len wrote:
I guess that is why I think this kind of reporting is dumb.It looks rather tabloid doesn't it.
________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev
Lavender Room
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Trump calls McCabe, tells him to ask his wife what it feels like to be a loser. [len]
[ In reply to ]
It looks rather tabloid doesn't it.
________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev
Re: Trump calls McCabe, tells him to ask his wife what it feels like to be a loser. [efernand]
[ In reply to ]
efernand wrote:
Quote:
When Trump's campaign managers and son take meetings with Russian operatives explicitly to receive damaging information on a political opponent, that needs to be looked at.As opposed to paying Russian operatives for damaging information via a former British agent and a company with political connections and trying to hide the payments.
The selective outrage is amazing.
Selective outrage does not matter now. Trump is in the big boy chair. If he got there illegally by conspiring with a foreign government one would think there would be a little more concern. What disappoints me the most is how tribal we have become. We are all Americans. Damn ... there used to be a time when we actually were willing to compromise a bit, use some rational thinking, and actually do something that benefitted the majority of the country. Now we are one one side or the other and letting the political class and their donors play us for fools.
My son and I visited a college this weekend as part of a scholarship competition. What impressed me most was the Dean’s opinion that he wanted people who could think, understand both sides of the argument, and ultimately communicate why they supported the side they did. He tries to read The NY Times and the WSJ daily for opinions that may be on both sides of an issue. That is the kind of critical thinking I want my kids to have, that I aspire to, and that would do the US of A a lot better.
And ... to address Trump himself ... if he were a skier he would probably ski in jeans. That is all I need to say on that subject. Hilary would most likely do the same.
drn92
Re: Trump calls McCabe, tells him to ask his wife what it feels like to be a loser. [drn92]
[ In reply to ]
One of the oldest and simplest techniques: divide and conquer. And our countrymen are falling for it over and over...
Re: Trump calls McCabe, tells him to ask his wife what it feels like to be a loser. [RowToTri]
[ In reply to ]
You're arguing as if the republicans are acting in good faith. They want to stop the investigation. By any means necessary.
You cannot expect FBI officers to have no political opinions. They will ALL have political opinions.
Therefore every time they investigate a politician, they will either have political opinions in alignment with or opposed to the target of their investigation. Every. Single. Time.
Those who indicate that McCabe's wife's political positions means he cannot be involved in an agency that is investigating Trump takes the position that an investigator cannot have political positions in opposition to the target of their investigation. But those same people then say Peter Strzok cannot investigate Clinton because he had political opinions in line with her. (which actually isn't true, but that is their argument).
So which is it? People making these arguments simply want FBI agents who agree with THEM politically to investigate everyone, no matter what. That's obviously a hideously biased position and if implemented would basically mirror an East German style Secret Police. Do Republicans really want to emulate an evil communist regime?
If anything the bigger danger, if there is one, is FBI agents investigating politicians with whom they agree. Going easy in an investigation is not hard and not illegal. They just don't try that hard and they don't bring charges. Not illegal, but justice is not carried out. In an investigation into someone with whom they disagree, yeah, they may try harder. They are less likely to ignore things. But they're not going to fabricate evidence and bring false charges against a major politician. They would get found out and go to jail for a long time.
But the real answer is that our FBI agents should be expected to and allowed to do their job, no matter their political affiliations. The two things are totally separate.
There is a single private text message that indicates an agent involved in the Clinton investigation may have gone easy on her. He can't really do that all by himself, but we should look into it and find out if they ignored evidence that they should not have, or took too lenient an interpretation of certain facts. If so, they can re-open the investigation.
“Read the transcript.”
RowToTri wrote:
Also, more generally - You cannot expect FBI officers to have no political opinions. They will ALL have political opinions.
Therefore every time they investigate a politician, they will either have political opinions in alignment with or opposed to the target of their investigation. Every. Single. Time.
Those who indicate that McCabe's wife's political positions means he cannot be involved in an agency that is investigating Trump takes the position that an investigator cannot have political positions in opposition to the target of their investigation. But those same people then say Peter Strzok cannot investigate Clinton because he had political opinions in line with her. (which actually isn't true, but that is their argument).
So which is it? People making these arguments simply want FBI agents who agree with THEM politically to investigate everyone, no matter what. That's obviously a hideously biased position and if implemented would basically mirror an East German style Secret Police. Do Republicans really want to emulate an evil communist regime?
If anything the bigger danger, if there is one, is FBI agents investigating politicians with whom they agree. Going easy in an investigation is not hard and not illegal. They just don't try that hard and they don't bring charges. Not illegal, but justice is not carried out. In an investigation into someone with whom they disagree, yeah, they may try harder. They are less likely to ignore things. But they're not going to fabricate evidence and bring false charges against a major politician. They would get found out and go to jail for a long time.
But the real answer is that our FBI agents should be expected to and allowed to do their job, no matter their political affiliations. The two things are totally separate.
There is a single private text message that indicates an agent involved in the Clinton investigation may have gone easy on her. He can't really do that all by himself, but we should look into it and find out if they ignored evidence that they should not have, or took too lenient an interpretation of certain facts. If so, they can re-open the investigation.
“Read the transcript.”
Re: Trump calls McCabe, tells him to ask his wife what it feels like to be a loser. [len]
[ In reply to ]
len wrote:
This sort of reporting leaves me shaking my head. What does it accomplish? Trump's base reads this stuff and concludes the "liberal media" is out to get him. The haters don't learn anything new they already know Trump does not have class. McCabe comes out looking like a cry baby. Clickbait I guess.here's the thing, len: you lived through the rob ford era, so you've seen how this works on a slightly smaller scale.
traditional media outlets are hemorrhaging cash these days, and they have to fill a much shorter news cycle. so they need more content, and they need more clicks. politicians doing/saying shocking stuff gets clicks. further, when the president (or the mayor) does something, it's almost always news, just by definition. so they're going to cover it.
combine that with the fact that both ford and trump are adept at firing chaff into the news cycle to distract attention when needed. ask yourself why trump would want people talking about him belittling McCabe rather than talking about, say, his curious decision not to impose the russia sanctions.
____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan
http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/
Re: Trump calls McCabe, tells him to ask his wife what it feels like to be a loser. [efernand]
[ In reply to ]
efernand wrote:
Quote:
in a quid pro quo transactionNo indication that anything was ever promised to the Russians.
err, I believe that there were some discussions between Trump's team and the Russians about going easy with sanctions... Look how that turned out.
Re: Trump calls McCabe, tells him to ask his wife what it feels like to be a loser. [efernand]
[ In reply to ]
No indication that anything was ever promised to the Russians.
The Russians the only ones willing to loan money to Trump in the early 1990's when all the Americans banks looked at him as too big a risk. The Trump condos, particularly the ones in Florida are full of Russian oligarchs.
For you to say there was never any kind of deal promised to the Russians is so naive that it makes your whole pro-Trump stand laughable.
But carry on.
The Russians the only ones willing to loan money to Trump in the early 1990's when all the Americans banks looked at him as too big a risk. The Trump condos, particularly the ones in Florida are full of Russian oligarchs.
For you to say there was never any kind of deal promised to the Russians is so naive that it makes your whole pro-Trump stand laughable.
But carry on.
Re: Trump calls McCabe, tells him to ask his wife what it feels like to be a loser. [Sanuk]
[ In reply to ]
What do condo deals in the 90's have to do with a meeting with a Russian lawyer in 2016?
Re: Trump calls McCabe, tells him to ask his wife what it feels like to be a loser. [efernand]
[ In reply to ]
What do condo deals in the 90's have to do with a meeting with a Russian lawyer in 2016? //
Probably to remind Trump and his son in law how they bailed them out back then, and how much money they still owe them now?? And perhaps a way to pay back those 100's of millions with favors instead of money? Funny that Trump is letting the sanctions just kind of fade away, and after an almost unanimous vote in the house and senate to impose those sanctions. Does that seem odd at all to you, especially considering how Trump likes to go after what he perceives as bad actors in his world?
Probably to remind Trump and his son in law how they bailed them out back then, and how much money they still owe them now?? And perhaps a way to pay back those 100's of millions with favors instead of money? Funny that Trump is letting the sanctions just kind of fade away, and after an almost unanimous vote in the house and senate to impose those sanctions. Does that seem odd at all to you, especially considering how Trump likes to go after what he perceives as bad actors in his world?
Re: Trump calls McCabe, tells him to ask his wife what it feels like to be a loser. [monty]
[ In reply to ]
Quote:
Funny that Trump is letting the sanctions just kind of fade away, and after an almost unanimous vote in the house and senate to impose those sanctions. Does that seem odd at all to you, especially considering how Trump likes to go after what he perceives as bad actors in his world?Well, considering the sanctions were in retaliation for alleged Russian interference in the election. It seems prudent to hold off on the sanction until after the investigation into the meddling is complete. Not to mention that that investigation seems to have abandoned the meddling/collusion angle and gone fishing for other misdeeds.
Re: Trump calls McCabe, tells him to ask his wife what it feels like to be a loser. [efernand]
[ In reply to ]
Well, considering the sanctions were in retaliation for alleged Russian interference in the election.//
Well no, it was for actual interference in the election, that is a known fact at this point. Or do you still dispute that? What we are waiting for is whether Trump and his campaign were complicit in that know fact..
Well no, it was for actual interference in the election, that is a known fact at this point. Or do you still dispute that? What we are waiting for is whether Trump and his campaign were complicit in that know fact..
Re: Trump calls McCabe, tells him to ask his wife what it feels like to be a loser. [efernand]
[ In reply to ]
efernand wrote:
Quote:
Funny that Trump is letting the sanctions just kind of fade away, and after an almost unanimous vote in the house and senate to impose those sanctions. Does that seem odd at all to you, especially considering how Trump likes to go after what he perceives as bad actors in his world?Well, considering the sanctions were in retaliation for alleged Russian interference in the election. It seems prudent to hold off on the sanction until after the investigation into the meddling is complete. Not to mention that that investigation seems to have abandoned the meddling/collusion angle and gone fishing for other misdeeds.
Maybe along those lines, There were new Russia sanctions from Trump just a few days ago, related to Russian aggression in Ukraine and Crimea. So there could be something to the point you bring up, but I've also read that there will be names sent over for sanctions under this legislation as well.
-
http://www.cnn.com/...s-ukraine/index.html,
Re: Trump calls McCabe, tells him to ask his wife what it feels like to be a loser. [monty]
[ In reply to ]
Quote:
Well no, it was for actual interference in the election, that is a known fact at this point. Or do you still dispute that? What we are waiting for is whether Trump and his campaign were complicit in that know fact..Please explain how Russia interfered in the election, in a real, material, invalid votes, kind of way. Not some tinfoil hat, Facebook ads changed the result.
I think Dan might take exception to the idea that factual, science-based, logic-based, truth-based, smart folks, on the left were somehow swayed by some fake new on fb.
Re: Trump calls McCabe, tells him to ask his wife what it feels like to be a loser. [efernand]
[ In reply to ]
efernand wrote:
Quote:
Well no, it was for actual interference in the election, that is a known fact at this point. Or do you still dispute that? What we are waiting for is whether Trump and his campaign were complicit in that know fact..Please explain how Russia interfered in the election, in a real, material, invalid votes, kind of way. Not some tinfoil hat, Facebook ads changed the result.
I think Dan might take exception to the idea that factual, science-based, logic-based, truth-based, smart folks, on the left were somehow swayed by some fake new on fb.
I wish I had the time or inclination to respond to your ignorance, comrade. Why don't you use this website: http://www.google.com to learn about the unanimous findings of our nation's 17 intelligence agencies.
Re: Trump calls McCabe, tells him to ask his wife what it feels like to be a loser. [cholla]
[ In reply to ]
Quote:
Why don't you use this website: http://www.google.com to learn about the unanimous findings of our nation's 17 intelligence agencies.During congressional testimony Wednesday, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper confirmed that the story originally reported by the New York Times that "17 intelligence agencies" confirmed Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 election has been false all along.
Re: Trump calls McCabe, tells him to ask his wife what it feels like to be a loser. [efernand]
[ In reply to ]
That doesn't have any impact on the fact that the Russians at least attempted to interfere with the election, to help Trump. Are you with the Russians, or are you for America, comrade?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/us/politics/trump-russia-intelligence-agencies-cia-fbi-nsa.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/us/politics/trump-russia-intelligence-agencies-cia-fbi-nsa.html
Re: Trump calls McCabe, tells him to ask his wife what it feels like to be a loser. [cholla]
[ In reply to ]
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/us/politics/trump-russia-intelligence-agencies-cia-fbi-nsa.html
Nice non - link to a paywall.
Nice non - link to a paywall.
Re: Trump calls McCabe, tells him to ask his wife what it feels like to be a loser. [efernand]
[ In reply to ]
WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Thursday that only “three or four” of the United States’ 17 intelligence agencies had concluded that Russia interfered in the presidential election — a statement that while technically accurate, is misleading and suggests widespread dissent among American intelligence agencies when none has emerged.
The “three or four” agencies referred to by Mr. Trump are the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the F.B.I. and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, all of which determined that Russia interfered in the election. Their work was compiled into a report, and a declassified version was released on Jan. 6 by the director of national intelligence. It said that all four agencies had “high confidence” that Russian spies had tried to interfere in the election on the orders of President Vladimir V. Putin.
The reason the views of only those four intelligence agencies, not all 17, were included in the assessment is simple: They were the ones tracking and analyzing the Russian campaign. The rest were doing other work.
The intelligence community is a sprawling enterprise that includes military officers who track enemy troop movements, accountants who analyze the finances of Islamist militants and engineers who design spy satellites. There are soldiers, sailors and Marines; tens of thousands of civilian government employees and tens of thousands of private contractors.
Asked about Russia’s election meddling during a news conference on Thursday in Poland, Mr. Trump repeated his familiar refrain that “it could” have been Russia or other countries that interfered in the election, and then appeared to suggest that there was hardly an intelligence community consensus on the matter.
Continue reading the main story
Russian Hacking and Influence in the U.S. Election
Complete coverage of Russia’s campaign to disrupt the 2016 presidential election.
The Real Aim of the Secret Memo Is the Mueller Investigation
JAN 30
F.B.I. and Justice Dept. Brace for Possible Release of Secret Memo
JAN 30
Answers About the Secret Memo on the Trump-Russia Inquiry
JAN 30
Trump’s First State of the Union Address: A Call for Unity That Wasn’t Always Heard That Way
JAN 30
Trump’s Stance on Russia Sanctions Angers Both Moscow and Washington
JAN 30
See More »
RELATED COVERAGE
Obama White House Knew of Russian Election Hacking, but Delayed Telling JUNE 21, 2017
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
“Let me just start off by saying I heard it was 17 agencies,” he said when asked about the intelligence assessment.
“I said, ‘Boy, that’s a lot.’ Do we even have that many intelligence agencies, right? Let’s check it. And we did some very heavy research,” Mr. Trump continued. “It turned out to be three or four — it wasn’t 17 — and many of your compatriots had to change their reporting, and they had to apologize, and they had to correct.”
Mr. Trump was also correct about inaccurate news reports. Some, including an article in The New York Times, incorrectly reported that all 17 American intelligence agencies had endorsed the assessment.
But there is no evidence that significant uncertainty or dissent exists across the intelligence community, simply because not all 17 were involved in the assessment of Russian interference.
Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main story
Get the Morning Briefing by Email
What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.
Enter your email address
Sign Up
You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
SEE SAMPLE MANAGE EMAIL PREFERENCES PRIVACY POLICY OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME
Here is what you need to know about American intelligence agencies and what they do:
The Best-Known Agencies
When you think of a spy slipping into a darkened safe house to meet an informant, or furtively taking out an Islamist militant leader, you are thinking of someone who works for the C.I.A. It is the best-known American intelligence agency, and it conducts most of the country’s human intelligence and runs most covert operations. It also includes thousands of analysts whose job is to decipher foreign events for American leaders.
The N.S.A., where Edward J. Snowden worked, eavesdrops on calls and emails. Its bailiwick is what is known as signals intelligence — known among spies simply as “sigint” — and other forms of electronic spying, such as creating computer viruses that caused Iranian nuclear centrifuges to spin out of control or some North Korean missiles to veer off course.
The F.B.I. enforces federal law, as any good mobster knows. But it also has a role in the intelligence world, leading counterintelligence operations, which are efforts to understand and stop foreign espionage. (That is the work done by Stan Beeman, the fictional F.B.I. agent on “The Americans.”)
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created after the Sept. 11 attacks to coordinate the efforts of all the parts of the intelligence community. The idea was to ensure that the agencies were working together to avoid future attacks.
Smaller Parts of Big Agencies
A number of widely known government agencies have their own intelligence arms. The Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the State Department, for instance, helps American diplomats understand the world.
The Department of Energy’s Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence helps protect sensitive laboratories and nuclear facilities. At the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis looks out for threats to the United States.
The Office of National Security Intelligence at the D.E.A. brings together intelligence from around the government to help stop drug smuggling. The Treasury Department has the Office of Intelligence and Analysis to help cut the flow of money to terrorist groups, drug lords and other criminals who operate internationally.
Then, of course, there is the Pentagon. Its main intelligence arm is the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is the third-largest intelligence agency. The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard also all have their own intelligence branches.
The Little-Known Agencies
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency decides what do with the images captured by American spy satellites. And the National Reconnaissance Office designs, builds and operates the satellites.
The work can be tricky. In 1999, a predecessor to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency incorrectly marked the Chinese embassy on maps of Belgrade, Serbia, which was inadvertently bombed by American warplanes, killing three and wounding 20. And in 2013, the agency incorrectly misplaced a reef by eight miles, leading to the grounding of the Guardian, a naval minesweeper.
The “three or four” agencies referred to by Mr. Trump are the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the F.B.I. and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, all of which determined that Russia interfered in the election. Their work was compiled into a report, and a declassified version was released on Jan. 6 by the director of national intelligence. It said that all four agencies had “high confidence” that Russian spies had tried to interfere in the election on the orders of President Vladimir V. Putin.
The reason the views of only those four intelligence agencies, not all 17, were included in the assessment is simple: They were the ones tracking and analyzing the Russian campaign. The rest were doing other work.
The intelligence community is a sprawling enterprise that includes military officers who track enemy troop movements, accountants who analyze the finances of Islamist militants and engineers who design spy satellites. There are soldiers, sailors and Marines; tens of thousands of civilian government employees and tens of thousands of private contractors.
Asked about Russia’s election meddling during a news conference on Thursday in Poland, Mr. Trump repeated his familiar refrain that “it could” have been Russia or other countries that interfered in the election, and then appeared to suggest that there was hardly an intelligence community consensus on the matter.
Continue reading the main story
Russian Hacking and Influence in the U.S. Election
Complete coverage of Russia’s campaign to disrupt the 2016 presidential election.
The Real Aim of the Secret Memo Is the Mueller Investigation
JAN 30
F.B.I. and Justice Dept. Brace for Possible Release of Secret Memo
JAN 30
Answers About the Secret Memo on the Trump-Russia Inquiry
JAN 30
Trump’s First State of the Union Address: A Call for Unity That Wasn’t Always Heard That Way
JAN 30
Trump’s Stance on Russia Sanctions Angers Both Moscow and Washington
JAN 30
See More »
RELATED COVERAGE
Obama White House Knew of Russian Election Hacking, but Delayed Telling JUNE 21, 2017
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
“Let me just start off by saying I heard it was 17 agencies,” he said when asked about the intelligence assessment.
“I said, ‘Boy, that’s a lot.’ Do we even have that many intelligence agencies, right? Let’s check it. And we did some very heavy research,” Mr. Trump continued. “It turned out to be three or four — it wasn’t 17 — and many of your compatriots had to change their reporting, and they had to apologize, and they had to correct.”
Mr. Trump was also correct about inaccurate news reports. Some, including an article in The New York Times, incorrectly reported that all 17 American intelligence agencies had endorsed the assessment.
But there is no evidence that significant uncertainty or dissent exists across the intelligence community, simply because not all 17 were involved in the assessment of Russian interference.
Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main story
Get the Morning Briefing by Email
What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.
Enter your email address
Sign Up
You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
SEE SAMPLE MANAGE EMAIL PREFERENCES PRIVACY POLICY OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME
Here is what you need to know about American intelligence agencies and what they do:
The Best-Known Agencies
When you think of a spy slipping into a darkened safe house to meet an informant, or furtively taking out an Islamist militant leader, you are thinking of someone who works for the C.I.A. It is the best-known American intelligence agency, and it conducts most of the country’s human intelligence and runs most covert operations. It also includes thousands of analysts whose job is to decipher foreign events for American leaders.
The N.S.A., where Edward J. Snowden worked, eavesdrops on calls and emails. Its bailiwick is what is known as signals intelligence — known among spies simply as “sigint” — and other forms of electronic spying, such as creating computer viruses that caused Iranian nuclear centrifuges to spin out of control or some North Korean missiles to veer off course.
The F.B.I. enforces federal law, as any good mobster knows. But it also has a role in the intelligence world, leading counterintelligence operations, which are efforts to understand and stop foreign espionage. (That is the work done by Stan Beeman, the fictional F.B.I. agent on “The Americans.”)
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created after the Sept. 11 attacks to coordinate the efforts of all the parts of the intelligence community. The idea was to ensure that the agencies were working together to avoid future attacks.
Smaller Parts of Big Agencies
A number of widely known government agencies have their own intelligence arms. The Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the State Department, for instance, helps American diplomats understand the world.
The Department of Energy’s Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence helps protect sensitive laboratories and nuclear facilities. At the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis looks out for threats to the United States.
The Office of National Security Intelligence at the D.E.A. brings together intelligence from around the government to help stop drug smuggling. The Treasury Department has the Office of Intelligence and Analysis to help cut the flow of money to terrorist groups, drug lords and other criminals who operate internationally.
Then, of course, there is the Pentagon. Its main intelligence arm is the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is the third-largest intelligence agency. The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard also all have their own intelligence branches.
The Little-Known Agencies
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency decides what do with the images captured by American spy satellites. And the National Reconnaissance Office designs, builds and operates the satellites.
The work can be tricky. In 1999, a predecessor to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency incorrectly marked the Chinese embassy on maps of Belgrade, Serbia, which was inadvertently bombed by American warplanes, killing three and wounding 20. And in 2013, the agency incorrectly misplaced a reef by eight miles, leading to the grounding of the Guardian, a naval minesweeper.