of serious misconduct by the government official who makes it.

Given how great the executive’s power is, accusations by the president can’t be treated asymmetrically. If the alleged action would be impeachable if true, so must be the allegation if false. Anything else would give the president the power to distort democracy by calling his opponents criminals without ever having to prove it."

I'm a bit amused at this. We have put up with the media making the same kind of accusations without consequence.
If it is criminal for the president, it should be criminal for the media. So this complaint is falling on deaf ears for me.
I think society and the media is getting exactly what it deserves. The media has been pulling this trick for years, and now we have a president that is playing the same game.

Not sure of the validity of the claims to criminality... Especially the line of argument that if it is impeachable if true, then the person making the accusation must be impeached. ...

[CowboyX]

HA! hilarious!
Sure you can find whatever you want, we do have he internet after all. That doesn't make it the driving force behind the criticism or the issue that is worth discussing.
If your argument is that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE was upset because Hillary (insert frivolity). Then I gladly concede...
If however your argument is that Republicans in general are being hypocritical. Well, then you need a lot more to support your position than "one guy said such and such".

So, no you have in no way repudiated what I have demonstraited.

From my original argument:

"Throughout the campaign, Donald Trump used Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while Secretary of State against her on a consistent basis, calling her “guilty a hell” and running attack ads against her, all while rally crowds chanted “lock her up.”""

You tried to argue that it was never made an issue about the use of a private email server, I showed that it was. That was also used to dig deeper and expose other things is irrelevant to the argument.

Pence did the same thing.

I will add that once the Hillary email server story was debunked it was dropped but that doesn't change that arguments were and continued to be made.

---------- Post added at 04:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 AM ----------

Not sure I see it. Impeached over twitter? seems far fetched.

Impeached (well, resigned) over a tape recording? Doesn't seem that far fetched to me.

The argument against Hillary was that they lied about the tape in order to deceive us. Now I somewhat agree with that and have made the argument that the idea was to downplay the effectiveness of the Benghazi attack. Others were certain there was a coverup of some kind of incompetence, mistake, or misfeasance which never played out. Rather, the mistake was traced back to the CIA.

It will be interesting to see what "mistake" the Trump supposed lie will be excused with.

[MindTrap028]

You tried to argue that it was never made an issue about the use of a private email server, I showed that it was. That was also used to dig deeper and expose other things is irrelevant to the argument.

And I showed by use of the timeline of events that the simple fact that there were other issues at play than simply her having a private server. Namely her destroying evidence, her use of that private server for work and thus inherently raising the possibility of using it for classified info.
That is the backdrop that trump was referring too, and can't be wiped away because a person just called it an "e-mail scandal". You are simply ignoring the greater context. ... and continue to do so.

I will add that once the Hillary email server story was debunked it was dropped but that doesn't change that arguments were and continued to be made.

Debunked? What are you talking about man? The end of it only occurred because the election is over and the Obama gov was never going to pursue charges. If anything all the accusations were officially established as true by Comey in that famous breefing.
1- She lied about the nature of her email and it's use 2- She destroyed gov documents 3-she did not turn over all documents. 4 she badly mishandled classified (even at the highest markings) information.

That no criminal charges were brought, doesn't mean it was "debunked".
The conclusion was that all the accusations were true. The opposite of debunked.
----

Impeached (well, resigned) over a tape recording? Doesn't seem that far fetched to me.

The argument against Hillary was that they lied about the tape in order to deceive us. Now I somewhat agree with that and have made the argument that the idea was to downplay the effectiveness of the Benghazi attack. Others were certain there was a coverup of some kind of incompetence, mistake, or misfeasance which never played out. Rather, the mistake was traced back to the CIA.

It will be interesting to see what "mistake" the Trump supposed lie will be excused with.

I don't know man, the left is going to have all kinds of egg on it's face if these reports are true...

"Trump says he will submit evidence of wiretapping to House committee 'very soon'"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...very-soon.html


On the other hand, if there is ultimately no evidence I'm not so excited about this direction, but I think it will be the new norm.


I think what will actually happen, is that he will provide evidence of something. Left's will say it is nothing, but it will be something enough to make any talk of impeachment silly and overreaching.

[CowboyX]

And I showed by use of the timeline of events that the simple fact that there were other issues at play than simply her having a private server. Namely her destroying evidence, her use of that private server for work and thus inherently raising the possibility of using it for classified info.
That is the backdrop that trump was referring too, and can't be wiped away because a person just called it an "e-mail scandal". You are simply ignoring the greater context. ... and continue to do so.

Of course, because there's no reason, beyond speculation, to do so otherwise.

---------- Post added at 09:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 AM ----------

Debunked? What are you talking about man? The end of it only occurred because the election is over and the Obama gov was never going to pursue charges. If anything all the accusations were officially established as true by Comey in that famous breefing.
1- She lied about the nature of her email and it's use 2- She destroyed gov documents 3-she did not turn over all documents. 4 she badly mishandled classified (even at the highest markings) information.

That no criminal charges were brought, doesn't mean it was "debunked".
The conclusion was that all the accusations were true. The opposite of debunked.

Sorry, I should have clarified. That she was legally able to use a personal email server was debunked. In the beginning there was a question about it and there's no reason to believe that that's not what Trump was referring to.

---------- Post added at 09:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 AM ----------

I don't know man, the left is going to have all kinds of egg on it's face if these reports are true...

"Trump says he will submit evidence of wiretapping to House committee 'very soon'"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...very-soon.html


On the other hand, if there is ultimately no evidence I'm not so excited about this direction, but I think it will be the new norm.


I think what will actually happen, is that he will provide evidence of something. Left's will say it is nothing, but it will be something enough to make any talk of impeachment silly and overreaching.

It can't be evidence of "something". He said his phones were tapped.

[CowboyX]

Donald Trump says he learned Obama tapped his phones from the New York Times

"Our ruling

Trump said "the New York Times wrote about" Obama wiretapping him during the election.

The New York Times article Trump references says the FBI has used intercepted communications in its investigation of several Trump associates and their ties to Russia. It does not say Obama ordered this surveillance, nor does it say Trump’s own phones were tapped or that he was under surveillance in any way.

Trump took an article about legitimate intelligence investigations and completely distorted it. We rate his claim False."

hmmm, another lie.

[MindTrap028]

hmmm, another lie.

Apparently, because he got it from "real clear politics", which is the source of the question by Fox's Bret Bier report that Trump also referenced.
So he is just lying about the source to give it more mainstream appeal.

It can't be evidence of "something". He said his phones were tapped.

I'm willing to wait a few days to see if there is anything to his "evidence" before we start saying "impeach".

Which, even if completely false I don't think there is any real issue in that area. He isn't going to be impeached over this.

[MindTrap028]

I'm willing to wait a few days to see if there is anything to his "evidence" before we start saying "impeach".

Trump team communications captured by intelligence community surveillance, Nunes says

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...unes-says.html
So the trump team was captured by surveillance.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/wsj-trump...153017659.html
WSJ, thinks Trump is like a drunk in his claims.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ap-claims-fiz/
Andrew Napolitano on a break for his claims.. but he won't back down.

-----

Contradictory info out there. There is apparently surveillance of the trump team. So ... that ain't nothing.

But is it serious? probably not.

[Squatch347]

Contradictory info out there. There is apparently surveillance of the trump team. So ... that ain't nothing.

But is it serious? probably not.

Should note that it is "incidental collection" which has a specific meaning.

[MindTrap028]

Should note that it is "incidental collection" which has a specific meaning.

Yes, here it means that the gov was listening to some foreign person who happened to be speaking to Trump or his cabinet.
The irregularity in this case is that the names of those Americans were released widely to the intelligence communities. That info is normally redacted unless vital to understanding what the foreigner is saying.

It seems to be a double edged sword, as on one hand it does mean that the trump team was surveilled. On the other hand if there were any collusion with Russia, this is how you would find out about it.

So far the latter seems a non issue other than speculation. The former is still an issue that should be considered. Trumps question is thus relevant. That being the legality of surveillance on his self or team.

[CowboyX]

Yes, here it means that the gov was listening to some foreign person who happened to be speaking to Trump or his cabinet.
That info is normally redacted unless vital to understanding what the foreigner is saying.

Or pertinent to any investigation, no? So Russian hacking of one of our political parties and then having conversations with another party would be relevant.

And redacted for what purposes? Within the intelligence community or when that information is released? How do you know this?

---------- Post added at 10:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 AM ----------

Ok, so much here so let's get passed the allegations (and obvious hypocrisy if true) of the family values party, the side that fell for pizzagate, and his support for anti-queer legislation. We'll leave that for after his conviction - if there is one, it is Oklahoma after all. Though the boy being underage might offer some chance.


https://youtu.be/C8-Oa3b5glI


SHARK was involved in completely legal 1st amendment activity, the goons at the "hunt" shot down their drone illegally, and this republican wants to curb our freedoms with more laws.

[Squatch347]

Yes, here it means that the gov was listening to some foreign person who happened to be speaking to Trump or his cabinet.
The irregularity in this case is that the names of those Americans were released widely to the intelligence communities. That info is normally redacted unless vital to understanding what the foreigner is saying.

Or more likely that it was an intermediary that had been added to a wiretap via a warrant expansion. If it was a direct Russian agent that would argue, imo, for this not being a serious issue. The Russians are far too smart to run a direct line into a campaign if that was really their intent. To the extent they would have directly contacted a member of the Trump campaign it would have been likely unrelated.

It is odd that the name was not redacted IAW Title 18 USC or the Privacy Act of 1974, or the US Safe Harbor Rules, or Rule 5.2 of the rules of evidence, or 28 USC, or the E-Government Act of 2002. Transmitting PII of this sort for someone not named in a warrant to agents of the government not part of the specific investigation and not shown to need such information is usually a problem. Often it is just a negligent act and is punished with a reprimand. It would depend on the context of the sharing. Doing it related to a Presidential candidate would be another level, kind of like when the NSA got in trouble for compiling records on celebrities internally. It wasn't malicious, but it was a massive violation of privacy.

[MindTrap028]

Or pertinent to any investigation, no? So Russian hacking of one of our political parties and then having conversations with another party would be relevant.

And redacted for what purposes? Within the intelligence community or when that information is released? How do you know this?

How do I know.. well I have to differ to squatch's post on this. I have only seen that pointed out in the news reports.
It's for privacy.

It doesn't seem to be related to that investigation... it may be and your welcome to make that point.

Or more likely that it was an intermediary that had been added to a wiretap via a warrant expansion.

Now that would really support trumps claims, though it may also be easily justified.

-----
You know, there are a lot of people who wrote off trumps claims as ridiculous and outrageous. Fox's Neapolitan was basically benched(pun) for reporting that there is support.
Then we have the libs and trump haters trying to bury him with this whole story. But how much crow are all those people going to be eating if there is a smoking gun.. as is being reported?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...urce-says.html

The FBI hasn’t been responsive to the House Intelligence Committee’s request for documents, but the National Security Agency is expected to produce documents to the committee by Friday. The NSA document production is expected to produce more intelligence than Nunes has so far seen or described – including what one source described as a potential “smoking gun” establishing the spying.

The intelligence is said to leave no doubt the Obama administration, in its closing days, was using the cover of legitimate surveillance on foreign targets to spy on President-elect Trump, according to sources.

That is heavy stuff.
So what if the the smoking gun is produced? .. what does that mean? does Obama go to jail?

[CowboyX]

That is heavy stuff.
So what if the the smoking gun is produced? .. what does that mean? does Obama go to jail?

But clearly there were investigations going on...there were even sanctions. So this stuff was being compiled somewhere even if it were incidental.

Seems to me Trump slid out of his tweet by claiming "quotes" but the republicans have now slid back in with a claim of an order for surveillance.

[MindTrap028]

But clearly there were investigations going on...there were even sanctions. So this stuff was being compiled somewhere even if it were incidental.

Seems to me Trump slid out of his tweet by claiming "quotes" but the republicans have now slid back in with a claim of an order for surveillance.

First of all, I agree that there could have been some connection, but that connection (if any) is not being made clear in the reporting.

as to the second, I think that is more of an evidence leak thing than an official position. If it's true it doesn't actually clarify things. Everyone is so focused on trump being wrong and trying to get him impeached, that all the questions that arise if it is true have not been considered.

[Squatch347]

Now that would really support trumps claims, though it may also be easily justified.

Well...I'm not sure about that. Incidental would seem to invalidate his claims. Obama couldn't order incidental collection by definition, because its an accident if you happen to hear someone.

To me, it seems to question his judgment. There is something to be said for FISA courts being rubber stamps for collection, but that his staff was incidentally collected means that they were engaging in activities that at least got the intel community's attention.

Now it also seem pretty likely that nothing really came of it, or we would have heard of it. After all, President Obama did say he conducted a deep dive and found nothing.

You know, there are a lot of people who wrote off trumps claims as ridiculous and outrageous. Fox's Neapolitan was basically benched(pun) for reporting that there is support.

Yeah..They kinda are though. He has no evidence that any kind of targeting was conducted, and that a super large conspiracy including a FISA court would exist does kinda border on the ridiculous. When people say "Deep State" if they mean that persons and small groups are deliberately looking to undermine him, sure that is virtually incontrovertible, the Shadow Warriors book was pretty conclusive on that. But that there are whole sections of the government circumventing the law to undermine the democratic process? I'm skeptical.

It would be different if he had offered some kind of evidence. But the House intel committee got a pretty deep look into this and came away with "nothing found."

So what if the the smoking gun is produced? .. what does that mean? does Obama go to jail?

That is a big if, but let's go with it. If President Trump was able to produce evidence of intentional targeting, that would be bigger than Watergate imo. Like Watergate, this would have likely been an example of concern about corruption in the other party (Nixon's aide had evidence of ballot box stuffing by Dems). I'm not sure President Obama would go to jail, I would be surprised if you could directly tie him to it. But if you had a tape or a memo with his name on it, it isn't outside the realm of possibility. I think the even bigger ramifications would be the utter collapse of the Democratic Party. They've invested a lot in his identity as their identity and I'm not sure they would recover that quickly.

Seems to me Trump slid out of his tweet by claiming "quotes" but the republicans have now slid back in with a claim of an order for surveillance.

I think we need to be a bit careful on painting with a broad brush. It was also the Republicans that first demanded evidence of the President and conducted the hearings that discredited his claims initially. There is a distinct difference between the Administration and Republicans in general.

[CowboyX]

I think we need to be a bit careful on painting with a broad brush. It was also the Republicans that first demanded evidence of the President and conducted the hearings that discredited his claims initially. There is a distinct difference between the Administration and Republicans in general.

hmmm...I'm not so sure. The foot-dragging on the whole Russian thing speaks volumes. Had the Benghazi/email investigations not been producing so well for the corporate media surely they would have moved on to the Clinton Foundation. "Pay-for-play" was certainly on deck.

Would it be more accurate if I said "the Right"?

[Squatch347]

The foot-dragging on the whole Russian thing speaks volumes...

Would it be more accurate if I said "the Right"?

Again, foot dragging by whom? The whole party or individual members? It was Republicans who first demanded evidence for the wire tap and a Republican who first asked for Nunes to recuse himself.

There are certainly Republicans dragging their feet and willing to overlook concerns. But there are also Republicans who are leading the investigation and pushing for facts.

I would be wary of playing team politics here, it will mask a more objective analysis.

Ditto with saying "the Right." The best analysis of Russia's likely involvement has been over at National Review with Kevin McCarthy. Hell it was Red State that broke the news that Flynn had Russian bank money.

Trump's greatest (and certainly most effective) opposition has come from the Right, not the Left. We need to apply a bit more rigor in our analysis of the current political environment I think to really understand what is going on.

[CowboyX]

It was Republicans who first demanded evidence for the wire tap and a Republican who first asked for Nunes to recuse himself.

Well, right, that's the distraction - or rather deflection - onto Obama. Very smart and the right leaning corporate media follows suit.

I don't think we can ignore team politics here because if the roles were reversed, well, I don't want to think about it.