Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[ldrews]

Let's try this again ***** for brains...

 

I don't think that there is much of a casual link between the Republican tax cut and the Walmart bonuses.

 

Walmart pays bonuses of roughly the same amount to its employees most every quarter.

The only difference here is that Walmart is claiming that the bonuses are related to the tax cut in order to suck up to Trump...

 

Just because you don't think there is a causal link doesn't mean there isn't one. I don't know about Walmart's practices, but the other 2-3 hundred companies that have paid bonuses don't seem to do that as a regular part of their business. At least not to the rank and file employees.

 

And if the price we have to pay for millions of people to get bonuses is to tolerate self-puffery on the part of some companies, I say that is a price worth paying. It appears that you would prefer not to pay that price, even at the expense of all of those workers. Sad.

[cherdano]

Sure, it's ok. As near as I can see, you are rebutting views that I don't hold and statements that I haven't made. That's also ok. Definitely it is all ok. I am ok.

 

You complained that some might think of some Trump supporters as deplorable. Clearly Trump thinks of many of them as what anyone with a sense of decency would call deplorable.

 

Meanwhile, among the 49 Democratic Senators, 31 are white and male. I didn't quickly find a breakdown by age in addition, but I am quite sure there aren't many 25-year olds among them. Your constant whining that the Democratic party has no place for white old men is, to be frank, quite pathetic.

[hrothgar]

 

And if the price we have to pay for millions of people to get bonuses is to tolerate self-puffery on the part of some companies, I say that is a price worth paying. It appears that you would prefer not to pay that price, even at the expense of all of those workers. Sad.

 

As usual, you are presenting a false narrative.

 

There is no casual link between the lies and the supposed bonuses.

 

If workers actually received any kind of material increase in their bonuses, we can be glad.

And, at the same time, we can condemn

 

1. A political climate in which companies feel the need to engage in this sort of puffery
   
2. The fact that thousands of firms are lying about their behaviour to favor the Republican party
   

 

And, of course, we should remember that IF our goal is actually to provide material assistance to American workers there were much much better options available that this particular tax plan.

[kenberg]

You complained that some might think of some Trump supporters as deplorable. Clearly Trump thinks of many of them as what anyone with a sense of decency would call deplorable.

 

Meanwhile, among the 49 Democratic Senators, 31 are white and male. I didn't quickly find a breakdown by age in addition, but I am quite sure there aren't many 25-year olds among them. Your constant whining that the Democratic party has no place for white old men is, to be frank, quite pathetic.

 

 

Actually, I said I might agree with Hillary on this. Specifically I said:

 

Everyone's favorite example from the last election. I might even agree with Hillary that some of the Trump supporters were deplorable, but speaking of a basket of deplorables revealed a mindset. This mindset goes further toward explaining her loss than does her deplorable phrasing. The phrasing was a consequence of the mindset, and the mindset no doubt showed through with or without the phrasing. That costs.

 

 

I started this by referring to an interchange at the gym. We disagreed and we parted on good terms. This leaves either of us open to re-think and/or further discuss. I think the fact that neither of us called the other any names is useful both in keeping us on good terms and, perhaps, even for the purpose of changing minds. It is the writing off of people that I am objecting to. An old Kathryn Hepburn line from The Philadelphia Story: "The time to make up your mind about other people is never." Probably an overstatement but still it is on the right track.

[ldrews]

 

And, of course, we should remember that IF our goal is actually to provide material assistance to American workers there were much much better options available that this particular tax plan.

 

Such as?

[hrothgar]

Such as?

 

Let's see...

 

We could spend that 1 trillion dollars on Infrastructure development

We could use that 1 trillion dollars to fund a single pay program

If you are wedded to tax cuts, we could use this money to dramatically expand the earned income tax credit

 

There's almost an infinte number of things we could have done with this money that would more directly benefit the work class than a bunch of corporate tax cuts that are overwhelmingly being used for stock buybacks

[Winstonm]

Another casualty in Fredo's war against non-whites:

 

Interim Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Mick Mulvaney is moving the powerful Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity under his direct oversight and is stripping its enforcement authority. Instead of giving the watchdog the ability to go after lenders to who change their interest rates based on race, or other discriminatory practices, the office will now focus on “advocacy, coordination, and education,” according to a memo to CFPB employees. Critics are concerned that the office’s ability to prevent discrimination in student loans and mortgages will be hindered with the change.

[hrothgar]

Interesting development

 

[ldrews]

Let's see...

 

We could spend that 1 trillion dollars on Infrastructure development

We could use that 1 trillion dollars to fund a single pay program

If you are wedded to tax cuts, we could use this money to dramatically expand the earned income tax credit

 

There's almost an infinte number of things we could have done with this money that would more directly benefit the work class than a bunch of corporate tax cuts that are overwhelmingly being used for stock buybacks

 

Certainly, but that is all government/tax money spending. The bonuses and investments come from the private sector. But I already knew you would prefer government spending over private spending.

[ldrews]

Interesting development

 

 

The "memo" outlines a clear case of malfeasance by the FBI/DOJ in the handling of at least one FISA warrant case. The culprits are at the high management level, not the rank and file.

 

Of course if you support the ability to use the DOJ/FBI against your political opponents, then go ahead and try to hide or diminish the importance of this event. If I were the president I would simply take it over and use it against my future political opponents. I assume you would support that. Welcome to your new Stalinesque dictatorship!

[hrothgar]

Certainly, but that is all government/tax money spending. The bonuses and investments come from the private sector. But I already knew you would prefer government spending over private spending.

 

Yes

 

I have always been quite consistent about my policy preferences.

 

Unlike you who spent a day and a half waxing rhapsodic about those bonuses Walmart claimed to be paying to its employees but rejects meaningful policies out of hand because they conflict with your religious beliefs.

I had hoped that including the Earned Income Tax Credit inside my list of policy suggestions might head off this discussion. (As I am sure you know, it was originally proposed by Arch Statist Milton Friedman)

 

However, if that is too oppressive for you, how about simply weighting that 1 trillion dollars towards those who make the lowest amounts of money rather than those who make the most...

[hrothgar]

The "memo" outlines a clear case of malfeasance by the FBI/DOJ in the handling of at least one FISA warrant case. The culprits are at the high management level, not the rank and file.

 

You are wrong on so many levels.

 

First and foremost, Carter Page was under investigation from the FBI as a possible Russian Agent two years before he joined the Trump campaign. The decision to monitor his predates the Steele memo by years.

 

Second, even if members of the FBI were biased - and I am in no way conceding that they are - this does not not constitute malfeasance

There is a good write up on this as https://lawfareblog.com/dubious-legal-claim-behind-releasethememo

 

Third, I hope that you recognize that the House Intelligence Committee is engaged in exactly the set of behavior that you accuse the FBI of...

 

Finally, you have multiple Republican administration officials accusing Nunes and Trump of selective leaks and biased presentation of information.

[kenberg]

The "memo" outlines a clear case of malfeasance by the FBI/DOJ in the handling of at least one FISA warrant case. The culprits are at the high management level, not the rank and file.

 

Of course if you support the ability to use the DOJ/FBI against your political opponents, then go ahead and try to hide or diminish the importance of this event. If I were the president I would simply take it over and use it against my future political opponents. I assume you would support that. Welcome to your new Stalinesque dictatorship!

 

I will crawl out on what I regard as a pretty firm limb and say that when the dust settles, the Republicans will seriously regret this. I realize that John McCain has brain cancer but it hasn't eaten it away yet and he was totally unequivocal in his views. There will be others. Of course the FBI can be subject to oversight and sometimes to criticism. Same with cops. Same with professors. But this memo is not a serious investigation.

 

Most of us do not have access to classified information, so it is impossible to evaluate the claims in detail. And for that matter, we lack expertise even if we could probe classified documents. But the general format is despicable on the face of it. Some people think every cop is a crook, some think every cop is a saint, most of us accept that some are better than others, that sometimes we need to look closely at what they are doing. But not in this way.

 

This is not going to bounce well for the Republicans. It shouldn't, and it won't.

[ldrews]

You are wrong on so many levels.

 

First and foremost, Carter Page was under investigation from the FBI as a possible Russian Agent two years before he joined the Trump campaign. The decision to monitor his predates the Steele memo by years.

 

Second, even if members of the FBI were biased - and I am in no way conceding that they are - this does not not constitute malfeasance

There is a good write up on this as https://lawfareblog.com/dubious-legal-claim-behind-releasethememo

 

Third, I hope that you recognize that the House Intelligence Committee is engaged in exactly the set of behavior that you accuse the FBI of...

 

Finally, you have multiple Republican administration officials accusing Nunes and Trump of selective leaks and biased presentation of information.

 

Keep sticking your head in the sand. The introduction of political bias in actions taken by the DOJ/FBI should scare anyone who values freedom. There is little or no recourse against a waponized DOJ/FBI, and that is what we have some evidence of. Apparently the upcoming OIG report will detail even more of the same. But if you don't mind a politicized police agency, then never mind, enjoy your short-lived freedoms.

 

Also, if the facts contained in the memo are accurate, and they have already been vetted by the DOJ/FBi (although the DOJ/FBI assert that their is omission of facts), then the basis for Mueller's investigation is severely questionable and any results may not withstand court scrutiny.

 

And with regard to the "omission of facts", I would invite the DOJ/FBI to supply the missing information.

[ldrews]

I will crawl out on what I regard as a pretty firm limb and say that when the dust settles, the Republicans will seriously regret this. I realize that John McCain has brain cancer but it hasn't eaten it away yet and he was totally unequivocal in his views. There will be others. Of course the FBI can be subject to oversight and sometimes to criticism. Same with cops. Same with professors. But this memo is not a serious investigation.

 

Most of us do not have access to classified information, so it is impossible to evaluate the claims in detail. And for that matter, we lack expertise even if we could probe classified documents. But the general format is despicable on the face of it. Some people think every cop is a crook, some think every cop is a saint, most of us accept that some are better than others, that sometimes we need to look closely at what they are doing. But not in this way.

 

This is not going to bounce well for the Republicans. It shouldn't, and it won't.

 

This memo is not a serious investigation, it is a summary of the conclusions drawn from a serious investigation.

 

Would you support the declassification and release of the supporting documents? Then we could all come to our own judgments.

 

In a nutshell: Federal officials conspired to spy on a rival political campaign using information they had not verified from people they knew were untrustworthy. And these officials deliberately and repeatedly defrauded the judiciary by withholding key information.

[awm]

Hmm... are we talking about the same FBI that released information that they were reopening an investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails mere days before the election? An investigation that just a few days later was closed once again having found absolutely no new information of interest?

 

The same FBI which many analysts believe swung the election in favor of Trump? An organization lead by a registered Republican throughout Obama’s term?

 

An organization which was pursuing multiple investigations of members of the Trump campaign for months before the election, several of whom have now plead guilty to working for foreign powers? And which refused to make any public statement about such investigations for fear they might bias the electorate against Trump?

 

This is the FBI we are supposed to believe is weaponized against Trump? Really?

[kenberg]

This memo is not a serious investigation, it is a summary of the conclusions drawn from a serious investigation.

 

Would you support the declassification and release of the supporting documents? Then we could all come to our own judgments.

 

 

 

A few days back I had a brief post on this. Basically I said that if all of the data could be released then fine, release it and as you say we can all draw our own conclusions. But I doubt that will be done and I doubt that it could be done responsibly.

 

My history on this has not been totally pro-Dem. Back in 2016 when Comey re-opened the investigation shortly before the election I thought it at least possible and probably likely that Comey was doing what he thought was right. It might or might not have been right, I think it did have a big effect, possibly a determining effect, on the election. It did not follow from that that it was a Comey scheme. I thought, and think, that if HC wants to find someone to blame she should look carefully at herself.

 

Well, these are old wounds, I mention them to indicate that I am not one of those who thinks the FBI is always right when its actions favor the Dems and always wrong when its actions favor the Reps. I at least allow for the possibility that both the agents and those in charge are trying to do a serious job. This doesn't mean they are always right, of course.

 

This will be looked at closely. Facts will come out, and we will all have to try to evaluate them. Some agents did not like Trump. Probably some agents did not like Clinton. Or Sanders. I am a retried math prof. Here is how I graded papers. I would put them in a stack and grade all problem 1s. Then all problem 2s. Going at it this way I usually did not know, and I tried hard not to know, as I was grading problem 2, whose paper it was. Then I added the scores. After that I might smile if a student I liked did well. It is possible to have likes and dislikes and still be accurate in what you do. It's inevitable that agents will have political opinions. And probably inevitable that some of them will have affairs. And they will informally chat. That comment about a secret society struck me as just something I might say to my wife. Everyone seems to be able to check up on everyone at every moment. I am not doing anything that the cops, or my wife, can't know about but I and many of us are a little unhappy with this modern way of being able to track anyone anywhere anytime. Her comment did not mean that there is some secret society as in The Da Vinci Code. It was idle chat, or so it seemed to me.

 

What we have is a powerful group of Rs doing their best to discredit the FBI as it pursues a very serious investigation. If the charges are all hooey, that will come out. But this simply is not the time or the manner to derail the investigation. I have not studied the memo yet, but I did not get the idea that it all that much disputed the facts. It mostly asserts that some people involved in it don't like Trump. And Trump doesn't like them. That can happen during an investigation.

[Al_U_Card]

Hmm... are we talking about the same FBI that released information that they were reopening an investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails mere days before the election? An investigation that just a few days later was closed once again having found absolutely no new information of interest?

 

The same FBI which many analysts believe swung the election in favor of Trump? An organization lead by a registered Republican throughout Obama’s term?

 

An organization which was pursuing multiple investigations of members of the Trump campaign for months before the election, several of whom have now plead guilty to working for foreign powers? And which refused to make any public statement about such investigations for fear they might bias the electorate against Trump?

 

This is the FBI we are supposed to believe is weaponized against Trump? Really?

The US has an intelligence "community" that makes Game of Thrones look like pikers. Their internal rivalries and "values" were questionable from the git go. Trump, like his recent predecessors knows that they are weapons and that they must be pointed in an appropriate direction. The rest is just "stagecraft" and for show. Smoke and mirrors are the rule of the day so the more time you spend trying to figure them out, the less time you can spend keeping them at bay.

[hrothgar]

 

Also, if the facts contained in the memo are accurate, and they have already been vetted by the DOJ/FBi (although the DOJ/FBI assert that their is omission of facts), then the basis for Mueller's investigation is severely questionable and any results may not withstand court scrutiny.

 

 

1. Your conclusion is unwarranted

 

2. The "facts" contained in the memo clearly are not accurate

 

3. Both the DOJ and the FBI opposed the release of the memo

 

Lets start cataloging mistakes in the Nunes memo (note: I am quoting / summarizing analysis by Seth Abraham here)

 

1. It says FISA warrant applications must meet the "highest standard" of proof in the justice system. Uh, no. The "highest standard" in the justice system is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," which is nowhere *close* to the legal standard required to secure a search warrant. The specific FISA standard is "probable cause that the target is an 'agent of a foreign power' who's 'knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence activities.'"

 

2. The memo then makes *another* error of law on its first page: saying the law requires "all relevant and material facts" to be shown to a warrant-granting court. But that's not true. Many cases confirm that law enforcement can and does leave out key facts without repercussion.

 

3. A *third* legal error on just the *first page* of the memo is it says "all potentially favorable" information—i.e., favorable to the proposed warrant target—must be included in the warrant application. Uh, no, and moreover, this *never* happens in the criminal justice system.

 

4. Page 2 says Steele prepared the dossier "on behalf of" the DNC and Clinton—suggesting he knew he was working for them, or that he *was* working for them, which he wasn't. He was working for Fusion GPS as a sub-contractor—and had no idea who Fusion's clients were. This is a critical point—as this lie is the one Nunes uses to argue that Steele both had a conflict of interest and was biased, when in fact neither was true. Steele was not getting paid to please the DNC and/or Clinton because he literally did not know his work was for them. In fact for the first 8 months that Steele working on the project he was being funded by the Washington Free Beacon.

[cherdano]

Lol confusing "probable cause" with the "highest standard of proof" on the first page?? I knew Nunes was a hack, but I didn't realise he's be such a completely ridiculous hack. And of course our little Larry falls for such idiocy. Poor little guy.

[ldrews]

Hmm... are we talking about the same FBI that released information that they were reopening an investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails mere days before the election? An investigation that just a few days later was closed once again having found absolutely no new information of interest?

 

The same FBI which many analysts believe swung the election in favor of Trump? An organization lead by a registered Republican throughout Obama’s term?

 

An organization which was pursuing multiple investigations of members of the Trump campaign for months before the election, several of whom have now plead guilty to working for foreign powers? And which refused to make any public statement about such investigations for fear they might bias the electorate against Trump?

 

This is the FBI we are supposed to believe is weaponized against Trump? Really?

 

That is the conclusion of the House Oversight committee. The evidence apparently points that way. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

[ldrews]

1. Your conclusion is unwarranted

 

2. The "facts" contained in the memo clearly are not accurate

 

3. Both the DOJ and the FBI opposed the release of the memo

 

Lets start cataloging mistakes in the Nunes memo (note: I am quoting / summarizing analysis by Seth Abraham here)

 

1. It says FISA warrant applications must meet the "highest standard" of proof in the justice system. Uh, no. The "highest standard" in the justice system is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," which is nowhere *close* to the legal standard required to secure a search warrant. The specific FISA standard is "probable cause that the target is an 'agent of a foreign power' who's 'knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence activities.'"

 

2. The memo then makes *another* error of law on its first page: saying the law requires "all relevant and material facts" to be shown to a warrant-granting court. But that's not true. Many cases confirm that law enforcement can and does leave out key facts without repercussion.

 

3. A *third* legal error on just the *first page* of the memo is it says "all potentially favorable" information—i.e., favorable to the proposed warrant target—must be included in the warrant application. Uh, no, and moreover, this *never* happens in the criminal justice system.

 

4. Page 2 says Steele prepared the dossier "on behalf of" the DNC and Clinton—suggesting he knew he was working for them, or that he *was* working for them, which he wasn't. He was working for Fusion GPS as a sub-contractor—and had no idea who Fusion's clients were. This is a critical point—as this lie is the one Nunes uses to argue that Steele both had a conflict of interest and was biased, when in fact neither was true. Steele was not getting paid to please the DNC and/or Clinton because he literally did not know his work was for them. In fact for the first 8 months that Steele working on the project he was being funded by the Washington Free Beacon.

 

1. My conclusion is apparently shared by Nunes and other knowledgeable people.

 

2. The facts in the memo were reviewed by the DOJ and FBI and no inaccuracies were found. The FBI subsequently asserted that material facts were omitted, but did not assert that the facts presented were incorrect.

 

3. It is predictable that the DOJ and FBI would object to the release of the memo. In addition to placing several senior executives in danger of losing their jobs and possible facing criminal prosecution, all the cases in which those same executives were involved are now tainted and subject to challenge.

 

Your "mistakes" are all cosmetic and do not address the underlying scandal. The basic issue was captured by another poster:

In a nutshell: Federal officials conspired to spy on a rival political campaign using information they had not verified from people they knew were untrustworthy. And these officials deliberately and repeatedly defrauded the judiciary by withholding key information.

[jjbrr]

lol. what a mental midget.

[hrothgar]

1. My conclusion is apparently shared by Nunes and other knowledgeable people.

 

This would be the same Devin Nunes who previous worked for the Trump campaign and was then forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation for misrepresenting intelligence to benefit Trump...

The facts in the memo were reviewed by the DOJ and FBI and no inaccuracies were found. The FBI subsequently asserted that material facts were omitted, but did not assert that the facts presented were incorrect.

 

The direct quote from the FBI is that they have "grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”

 

"FBI Director Christopher Wray told the White House he opposes release of a classified Republican memo alleging bias at the FBI and Justice Department because it contains inaccurate information and paints a false narrative"

Your "mistakes" are all cosmetic and do not address the underlying scandal.

 

Please recall, ***** for brains, YOU were the trumpeting the accuracy of the memo and review cycles it went through.

 

And these mistakes are FAR from cosmetic. They are issues of basic law and speak to the competency of the individuals drafting this memo.

[jjbrr]

I am willing to bet my life this is the reason FBI does not want memo released:

 

You lost this bet, for the record.