Give the Russians their due. Russian propaganda is much more sophisticated than during the Cold War. They imitate the style of American cable news flawlessly and hire American talent to present it. Aggregators are always looking for something to fill up screens. The internet, with almost no goal keepers, is super easy infiltrate.

In addition, the American Right is much less knee jerk about Russian totalitarianism than it was about Communist totalitarianism. That removes a lot of automatic shouting.

Finally, broadcast TV and mass circulation magazines and their audiences were much more centrist than today's niche market electronic news and niche news consumers. Old US media maintained a default centrist Cold War public perception that Russia=bad. The slow death of broadcast news and newspapers consequently removes a lot of default US public rejection of Russian propaganda/news.

I think that's mostly it....although Americans may just be a bit dumber than they used to be.

The lead story at the NYT on the day I cancelled my subscription was titled "Reporting for Duty" with a picture of Kerry at the Democratic Convention.

July 30, 2004

THE DEMOCRATS; THE CONVENTION IN BOSTON: THE OVERVIEW; KERRY ACCEPTS NOMINATION, TELLING PARTY THAT HE'LL 'RESTORE TRUST AND CREDIBILITY'

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/30/us/democrats-convention-boston-overview-kerry-accepts-nomination-telling-party-that.html

Ah, yes, I remember it well
That brilliant sky
We had some rain
Those Russian songs
From sunny Spain
You wore a gown of gold
I was all in blue
Am I getting old?
Oh, no, not you
How strong you were
How young and gay
A prince of love
In every way
Ah, yes, I remember it well
~ Lerner & Loewe, Gigi

:p

I'm going to try to answer several of your queries in this one comment and hope against hope that I am able to make myself clear ...

First off, I have actually had several delightful conversations recently about the nature of the Trudeau administration, particularly with respect to Canada's evolving foreign policy and new defense department initiatives in the Trump era. I haven't felt inclined to engage with you on these issues for a variety of reasons (overly sarcastic and/or condescending tone of your comments and questions, a tendency on your part toward wholly misguided assumptions based mostly on a total misread of my comments and, last but by no means less important, some really crazy links - just because a news site covers stories that the mainstream media neglects does not necessarily make that story relevant or credible.

Secondly, I have developed, over the many years, a healthy sense of skepticism when consuming news, even from sources I generally view as very reliable. In addition to a wide range of journalists and columnists from a variety of outlets (print and broadcast and online) I also tend to rely heavily on a select number of analysts who have a proven track record for trustworthiness even if I may not completely agree with their analyses all the time.

Additionally, I always seek to fully understand a subject through research and using my most reliable sources. A healthy dose of common sense along with the ability to think critically are both indispensable when discerning fact from fiction, reality from fantasy and fake from real news. It strikes me that people who have lost trust in the corporate media have only themselves to blame for not being able to cut through the noise and find the reliable information they need in order to make sound judgments and informed decisions on the issues. In other words, consumers of the news can be just as lazy as the news providers.

Now, a word about links. In comment sections, I can live without them. I'm not here to engage in the tedious exercise of dueling links. I'm here to have an informed civil discussion about the issues I find of interest in a search for answers and better options. Links usually end up getting in the way of that and, in some cases, can lead to some very strange places that I'd rather not visit.

I think some people (most people in North America?) are just to damned cynical for their own good. Couple that with the fact that too many of these people don't have the necessary critical thinking skills that would allow them to weed out a lot of the nonsense so they can try to make sense or not of the rest.

notwithstanding the cutesy name, that sounds like an excellent idea. presidential communications should be preserved as public records, regardless of the medium.

JL

Speaking of Macron

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/12/legi-j12.html

The first time since WWII that a majority of voters abstained from voting.

A

Why do Americans trust the journalism (print, TV, Cable, internet) that is owned by five corporations who do not have their interests at heart?

How many times do they need to be wrong (economics, elections, WMD's, whatever) before you begin to doubt their integrity?

Americans across the ideological spectrum have lost trust in the corporate media for good reason.
The polls aren't all wrong.

A

Just as an FYI... or an appeal and explanation.

The lead story at the NYT on the day I cancelled my subscription was titled "Reporting for Duty" with a picture of Kerry at the Democratic Convention.
They lost me as a paying customer a long time ago due to their neoliberal crap angle on issues I care about deeply... foreign policy and economics... though I do still read their stuff regularly.

I know socialist wsws.org has a slanted far left approach. I'm not blind or in denial about it.

That said, the facts and quotes in their journalism have always been verifiably accurate even though the presentation and opinion pieces are well outside the mainstream... but I still consider their stories informative and will keep using them as a source.

My regular news outlets are the BBC, HuffPo, The Intercept and The Real News Network... and they often provide leads to stories or I check out for confirmation Reuters, AP, the NYT and Washington Post... Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle, Haaretz, etc.

The paywall at the NYT limits me to 10 free articles per month, and a single search for material can use that up in an hour.

But none of those outlets have been reporting on the stories I've been linking to from wsws.org as far as I have discovered with my limited access.
None of them.
If they were reporting the stories, I'd be using them as a source too/instead.

So, if anybody is willing and able to provide links to these stories from less slanted or differently slanted sources, I would welcome it... hint hint Liz for Canadian outlets for example.

In the Soviet Union, people learned to read the state news by noting what wasn't being said.
Chomsky has noted that what isn't reported by the corporate media here are often the more important stories... and you may notice the pattern of the types of stories I've only been seeing at wsws.org.
Not necessarily ones that the establishment wants people to know about.
But if they do cover the stories, and you have the time, please do share. Not only may they cover different angles of the stories, but the differences are often interesting to note.

Thanks
A

Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) introduced legislation today to classify presidential social media posts as presidential records.

Communications
Over
Various
Feeds
Electronically
For
Engagement

The COVFEFE Act would amend the Presidential Records Act to include "social media." Who said it didn't matter what the president tweeted?

*LOL* :)

That's a really good question, Liz.

I think that you could mitigate some of it by acknowledging that much of it is just manufactured BS. Literally. The Russians have reportedly invested billions of rubles into influencing public opinion (worldwide!), and they didn't stop on election day.

And Fox News seems to be following Trump off the same cliff. That's tribalism for profit.

But I really don't understand the left's buy-in. Putin's the worst thing to happen to human rights in Russia since the guy with the map of the Korean peninsula on his forehead was in power.

And Putin's authoritarian oligarchical kleptocracy should be giving leftists nightmares. It is literally all of their worst fears incarnate.

Maybe just being contrary, even to reason, is all the rage today, like the way everyone once thought '70's hair was cool. God, I hope we grow out of it.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/12/phil-j12.html

Looks like Duterte got trumped.

A

Why do some Canadians refuse to discuss anything about the policies of the Canadian Liberal party acting like Trump in their approach to militarism, wages and fossil fuels?

A

Uh, the news reports from a few days ago were that French intelligence found NO link to Russia for the hack/leak on Macron.

The Reality Winner leak was an evidence free summary of assertions... just like the report from the intelligence agencies in December.
Assertions, not evidence.

Likewise, respected experts who reviewed the claims by the company hired by the DNC found their claims to not be supported by the evidence presented.
Any decent hacker with half an hour can make something look like it came from Russia at the level those claims were based upon (the "evidence" released publicly), and the FBI was never given access to the DNC servers to do a proper, unbiased investigation.
And good, experienced Russian government hackers would never have left the "evidence" that was touted.

The contacts with Russia may or may not be about the election.
I happen to agree with neil that it looks more like financial conflicts of interest.

That said, I do still hope actual evidence is revealed.
But until it is, this is all a very dangerous, and perhaps politically damaging game with people like you going on faith in people who lie for a living... and all at the expense of verifiable issues that Dems should be focusing on.

A

Not only is there plenty evidence, there are decades of precedent. Meddling in Western elections is Soviet>Russian Standard Operating Procedure. It's easier than ever due to the nature of modern electronic media which is fast changing, niche oriented and highly interconnected.

Sorry, but there's plenty of evidence that the Russians did alot of meddling during the election (and, experts say, still continue).

Let's start with the fact that hackers with the same signature software attempted to do the same to Macron during the French election. The Russians have been almost brazen in their meddling lately, Putin even speculating that it was done by 'patriots'.

But go back, back to when all of our intelligence agencies (or as alt-righties call them, the Deep State) put out a joint statement to the press that stated 'with a high degree of certainty' that Russia was behind hacks and involved in other activities only now being revealed (thank you, Reality Winner).

Or look at the dozens of confirmed contacts that members of the transition team had with high ranking Russians. Do you know how many contacts, by comparison, the Obama team had with the Russians in 2008? One, according to his former campaign manager, and that was accidental.

Why, this coming Tuesday, the AG, Sessions, will be asked about more contacts with Russians that he'd failed to report during his confirmation. He'll have a hard time: Senators don't like to be played, particularly by a former Senator. While I don't expect J. Beauregard to say, "That crazy Yankee made me do it!", his testimony could lead to another clue to the reasons for all of this Russophilia in Trump Tower.

As I noted, my scenario is unlikely, but consider that the corporatist Congress may be all too happy to get rid of this Incompetent Exec. The Exec function is stalled. Expensive Congress folk can't do the job they were bought to do. Reach for the plunger. The 25th is a vehicle for a bloodless coup. The Reps cabal with the Dems, enough Dems buy in, Pence buys in, a threat is issued, Trump resigns 'cause the threat contains signatures. Trump can count. President non elect Pence better watch his ass (uuuuuhhhhhgggh, sorry banish that image). A precedent is set. A form of "vote of confidence" emerges out of the 25th Amendment.

The US Constitution has been gamed by lawers for two centuries, and I don't think it's fully gamed out yet. No matter how cynical I get, I can't keep up.

Speaking of EO's... this is worth a read and backs up your statement completely.

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/12/trump-assigned-himself-an-awful-lot-of-homework-that-isnt-getting-done/

I'm not sure it is a good strategy to pressure the Trump admin to actually get more done though... but pressuring them on the secrecy is certainly worthwhile.

A

Thanks.
That's what I'm talking about.
There is plenty of actual evidence to support those charges.

But I wouldn't get my hopes up, since corporatist Dems are susceptible too and are therefore not too eager to go down that path... and pretty much all the judges in our country were chosen by the oligarch catering establishment duopoly.

But at least it's a step in the right direction towards justice... and there are some judges willing to do the right thing.

A

And loosen the corset :)

EO's is all you mentioned... as if the far worse can be ignored... the way the Dems are doing because their billionaire donors support the warmongering and deregulation agenda btw.

"When it fits the narrative or worldview, no evidence is required, but when it doesn't, no amount of proof is sufficient."

The former is the exact charge against the Dems.
The latter merely stresses the fact that no evidence has been presented yet. NONE.
Talk about projection.
As for the "far lefties" bit, can we please remain within the realm of reality. This tactic to dismiss everybody on the left who doesn't buy into the Clintonite blame shifting narrative that coincidentally serves their ongoing and undeserved dominance of the Democratic party and the warmongerers too is getting old.
There are plenty in the near left who feel as I do.

And the DNC and Podesta leaks are at the heart of the charges by the Clintonites and their election meddling narrative. Forgive me for stating the obvious when discussing the issue.

"I'm not interested in a "reap what you sow" debate."

It's not about gardening, though I do have two green thumbs... it's about hypocrisy and the accuracy of the claims.

"You tell me, partisan. Does wishing it away disarm a single nuclear warhead?"

Like you, I am an independent. But The Bulletin Of Atomic Scientists of the Doomsday Clock fame(y'know... those far lefties who dwell on the issue) specifically mention the actions of the Dems in addition to Trump's blather on China and North Korea and climate change denial.
From Wikipedia-
"In January 2017, the clock was set at 2 ½ minutes to midnight, meaning that the clock’s status today is the second closest to midnight since the clock’s start in 1947. When discussing the changes, Krauss, one of the scientists from the Bulletin, warned that our political leaders must make decisions based on facts, and those facts "must be taken into account if the future of humanity is to be preserved."[15] There have been many signs throughout recent years that all point towards our inching closer to Doomsday".

I would stress the "leaders must make decisions based on facts" part.
Blaming Russia for the election loss without any facts, and intentionally not engaging on the real reasons behind the loss in order to maintain the status quo is the issue.
I am not wishing away the threat... I am wishing away the fear mongering by the Dems that is increasing the threat and actively preventing reasoned discussions with Russia to actually disarm more warheads... not to mention making the wasteful trillion dollar nuclear weapon "modernization" plan approved by Obama unnecessary. Silly me for such concerns eh?

"Oh, sorry mate; it was meant to be a comedic break and not a call to arms about 2016. How does one qualify to preach facing "reality" when they seem quite content to stay moored in the past..."

His tweet and my response were clearly about the 2020 election, so your "moored in the past" bit is missing the point entirely.
Did you read the responses to his tweet?
The few establishment Dems defending MacFarlane were the ones dwelling in the past.
But the vast majority were criticizing him for his rehash of the "Better than Trump" approach that failed for Hillary so miserably.
That is the reality I was referring to, and it remains relevant.

But going back, ask yourself, what if all the Dem candidates in 2018 or even worse 2020 are STILL harping about Russia at the expense of other issues, and Mueller comes out with a report that finds no evidence to support the Russia election meddling claims?
It very well could become directly responsible for Trump's reelection.

With all the assertions being made, and all the leaks we've seen, aren't you the slightest bit disturbed that no actual evidence has been revealed, and disturbed about the potential consequences if none ever is?

A

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-and-maryland-to-sue-president-trump-alleging-breach-of-constitutional-oath/2017/06/11/0059e1f0-4f19-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html?utm_term=.aae8050a44f4

I think this could be huge. Trump's White House is already running, at best, on 2 or 3 of 4 cylinders. There isn't going to be enough room in the WH corridors for all the lawyers and legal retainers needed to fight the legal battles.

I suspect the prospect of a 25th Amendment:Resignation scenario is starting to look at least a little attractive to many members of both aisles of Congress. See latest outburst from Old Man McCain (Obama better than Trump). President Pence may appear more attractive than no functional executive at all.

The end result could set a precedent of no confidence transitions in US presidential politics! The US Constitution seems to fully support this option - if Congress decides it wants to take on the added responsibility going forward. What next - bowler hats? :)

Don't think Becket...think Henry VI*...try not not to think War of the Roses.

Admittedly a long shot, but looking less long than a few weeks back.

* the historical Henry, not the Shakespeare version.

If you happened to miss it, Oliver did a great election/Brexit bit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-oliver-lord-buckethead_us_593e3ac2e4b02402687ab6f4?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

Sorry about the HuffPo link for it... the direct YouTube link proved elusive.

And, just for the record, I don't believe he trademarked it, but there was an American guitarist who went by the name of Buckethead for years... though he wore a KFC bucket, and Lord Buckethead has the complete costume and mentality... even if lacking the face melting riffs.

A

If you can stomach a Dem being called out for lying repeatedly, the link is worth watching.

Oh, woe is me; I will have my smelling salts at the ready. Seriously?

Trump is escalating the war in Syria into direct regime change which would put our enemies in charge, is supporting the isolation of Qatar where the largest US base in the Middle East is located based on blatant hypocrisy from terror supporting Saudis, is trying to initiate a war with Iran, is serving the interests destroying our planet, is alienating our allies, and his hacks are changing countless government policies including trying to eliminate net neutrality, common sense regulations, etc. etc.

Hmmmm. Quite a lot to juggle.

I am disturbed that you argue it's ONLY executive orders and that the slow pace of government means that Dems ignoring all that and wasting time and effort on unsubstantiated claims is worthwhile.

I am disturbed that you've twisted my words beyond their meaning; try reading that again. I simply said that the signing of EOs is largely symbolic and nonbinding and that government moves slowly making it somewhat easier to juggle as necessary. Nowhere do I state that "it's ONLY executive orders" or even hint that anyone is wasting time on anything. Perhaps you're projecting.

You want me to think of it as a fact that we are in an ongoing war with Russia, and that the leaks of DNC and Podesta emails are proof of it even though thus far there is exactly zero proof of Russian involvement?

Actually, the words "the leaks of DNC and Podesta emails" appear nowhere in my post and are discussed in no way whatsoever. The far lefties and righties seem to be in agreement that "there's nothing to see here;" yet another trait they share: When it fits the narrative or worldview, no evidence is required, but when it doesn't, no amount of proof is sufficient. If only the fringes could agree on foreign policy and a few social issues, they might close that gap in the horseshoe and go full circle.

Are all the elections we meddle in abroad acts of war? And I'm not talking about our regime change wars and coups.

I'm not interested in a "reap what you sow" debate. I'm not a gardener, and I'll not be a whipping boy.

Is risking an earth ending nuclear conflagration in the hopes of achieving some partisan political gain a wise course to take?

You tell me, partisan. Does wishing it away disarm a single nuclear warhead?

I think it's time for Dems (and establishment leaning indies) to face reality.
Did you see the list in the second paragraph?
Is there anything in her history to suggest that Hillary wouldn't be doing the same things except maybe the attack on net neutrality?

Oh, sorry mate; it was meant to be a comedic break and not a call to arms about 2016. How does one qualify to preach facing "reality" when they seem quite content to stay moored in the past while discussing "what ifs"?

Nice prediction on the hung parliament.
Your response to the trumpling was brilliant.

I'm not sure why you didn't understand the article by socialists calling Bernie and Corbyn part of the pseudoleft.
Like I said... it was for laughs... even though they are serious.

Theresa May blew it big time.
42 to 40% was an astounding result... the best showing for Labour in 20 years.
It looks like Corbyn will now get some time to consolidate his power within Labour before the next election... Osborne called May a "dead woman walking" today, so it may not be very much time.
A few of the Blairites are already groveling and admitting their error, but I'd bet that most of them will keep fighting him.

May announcing a deal with the DUP after having just condemned the UK for tolerating extremists was pretty sad hypocrisy... and doing so before the deal is even finalized was another major blunder.

Anyway.
You've mentioned who you're against.
Is there anyone you are for with a shot?

A

Back at ya.
I don't know what I was thinking expecting you to treat warmongering and a massive increase in military spending by your government as a serious topic for discussion.
I should know better by now that you consider it childish (comment 64 from Islamic State Nearing An End).

A

A comparison with the "conservative" government that preceded Trudeau would be far more valid.
The Liberal government being more militaristic and misallocating billions of dollars needed elsewhere does not equate with keeping the country safe.
We've spent trillions on that approach, and created more terrorists and less safety.

Can't say I disagree too much about imperialism not really applying to Canada (unlike the US)... though they have been aiding our efforts without reservations.

A

If you can stomach a Dem being called out for lying repeatedly, the link is worth watching.

Trump is escalating the war in Syria into direct regime change which would put our enemies in charge, is supporting the isolation of Qatar where the largest US base in the Middle East is located based on blatant hypocrisy from terror supporting Saudis, is trying to initiate a war with Iran, is serving the interests destroying our planet, is alienating our allies, and his hacks are changing countless government policies including trying to eliminate net neutrality, common sense regulations, etc. etc.
I am disturbed that you argue it's ONLY executive orders and that the slow pace of government means that Dems ignoring all that and wasting time and effort on unsubstantiated claims is worthwhile.

You want me to think of it as a fact that we are in an ongoing war with Russia, and that the leaks of DNC and Podesta emails are proof of it even though thus far there is exactly zero proof of Russian involvement?
Are all the elections we meddle in abroad acts of war? And I'm not talking about our regime change wars and coups.
Is risking an earth ending nuclear conflagration in the hopes of achieving some partisan political gain a wise course to take?

Did you read the responses to the Seth MacFarlane tweet?
I think it's time for Dems (and establishment leaning indies) to face reality.
Did you see the list in the second paragraph?
Is there anything in her history to suggest that Hillary wouldn't be doing the same things except maybe the attack on net neutrality?

A

That was one of the most asinine comments I've come across and, I've seen a few!

Quite obviously, you are not yet ready for a serious discussion on the meaning of Canadian foreign policy objectives or on the future course of Canada's military.

You should know, however, that these are the sorts of dynamics at play on the world stage when the US abdicates its role as leader of the free world.

Can Canada play the global leadership role that has fallen to the US since the end of WWII? Not too terribly likely but, that doesn't mean we won't give it our best shot and make significant impacts in a number of crucial policy areas.

Canada has the fifth largest land mass of any country in the world, yet the its military ranks 20th, as I said, below Thailand's.

Besides, I'm betting that most of that money goes into cyberwarfare defense, anti-terror, NATO commitments, and upgrades of existing equipment.

As for Trudeau's promises, I'm sure somewhere in there was a promise to keep his country safe.

And Trump can't be trusted to do it.
Is he worse than Hillary yet?

Let me get this straight...

A link to an article about the Liberal government in Canada proposing an increase of 70% in the military budget is "non-serious"?

Few topics are more serious, and dismissing it is about as non-serious as you can get.

A

If you want to believe a 70% increase in Canada's defense budget, including an additional $7,000,000,000 this year, is trivial, I'd have to disagree.

If it had been an issue on which Trudeau had campaigned, and what Canadians who voted for him were expecting, you might have an argument.

A

During his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak last week, President Trump told the men that fired FBI Director James Comey was a “nut job,” and that his removal would relieve pressure on his administration over its ties to Russia. The NY Times reported this and the White House did not deny it.

So how was Comey "a nut job"?

“I hardly know the man," Trump said of Comey during a Rose Garden news conference with Romanian President Klaus Iohannis. "I’m not going to say 'I want you to pledge allegiance.'”

He added, “And there’d be nothing wrong if I did say it, according to everybody that I've read today.”

So he didn't know him well enough to ask for his loyalty, but did know him well enough to call him a "nut job"?

And how, exactly, would firing Comey relieve the pressure of the Russian investigation for Trump?

Comment restored as [180]

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/09/ftp440/#comment-102469

Apologies...

-CW

Sorry 'bout that...

-CW

OK, I'll check the filter and free it, but that'll change the numbering of all subsequent comments, adding to my mixup-the-numbers misery...

:-)

-CW

I always keep in mind: the National Enquirer broke the John Edwards love-child story. But I didn't fully buy it until other news organizatins verified it.

-CW

Sorry, kinda bleary-eyed today...

-CW

Especially since the "value" argument can't even really be used. Comey did not give his friend the originals. He gave him copies -- this came out in his testimony. The originals were turned over to Mueller.

So, even if they did have "value," they were handed back over to the government. Value has not been lost, in other words.

-CW

My site shouldn't be using Flash at all. Hmmm... let me take a look at this...

-CW

-CW

Excellent points, all. Especially the Benghazi one. Michale wasn't saying "let's just wait for the facts" back then, was he?

Heh.

-CW

-CW

Ecstatic, huh? Well, happy to have made you happy...

We do aim to please!

-CW

-CW

OK, you asked for it, so here you go:

https://www.amazon.com/Yuge-30-Years-Doonesbury-Trump/dp/1449481337

Yuge! Dems mostly just laughed at Trump, because nobody took him seriously. But here's a political left cartoonist, mocking him for a solid 30+ years.

There you go!

:-)

-CW

Well, michale might not thank you, but I will. Thanks for digging all this up, I hadn't really ever heard that story before (both the spin and the actual fact). So, thanks!

:-)

-CW

Nope, wrong again.

Male GOP sen. badgers witness --> nothing happens
Male Dem sen. badgers witness --> nothing happens
Female Dem sen. badgers witness --> admonishment

Check the "-D" after Ron Wyden's name, for proof.

-CW

Yeah, I suppose you can argue background, too. But to me, the head of a cop agency is, both de facto and de jure, a cop.

Maybe I'm just backing up my own tabloid headline...

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/12/ftp436/

:-)

-CW

Their premise, as laid out on the Fox News website, is based on cherry-picking out of context quotes from the hearing, and even an out-of-context quote from Chris Matthews, made during Comey's live testimony, in which he said that a portion of the testimony seemed to 'blow the collusion argument out of the water'.

Matthews later walked that back, noting that there was other evidence that suggests collusion, including multiple confirmed contacts between Trump transition team members and the Russians during and after the campaign that remain both unexplained and problematic.

Is Fox News actually interested in Matthews' opinion, or did they just see an opportunity to bolster their argument with a video clip? I'm guessing the latter.

We shouldn't let ourselves get distracted by the Right's descent into granular arguments about Comey's behavior. It's Trump's behavior that's on trial here, and Comey's testimony, taken as a whole, portrays the president as a wanna-be mob boss, wishing to swipe away serious questions about his team's behavior with a swipe of his perfectly manicured hand, and the drop of a not-so-veiled threat.

After explaining away Trump's abnormal and abhorrent behavior for nearly two years now, one would think that even the Faux News machine would tire of having to come up with ever more elaborate reasons to dismiss it.

There is evidence that some ARE tiring of it. All that Speaker Ryan could come up with was the suggestion that Trump is simply ignorant.

The best news is that there appears to be a growing 'Trump effect' in both international and national elections, leading to better-than-expected turnouts for Democrats in predominantly Red States, and outright rejection of Right wing politicians in both France and Britain.

Whether or not investigations of Trump yield enough to convict him of anything, the fact is that the forces that propelled him to power are being exposed, and voters are reacting appropriately. That's the Real News.

Also of legal consequence is that the creation of comey's private notes did not extract any pecuniary gain from the government. Hence the criminal statute cannot apply.

I know, right? It's notes on paper! :)

Yea.. Balthasar made the same claim..

I posted her exact words in bold. You need your nose rubbed in it?

Until either of you have a cite for me, it's bullshit...

It's not bullshit. I posted her quote above [138]. ^^^^^
You need to be spoon-fed?

http://content.jwplatform.com/previews/cUznEtWu-vGBh7FrZ

A question totally unrelated to politics..

Doesn't exist. ;)

Has anyone been having problems lately where FLASH just ups and quits???

I haven't.

I have had a problem both at work and at home where FLASH will quit and lock up the system for as long as 60 seconds..

Anyone else having any issues??

Not enough information to diagnose your problem, but try this:

https://www.howtogeek.com/103292/how-to-fix-shockwave-flash-crashes-in-google-chrome/

For someone once tasked with enforcing the law, your grasp of how the law works leaves much to be desired. There's also a disturbing recent trend toward proposing wagers that are heavily tilted against you. Statutes accounting for theft of government property are based on the legal principle of pecuniary gain. If legal scholars in the past have not considered it a crime to use a government issued pen and paper or computer to write personal notes, today's government is not free to reject that precedent.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/pecuniary-gain/

I was referring to the fact that ya'all have a LOT less evidence and you want to find Trump guilty already..

There was a reason I called him "Benedict Donald" in my first post. You bet your ass I want him found guilty already, but I doubt that will ever happen. The wheels of justice move slowly, and rich people don't go to jail. They throw poor people in jail for using crack cocaine while turning a blind eye to wealthy people snorting lines on Fifth Avenue.

Now, if you were to say, "Flynn, Sessions, and Kushner have ALLEGEDLY each committed multiple felonies"

I have a better idea. Why don't we apply your theory that if "obviously that doesn't apply to anyone" in my post then you can just ignore it. "See how easy it is???" <------ quoting YOU

THEN you would be making a true and correct statement..

But what if I prefer your method of just ignoring it if it doesn't apply?

But right now, Comey is serving the Democrat Party agenda... :D

I'm going to ignore that utter nonsense because it doesn't apply. I'm also going to go on record that you were not long ago singing the praises of Director Mueller because them "R's" stick together, but you'll soon be referring to him as serving the "Democrat Party" too.

Place your bets, people! :)

Duty calls..

OK... OK...

Wait, what?

So, your argument is that Comey was free release those papers because they were not government property..

No. My argument is that a government employee does not give up their rights to free speech nor to write their free speech into notes in order to preserve them for later use in writing books or giving testimony or simply keeping a diary for their own personal use. When you are writing notes for your personal use, you take care to omit classified information from them.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that if someone gives a copy of their personal notes to their employer while in their employ that it automatically becomes the exclusive property of the United States. It does not. One may keep diaries, papers, books, ledgers, notes of their own and supply a copy to the government if they choose, and it will not transfer ownership of one's property to the government.

Just like people make mental notes, people also make written notes for later use. No one can enjoin a person from publishing or speaking about their written or mental notes while in the Service of the United States unless said information is protected by either a classified or privileged designation. President Trump waived his Executive Privilege through his agent Sarah Huckabee Sanders and also by speaking himself about said privileged communications. One cannot wag one's mouth incessantly about a meeting and then claim the conversation is privileged; one has waived their privilege by wagging one's mouth. "Privilege for me but not for thee" is NOT a thing in this country where we have a president and not an authoritarian or a monarch.

If my memory serves me correctly... and I warn you that it usually does... you met your wife in 1981 while arresting her in the service of the United States of America under the command of... top of the chain... Saint Ronald of Reagan {genuflect} while on duty in Okinawa, Japan. I know this because you wrote it on this blog, and I have fairly decent recall (comes from years of training).

So..... you're under arrest for disseminating that information on this blog. What's that I hear? It was neither classified nor privileged? Well, your wife has a right to privacy, but I doubt she'd mind you posting it so I guess you're okay for having disseminated that information to potentially everyone in the world with an Internet connection available to them.

Fair??

The government cannot enjoin your rights to free speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution nor insist that you can't write your thoughts down on paper for later use. Protected information is classified by several different designations or privileged, and in the relevant case we're discussing:

(1) Comey is now a private citizen, compliments of the President of the United States.
(2) Said president publicly waived his privilege in more ways than one:
(a) wag the tongue, and
(b) asserting no privilege as announced by his agent.
(3) Citizen Comey thereby exercised his right of free speech using his notes that contained no protected information. If he supplied a copy of his notes to the United States while he was in their employ, wasn't that nice of him?

There is no freaking court in the country that is going to enjoin an American citizen from exercising his right to speak about nonclassified information wherein executive privilege has been waived in more ways that one.

All clear now?

Where did THAT come from!??

No one is talking about the value of the government "resources" that Comey used...

But I am glad to see you confirm my point that Comey DID, in fact, use government resources.. (Wrong again, Balthy.. :D)

Comey didn't leak "resources"... Comey leaked memos.. THAT is the value that needs to be ascertained..

And the government can set ANY value to those memos that it deems necessary...

Wanna bet???

Value to one person/entity could be (and usually is) radically different to another person.. Not only can the government arbitrarily set the value, they can CHANGE the value as they deem necessary.. :D

Irregardless, Comey's own actions prove that he knew he was committing a crime. No other reasonable explanation explains why he didn't leak the memo himself...

A report by breitbart or Alex Jones' infowars is certainly less likely to be factually accurate than one in the Washington post, but being posted there does not necessarily make the report wrong.

I'll remind you of that the next time someone ridicules a report based on it's source.. :D

"Value" is a judgement call solely and completely based on the definition that the GOVERNMENT sets...

How do you think the government will rule in this case? :D

I have? Show me ONE, and I'll ignore your defending one logical fallacy with another

I don't recall the specific point/report but I know it came from INFOWARS..

But if you want to claim that you would never ridicule an INFORWARS based point, I'll make an exception regarding the accusation... For you.. :D

I have? Show me ONE, and I'll ignore your defending one logical fallacy with another

The phrase in the statute you've overlooked is "of value" - based on precedent, whatever government resources comey may have used to write his notes does not have sufficient value for the statute to apply to him.

Got that yet? Trump waived his privilege through his spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Yea.. Balthasar made the same claim..

Until either of you have a cite for me, it's bullshit...

And I can point to many times I used WaPoop for a source...

But that doesn't change the fact that WaPoop is infamous for it's hysterical accusations against President Trump that later had to be retracted...

Refusing to even consider an argument based on where the argument was published is an ad hominem fallacy.

And I can point to HUNDREDS of times ya'all, you included, dismissed a point out of hand, simply based on it's source..

Goose, meet gander...

Based on the plain text reading of the statute, it DOES apply to Comey...

Pretend yer blaming President Trump for violation of the statute... :D

Has anyone been having problems lately where FLASH just ups and quits???

I have had a problem both at work and at home where FLASH will quit and lock up the system for as long as 60 seconds..

Really annoying when yer trying to type a comment...

Anyone else having any issues??

Fine.. So let's all wait until Mueller's report is released and quit being hysterical about every anonymous source that says President Trump farted..

Eh??

I listened to 4+ years of righties claiming that the President of the United States and his Secretary of State were guilty of murdering 4 people in Benghazi. Even when 9 investigations into the same thing produced the exact same result, the righties kept it up, and some of them continue to this day.

I just read this entire thread where you insist that Comey is guilty of a crime when he merely exercised his first amendments rights as a citizen regarding a matter where the President of the United States waived his Executive Privilege. Got that yet? Trump waived his privilege through his spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders. If you can see all those facts and insist Comey has committed a crime, then you shouldn't get your knickers in a twist if everyone else here thinks Trump committed a crime. Add to that Kushner, Flynn, and Sessions for committing a felony on their SF-86 forms.

You can't have it both ways... with me anyways. :)

Have you seen the trailers yet for the Black Panther?

Maybe now would be a good time to discuss CA-CW.... :D

It's from WaPoop and, as such, it's not worth reading..

Put another way..

I am as inclined to accept a WaPoop analysis as ya'all are inclined to accept a FoxNews analysis...

It works both ways, my friend.. :D

The part where it's ya'all that are the one's spinning..

I am just reading the plain-text and employing common sense.. :D

I know, I know... I posted my response above before I read this. Barack Obama is not quoted as saying that. It is text from an unpublished manuscript by him and a friend of his at Harvard. The operative words there are "the unfounded optimism of the average American," and then he gives an example of what he considers their unfounded optimism that either they or their children will be Donald Trump. Got that?

I got that it's your interpretation of Obama's words which, coincidentally, also jibes with the ideological agenda...

I definitely got that. :D

We're done here..

Actually, that was directed to MS.. If she can't acknowledge the facts and reality, then there really isn't anything we can discuss, given that there is not common point of reference..

"You mean I have to DIE before you will discuss your thoughts on death with me!!!??"
-Dr Leonard McCoy, STAR TREK IV-The Voyage Home

:D

This is exactly my point. I have already documented this several times..

“The depth of this commitment may be summarily dismissed as the unfounded optimism of the average American—I may not be Donald Trump now, but just you wait; if I don’t make it, my children will.”
-Barack Obama

What part of spin no more was confusing? ;)

I know, I know... I posted my response above before I read this. Barack Obama is not quoted as saying that. It is text from an unpublished manuscript by him and a friend of his at Harvard. The operative words there are "the unfounded optimism of the average American," and then he gives an example of what he considers their unfounded optimism that either they or their children will be Donald Trump. Got that?

It's not a quote from Obama. It's text from an unpublished manuscript where Obama and the coauthor are basically claiming that Americans' have unfounded optimism where they think they're going to be part of the 1%. That manuscript was never published and is 25 years old. In retrospect, the Obamas just sold their memoirs for a record-setting $65 million advance along with a piece of the profits. So his unpublished manuscript was wrong at least where he was concerned. Maybe it was "the founded pessimism of the not so average Hawaiian" that served him well? ;)

We're done here..

If you realize the meaning of the quote in context and spin it no more, then I guess we actually are "done here." I can dream, can't I? :)

It's from WaPoop and, as such, it's not worth reading..

It's a partisan analysis..

I quoted the actual law..

Refute THAT....

See post 98 (and 105)

I don't view Comey as a cop. At root, he's a lawyer...and fixer.

Exactly..

Nice ta see the old TS once in a while.. :D

Excellent recap. DOBA

Oh, I know....... HITLER! ;)

Heh!!! Now THAT was funny!!!! :D

Will ya'all accept it and stop with the hysterical fact-less accusations???

I am betting a million quatloos that ya'all won't..

Mueller will become Comey, post NOT-45 but pre-firing...

But the simple fact is, there WERE no attacks..

Back when Trump had a -D after his name, he was the Democrat's bestest buddy...

"These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed..."
-Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

They were non-existent..

It's the same man...??? If the -D/-R is totally and completely irrelevant then all these attacks we see now, there SHOULD be *SOME* evidence of them back then when Trump had a -D after his name..

There wasn't ANY....

The *ONLY* logical conclusion is that the -D/-R is the SOLE factor here...

All of these hysterical Trump accusations have one goal and one goal only..

To nullify a free, fair and legal election of a President that ya'all don't like...

That's it.. That is what ALL of this is about...

Cue hysterical protestations...

:D

My take on things is common-sense plain english take.

Ya'all have to "nuance" and "equivocate" and "spin" the statements to get it to read what ya'all WANT it to say..

Your "take" comes from WaPoop, the fake news media that gave us all sorts of hysterical anonymous accusations..

My take is directly from Obama's own words, plain english and common sense...

:D

ANd yet, when Trump had a -D after his name, everyone on the Left LOVED Trump!!! Obama is even quoted as saying he aspired to be like Trump and hoped his children would be like Trump..

Okay, I have seen you type out this utter nonsense now about a dozen times, and I've ignored it; that ends TODAY.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Fox News and right-wing propaganda sites will take information and twist it around and spoon-feed it back to their audience. Many in their audience believe the "fake news" without questioning its veracity because it's what they want to believe. Donald Trump uses this same technique when he lies about things; that's why the birther nonsense about Obama was so effective with that group.

Anyway, here's the truth explaining and containing the relevant quote that Fox News and the right-wing propaganda sites have twisted to make into "fake news" that then gets incorrectly regurgitated and disseminated.

They [Obama and Rob Fisher] took multiple classes together and co-wrote a never-published book on public policy, titled “Transformative Politics” or “Promises of Democracy: Hopeful Critiques of American Ideology.” The manuscript explored the political failures of the left and right and expounded on markets, race and democratic dialogue, showing glimmers of the political philosophy and rhetoric that Obama would come to embrace.

Obama had considered Donald Trump long before either man won the presidency, and brushed off his existence as a misguided national fantasy. Americans have a “continuing normative commitment to the ideals of individual freedom and mobility,” Obama wrote in the old Harvard book manuscript, now more than 25 years old. “The depth of this commitment may be summarily dismissed as the unfounded optimism of the average American — I may not be Donald Trump now, but just you wait; if I don’t make it, my children will.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/05/02/before-michelle-barack-obama-asked-another-woman-to-marry-him-then-politics-got-in-the-way/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.2e0fbc15293a

Key words there being "summarily dismissed as the unfounded optimism of the average American." So Obama was never actually quoted as saying he aspired to be like Trump; he and Rob Fisher's unpublished manuscript did, however, contain the name of "Donald Trump." Far from making a comment about either of them aspiring to be like Trump, Young Obama and Fisher were actually making a comment about Americans' unfounded optimism that they or their children could be Donald Trump. While they could have just as easily used the name of any other rich man such as John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, or John Jacob Astor (who famously went down with the Titanic), they most likely chose The Donald because he was more of a household name known to the masses versus those other massively wealthy gentlemen.

Say... aren't you glad someone is willing to take the time and "unfake the news" for you? You're welcome.

Now go forth and spin no more. ;)

Simply incorrect. As long as they don't contain classified information, they're his notes.

OK... OK...

So, your argument is that Comey was free release those papers because they were not government property..

Is that your argument??

So, if I can prove that those papers WERE government property, you will concede the point that Comey committed a crime..

Fair??

In what alternative universe is being a traitor to your country for your own personal gain like Benedict Donald considered "less"?

You misunderstand..

I was referring to the fact that ya'all have a LOT less evidence and you want to find Trump guilty already..

I call hypocrisy here. When I claim that Flynn, Sessions, and Kushner have each committed multiple felonies for failing to disclose their meetings with Russians on their SF-86 security clearance disclosures, you comment that they're "innocent until proven guilty... duh!"

No hypocrisy at all..

Now, if you were to say, "Flynn, Sessions, and Kushner have ALLEGEDLY each committed multiple felonies"

THEN you would be making a true and correct statement..

You don't know that. What part of Trump waived Executive Privilege is confusing at all? Sarah Sanders announced that Trump waived privilege.

I always ask Balthazar and he always fails to provide..

I'll try you... :D

Cite??

I haven't read the comments below this post of yours, but I would wager $1,000,000 that somebody besides me has mentioned the "SIMPLE FACT" that Comey is a Republican. :)

But right now, Comey is serving the Democrat Party agenda... :D

Which party? Comey is a Republican,

In the here and now, Comey is supporting the Democrat Party agenda...

Which is hilarious because prior to his canning, Comey was the Democrat Party's Lucifer.. :D

and CW has already addressed your incorrect reading of the statute.

I musta missed that...

Where CW addressed incorrectly my correct reading of the statute..

It's funny... My reads on points such as these is common-sense plain english reads..

Ya'all have to spin and nuance the hell out of these points to produce the desired outcome.. :D

They were notes made on government time re: a government meeting...

You don't know that. What part of Trump waived Executive Privilege is confusing at all? Sarah Sanders announced that Trump waived privilege.

Even if they were made on Comey's OWN time, they still pertain to a government meeting and, as such, they are the property of the US government.

Simply incorrect. As long as they don't contain classified information, they're his notes. If former employees couldn't discuss nonclassified information, there'd be no war movies, books, etc. Not trying to be a jerk here, but I believe you're letting your Party bias color your opinion here. You may have heard this argument a time or two? ;)

Like I said.. It's hilarious how ya'all bend over backwards to twist the law to make anyone with a -D after their name completely innocent of ANYTHING...

I haven't read the comments below this post of yours, but I would wager $1,000,000 that somebody besides me has mentioned the "SIMPLE FACT" that Comey is a Republican. :)

The law is clear.. Comey violated the law...

But it IS interesting to note that you want to nail Trump's ass to the wall based on a LOT less....

In what alternative universe is being a traitor to your country for your own personal gain like Benedict Donald considered "less"?

I call hypocrisy here. When I claim that Flynn, Sessions, and Kushner have each committed multiple felonies for failing to disclose their meetings with Russians on their SF-86 security clearance disclosures, you comment that they're "innocent until proven guilty... duh!"

Let me refresh your memory here:

“The U.S. Criminal Code (title 18, section 1001) provides that knowingly falsifying or concealing a material fact is a felony which may result in fines and/or up to five (5) years imprisonment. In addition, Federal agencies generally fire, do not grant a security clearance, or disqualify individuals who have materially and deliberately falsified these forms, and this remains a part of the permanent record for future placements.”

So... NEW RULE (props to Bill Maher):

If deez tree gize who have committed multiple felonies are IUPG, then so is James Comey.

You can't have it both ways! :p

Which party? Comey is a Republican, and CW has already addressed your incorrect reading of the statute. What other facts am i ignoring in my loyalty to a fellow Republican?

Have you seen the trailers yet for the Black Panther?

I have and it looks awesome!!! :D

Can't wait for it to be released...

As for your "sexism never happens" defense, sure, go ahead and try to find a similar case --

I never said "sexism never happens"...

I simply said that, in this particular case, it was obviously Party bigotry, not sexism, that was in play here...

Did Comey do anything criminal?

Yes he did.. Further, he KNOWS he did because why else would he involve a friend in his crime??

That's the point ya'all ignore because it TOTALLY refutes ya'all's claim that Comey didn't commit a crime..

But an impeachable offense is defined as "whatever a majority of the House and 67 senators decide is an impeachable offense." 'Twas always thus...

And when ya'all actually find FACTS that support an impeachable offense... Come talk to me. :D

There's one person who can't let it go, but I don't think he's a lefty, sorry.

ONLY one person???

Shirley you jest... :D

No, there are no such facts like that which have been found and released to the public -- so far.

Thank you....

Facts may have been found already, but not leaked. Don't forget to include that possibility.

I am more than willing to concede that possibility..

But NO ONE here is willing to concede the reciprocal of that possibility..

That President Trump is completely innocent of ALL accusations against him...

So why must I concede ya'all's possibility when ya'all are unwilling to concede the other possibility???

One thing I think not many people expect right now is that Mueller's operation will quite likely be extremely tight, and offer few (if any) leaks until they're done. So we may not know until he reports exactly what he's found.

Fine.. So let's all wait until Mueller's report is released and quit being hysterical about every anonymous source that says President Trump farted..

Eh??

I agree with you that director comey is not guilty of anything other than protecting his family from public defamation

Once again, ignoring the facts in the pursuit of Party loyalty...

That isn't "an example" of anything anyone here has ever said; it's just a blanket statement and a flat-out lie.

Oh puulleeeezzzzeee

The hatred against the Right from the vast majority of Weigantians is well documented..

You accuse us of things we've never said all the time.

Just as I am accused of saying things I never said...

You take what we do say and inflate it into these hyperbolic statements which you use to condemn us. It is not fact. It is not just.

Agreed...

So, if ya'all would cut it out, so would I.. :D

which is demonstrably untrue since we've all agreed

It's demonstrably true..

The fact that you et al condemn a bonehead Dem now and again doesn't change the fact that the -D after a person's name has special meaning for ya'all...

I can provide NUMEROUS examples, not the least of which how ya'all condemn President Trump's lies but don't mind the lies from a Democrat..

How many here attacked John McCain for his "senior" moment, but don't condemn Pelosi for her ongoing bouts with dementia..

The list is endless and I could go on and on if I thought you would actually acknowledge the facts..

That is a myth, mere republican propaganda. It never happened. It exists only in the fevered minds of the cultists.

This is exactly my point. I have already documented this several times..

“The depth of this commitment may be summarily dismissed as the unfounded optimism of the average American—I may not be Donald Trump now, but just you wait; if I don’t make it, my children will.”
-Barack Obama

You see??? I provide FACTS and ya'all simply can't acknowledge them..

Until you can face the fact that you are WRONG and I am dead on ballz accurate and ACKNOWLEDGE the facts...

We're done here..

It is a crime to steal, sell, or convey “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.
TITLE 18 U.S.C. § 641

I can assure you, they have all taken pens, paper, etc. so lock them up!

"The president's power to exert executive privilege is very well established; however, in order to facilitate a swift and thorough examination of the facts sought by the Senate Intelligence Committee, President Trump will not assert executive privilege regarding James Comey's scheduled testimony." - Sarah Huckabee Sanders

Does this put that issue to rest already? Only a really bad attorney would claim Comey violated a privilege that his client chose to waive. Of course, Trump had already waived privilege by the legal definition when he chose to speak publicly on multiple occasions regarding these conversations.

As far as claiming Comey stole his own notes, anyone that believes this utter fallacy of an argument simply isn't applying "simple logic." <----- See what I did there?

No one can claim to own your right to free speech, and you are allowed to write your thoughts down on paper and print them out for posterity. Government employees are allowed to perform personal tasks on their government computers, but they ask that you take care of your personal business during your breaks and/or down time. Comey said he began writing his notes immediately when he returned to his vehicle... sound like "down time" to me.

Come on dude, you were a soldier. I know that somewhere in the rational part of your cranium that you do understand the concept that the government doesn't claim to own your notes and personal emails that do not contain classified information. :)

Think McFly!

Perhaps....

But it's a valid excuse...

When one says BLUE 99 times a day, but says RED once, then another can be forgiven for missing that RED...