Octopus Overlords

He's a mole for Bernie Sanders.

Holman wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:42 pm

link

BREAKING: Peter Strzok, the FBI agent accused by GOP of having "treasonous" anti-Trump bias, supported re-opening the Clinton email investigation in fall 2016 and helped write the letter (signed by Comey) that was released days before the election.

ANTI-TRUMP DEEEEEP STAAAAAAAAAATE!!1!

How many texts did he send his girlfriend about what a nightmare it would be if Hillary got elected?

Did his letter mention anything about what insurance policy they had against Hillary getting elected? How many secretive offsite meetings where held about it?

Idiots are incompetent even at the blame game!

#MAGA

Rip wrote:

Holman wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:42 pm

link

BREAKING: Peter Strzok, the FBI agent accused by GOP of having "treasonous" anti-Trump bias, supported re-opening the Clinton email investigation in fall 2016 and helped write the letter (signed by Comey) that was released days before the election.

ANTI-TRUMP DEEEEEP STAAAAAAAAAATE!!1!

How many texts did he send his girlfriend about what a nightmare it would be if Hillary got elected?

Did his letter mention anything about what insurance policy they had against Hillary getting elected? How many secretive offsite meetings where held about it?

Maddow recently read a nearly two minute list of texts espousing his distaste for Hillary, democrats, Obama, politicians, etc. So yes. The impression I got was that of a normal arrogant law enforcement official complaining about how awful everyone else is..

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Rip wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:02 pm
How many texts did he send his girlfriend about what a nightmare it would be if Hillary got elected?

Did his letter mention anything about what insurance policy they had against Hillary getting elected? How many secretive offsite meetings where held about it?

If he sent 1,000 texts to his girlfriend about hating Trump, would they have had 0.000000000001% of the effect of the Comey letter he helped draft?

I want to know about those secretive offsite meetings, though. I hear they weren't even on the calendar.

link

A source familiar with the matter confirms to ABC that during a meeting with Rod Rosenstein in December, Trump asked Rosenstein about the direction of the FBI's Russia investigation and asked Rosenstein whether he was ‘part of Trump's team.’

Holman wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:42 pm

link

BREAKING: Peter Strzok, the FBI agent accused by GOP of having "treasonous" anti-Trump bias, supported re-opening the Clinton email investigation in fall 2016 and helped write the letter (signed by Comey) that was released days before the election.

ANTI-TRUMP DEEEEEP STAAAAAAAAAATE!!1!

Good lord. The anti-Trump deep state conspirators are all so fucking terrible at their jobs.

How is it that Strozk being anti-Clinton rules out Strozk also being anti-Trump?

Also, is anyone else remotely uncomfortable that the left-leaning sentiment seems to be that we should ignore these complaints that state surveillance was abused?

To be clear, I don't for a minute think that the memo produced by the House Republicans is going to be fair, accurate or unbiased. I think those guys are basically Trump's henchmen at this point. They've thrown in with him and are doing whatever they can to prop him up. But I'm seeing arguments that the "memo" shouldn't be released because, law enforcement has concerns:

The memo also faces deep opposition inside intelligence agencies, multiple current and former intelligence officials tell CNN. The intelligence community's concerns are rooted in a fear that disclosing details of the FISA warrant process could reveal crucial elements of intelligence gathering, potentially causing foreign intelligence targets to change behavior to avoid surveillance in the future.

Specifically, these intelligence officials are concerned the memo will reveal what goes into a decision to monitor targets, including what kinds of communications are targeted, and how those communications are intercepted.

This really seems like a "trust us, it's all good" argument here. I'm not generally all that favorably disposed to those arguments when we're talking about state surveillance.

I'm not sure what my point is here, except that my head is spinning a bit. It seems like the Trump administration makes strange bedfellows.

What makes you think state surveillance was "abused"?

In the cases we know about, the figures being monitored (Manafort, Flynn, Page, Papadopoulos) were actually and actively engaged with foreign powers. This is exactly what surveillance is intended to discover. In most (all?) of these cases, they were being monitored before they ever joined the Trump campaign.

The Trump administration has lied about these sorts of contacts at every turn until exposed. The Nunes memo is simply another set of those lies.

It's unprecedented and disturbing that all this has been revealed, but the crimes are on the criminals, not on those investigating them.

Kurth wrote:How is it that Strozk being anti-Clinton rules out Strozk also being anti-Trump?

Also, is anyone else remotely uncomfortable that the left-leaning sentiment seems to be that we should ignore these complaints that state surveillance was abused?

To be clear, I don't for a minute think that the memo produced by the House Republicans is going to be fair, accurate or unbiased. I think those guys are basically Trump's henchmen at this point. They've thrown in with him and are doing whatever they can to prop him up. But I'm seeing arguments that the "memo" shouldn't be released because, law enforcement has concerns:

The memo also faces deep opposition inside intelligence agencies, multiple current and former intelligence officials tell CNN. The intelligence community's concerns are rooted in a fear that disclosing details of the FISA warrant process could reveal crucial elements of intelligence gathering, potentially causing foreign intelligence targets to change behavior to avoid surveillance in the future.

Specifically, these intelligence officials are concerned the memo will reveal what goes into a decision to monitor targets, including what kinds of communications are targeted, and how those communications are intercepted.

This really seems like a "trust us, it's all good" argument here. I'm not generally all that favorably disposed to those arguments when we're talking about state surveillance.

I'm not sure what my point is here, except that my head is spinning a bit. It seems like the Trump administration makes strange bedfellows.

I think it mostly has to do with the false narrative and irony that liberals don't support law enforcement and Republicans hold cops as sacrosanct.... Until its inconvenient.

I don't feel a double standard because "liberal" media is constantly working as a "check" against "the man". Quotes, because all of those are childish arbitrary labels but indicative of serious journalism. Second Snowden, Manning (sort of) , etc have all be ome personas non grata and fugitives of the US. Nunes is publicly flaunting his ability to piss on classified regulations and not only is ignoring his recusal but seemingly gaining influence on an investigation that he is now embroiled in. Third I don't trust the FBI that much but I accept that there is a give and take to surveillance and transparency. Fisa while probably overreaching, is pretty solidly regulated. Change the law, civilly disobey, scream. None of those include publicly abusing your political power to actively obstruct an investigation, destroy the institutional checks of government, or compromising government law enforcement tactics and assets.
Which has already damaged our intelligence sharing and gathering around the would and cost at least one person their life.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Holman wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:33 pm What makes you think state surveillance was "abused"?

Seriously? You know that’s not even close to what I said. Not worth further response.

Combustible Lemur wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:42 pm

Kurth wrote:How is it that Strozk being anti-Clinton rules out Strozk also being anti-Trump?

Also, is anyone else remotely uncomfortable that the left-leaning sentiment seems to be that we should ignore these complaints that state surveillance was abused?

To be clear, I don't for a minute think that the memo produced by the House Republicans is going to be fair, accurate or unbiased. I think those guys are basically Trump's henchmen at this point. They've thrown in with him and are doing whatever they can to prop him up. But I'm seeing arguments that the "memo" shouldn't be released because, law enforcement has concerns:

The memo also faces deep opposition inside intelligence agencies, multiple current and former intelligence officials tell CNN. The intelligence community's concerns are rooted in a fear that disclosing details of the FISA warrant process could reveal crucial elements of intelligence gathering, potentially causing foreign intelligence targets to change behavior to avoid surveillance in the future.

Specifically, these intelligence officials are concerned the memo will reveal what goes into a decision to monitor targets, including what kinds of communications are targeted, and how those communications are intercepted.

This really seems like a "trust us, it's all good" argument here. I'm not generally all that favorably disposed to those arguments when we're talking about state surveillance.

I'm not sure what my point is here, except that my head is spinning a bit. It seems like the Trump administration makes strange bedfellows.

I think it mostly has to do with the false narrative and irony that liberals don't support law enforcement and Republicans hold cops as sacrosanct.... Until its inconvenient.

I don't feel a double standard because "liberal" media is constantly working as a "check" against "the man". Quotes, because all of those are childish arbitrary labels but indicative of serious journalism. Second Snowden, Manning (sort of) , etc have all be ome personas non grata and fugitives of the US. Nunes is publicly flaunting his ability to piss on classified regulations and not only is ignoring his recusal but seemingly gaining influence on an investigation that he is now embroiled in. Third I don't trust the FBI that much but I accept that there is a give and take to surveillance and transparency. Fisa while probably overreaching, is pretty solidly regulated. Change the law, civilly disobey, scream. None of those include publicly abusing your political power to actively obstruct an investigation, destroy the institutional checks of government, or compromising government law enforcement tactics and assets.
Which has already damaged our intelligence sharing and gathering around the would and cost at least one person their life.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

From what I get from your post, there’s no double standard because:

(1) Liberal media works as a check against the system. I agree with this, but that doesn’t really jive with what appears to be hostility to a challenge to the FISA process, or, more particularly, how the FISA process worked in this instance. I am 100% ok with hostility to Nunez and his ilk and their particular memo, which is likely to be partisan garbage, but I am not ok with just ignoring the underlying issue. One party has alleged that the FBI abused state surveillance. That’s an allegation that needs to be explored and put to rest.

(2) Nunez sucks and is a hypocrite. Couldn’t agree more, but it doesn’t mean we should lose our skepticism of law enforcement. That, in and of itself, is a powerful check on the system. But if we start only being skeptical when it’s in our partisan interests, we’re screwed. Actually, we’re probably screwed already, so whatever.

(3) You have an underlying trust in the well-regulated FISA process. I am much less inclined to give FISA the benefit of the doubt.

In the end, this shouldn’t be a partisan issue, and it sucks that it is.

Kurth wrote:[qu

From what I get from your post, there’s no double standard because:

(1) Liberal media works as a check against the system. I agree with this, but that doesn’t really jive with what appears to be hostility to a challenge to the FISA process, or, more particularly, how the FISA process worked in this instance. I am 100% ok with hostility to Nunez and his ilk and their particular memo, which is likely to be partisan garbage, but I am not ok with just ignoring the underlying issue. One party has alleged that the FBI abused state surveillance. That’s an allegation that needs to be explored and put to rest.

(2) Nunez sucks and is a hypocrite. Couldn’t agree more, but it doesn’t mean we should lose our skepticism of law enforcement. That, in and of itself, is a powerful check on the system. But if we start only being skeptical when it’s in our partisan interests, we’re screwed. Actually, we’re probably screwed already, so whatever.

(3) You have an underlying trust in the well-regulated FISA process. I am much less inclined to give FISA the benefit of the doubt.

In the end, this shouldn’t be a partisan issue, and it sucks that it is.

I guess it boils down to whether you think recused involved parties publicly releasing classified material about themselves without oversight is a legitimate route to intelligence oversight.
I've listened alot to supposed state dept. , intelligence, and institutional experts over the passed year, and while yes my respect for the individuals who adhere to the protocols for oversight has been reinforced I recognize also that I fundamentally disagree with the conclusions a lot of those people have come to and do.
Everything I've heard decribed of FISA from supposed people directly involved has made me feel better about the process, while still thinking it should in some ways be reigned in. Most complaints I've seen or heard are ideological in nature.
Regardless, the current shenanigans aren't a whistle blow. It's an out of context obstruction of an investigation, flouting checks, balances bipartisanship, operational security. The coverage Ive listened to from former intelligence people have all seemed to think this is terrible for transparency by encouraging intelligence and law enforcement officials to tell congress to go fuck themselves next time.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I was pissed when Manning, Snowden, Wiki hacked the government. I was proud of people blowing the whistle. I'd be angry if dems did the same.
I disliked that Obama bombed people, I'm grateful that Obama bombed terrorists. I think cops are often ass holes. I'm grateful that they protect us.

Life is complicated.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Kurth wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:13 pm
Also, is anyone else remotely uncomfortable that the left-leaning sentiment seems to be that we should ignore these complaints that state surveillance was abused?

Kurth wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:46 pm

Holman wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:33 pm What makes you think state surveillance was "abused"?

Seriously? You know that’s not even close to what I said. Not worth further response.

It's so weird that Holman thought that you think that state surveillance was abused.

Kurth wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:55 pm

Combustible Lemur wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:42 pm

Kurth wrote:How is it that Strozk being anti-Clinton rules out Strozk also being anti-Trump?

Also, is anyone else remotely uncomfortable that the left-leaning sentiment seems to be that we should ignore these complaints that state surveillance was abused?

To be clear, I don't for a minute think that the memo produced by the House Republicans is going to be fair, accurate or unbiased. I think those guys are basically Trump's henchmen at this point. They've thrown in with him and are doing whatever they can to prop him up. But I'm seeing arguments that the "memo" shouldn't be released because, law enforcement has concerns:

The memo also faces deep opposition inside intelligence agencies, multiple current and former intelligence officials tell CNN. The intelligence community's concerns are rooted in a fear that disclosing details of the FISA warrant process could reveal crucial elements of intelligence gathering, potentially causing foreign intelligence targets to change behavior to avoid surveillance in the future.

Specifically, these intelligence officials are concerned the memo will reveal what goes into a decision to monitor targets, including what kinds of communications are targeted, and how those communications are intercepted.

This really seems like a "trust us, it's all good" argument here. I'm not generally all that favorably disposed to those arguments when we're talking about state surveillance.

I'm not sure what my point is here, except that my head is spinning a bit. It seems like the Trump administration makes strange bedfellows.

I think it mostly has to do with the false narrative and irony that liberals don't support law enforcement and Republicans hold cops as sacrosanct.... Until its inconvenient.

I don't feel a double standard because "liberal" media is constantly working as a "check" against "the man". Quotes, because all of those are childish arbitrary labels but indicative of serious journalism. Second Snowden, Manning (sort of) , etc have all be ome personas non grata and fugitives of the US. Nunes is publicly flaunting his ability to piss on classified regulations and not only is ignoring his recusal but seemingly gaining influence on an investigation that he is now embroiled in. Third I don't trust the FBI that much but I accept that there is a give and take to surveillance and transparency. Fisa while probably overreaching, is pretty solidly regulated. Change the law, civilly disobey, scream. None of those include publicly abusing your political power to actively obstruct an investigation, destroy the institutional checks of government, or compromising government law enforcement tactics and assets.
Which has already damaged our intelligence sharing and gathering around the would and cost at least one person their life.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

From what I get from your post, there’s no double standard because:

(1) Liberal media works as a check against the system. I agree with this, but that doesn’t really jive with what appears to be hostility to a challenge to the FISA process, or, more particularly, how the FISA process worked in this instance. I am 100% ok with hostility to Nunez and his ilk and their particular memo, which is likely to be partisan garbage, but I am not ok with just ignoring the underlying issue. One party has alleged that the FBI abused state surveillance. That’s an allegation that needs to be explored and put to rest.

(2) Nunez sucks and is a hypocrite. Couldn’t agree more, but it doesn’t mean we should lose our skepticism of law enforcement. That, in and of itself, is a powerful check on the system. But if we start only being skeptical when it’s in our partisan interests, we’re screwed. Actually, we’re probably screwed already, so whatever.

(3) You have an underlying trust in the well-regulated FISA process. I am much less inclined to give FISA the benefit of the doubt.

In the end, this shouldn’t be a partisan issue, and it sucks that it is.

I absolutely think that the FISA process (and surveillance generally) should be reviewed and probably reigned in. But the Nunez memo is transparently not about FISA, it's just paper thin justification for shutting down the Mueller investigation #8. Hence the discussion is about that, not about what the Nunez memo is purportedly about.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:21 pm

Kurth wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:13 pm
Also, is anyone else remotely uncomfortable that the left-leaning sentiment seems to be that we should ignore these complaints that state surveillance was abused?

Kurth wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:46 pm

Holman wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:33 pm What makes you think state surveillance was "abused"?

Seriously? You know that’s not even close to what I said. Not worth further response.

It's so weird that Holman thought that you think that state surveillance was abused.

Agreed. It is weird. I have no idea if there’s been an abuse of state surveillance. I do know there are complaints of such. Those complaints should be put to rest.

When the Republicans lie repeatedly and blatantly about American intelligence agencies to protect Trump, they have no credibility. The Underlying Issue is that the Republicans have Cried Wolf. There is no liberal bias when they're just telling more truth.

Kurth wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:30 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:21 pm

Kurth wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:13 pm
Also, is anyone else remotely uncomfortable that the left-leaning sentiment seems to be that we should ignore these complaints that state surveillance was abused?

Kurth wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:46 pm

Holman wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:33 pm What makes you think state surveillance was "abused"?

Seriously? You know that’s not even close to what I said. Not worth further response.

It's so weird that Holman thought that you think that state surveillance was abused.

Agreed. It is weird. I have no idea if there’s been an abuse of state surveillance. I do know there are complaints of such. Those complaints should be put to rest.

But like...presumably you think the complaints are at least somewhat credible, right? Or is it that you favor addressing non-meritorious complaints?

Anyway, the core of the issue here is that Nunez's memo could not be more transparently in bad faith. So there's no real merit in responding to it as a complaint, rather than as a document saying essentially "we intend to shut down the Mueller investigation ASAP."

https://twitter.com/repadamschiff/statu ... 0469464064

El Guapo wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:36 pm

Kurth wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:30 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:21 pm

Kurth wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:13 pm
Also, is anyone else remotely uncomfortable that the left-leaning sentiment seems to be that we should ignore these complaints that state surveillance was abused?

Kurth wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:46 pm

Holman wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:33 pm What makes you think state surveillance was "abused"?

Seriously? You know that’s not even close to what I said. Not worth further response.

It's so weird that Holman thought that you think that state surveillance was abused.

Agreed. It is weird. I have no idea if there’s been an abuse of state surveillance. I do know there are complaints of such. Those complaints should be put to rest.

But like...presumably you think the complaints are at least somewhat credible, right? Or is it that you favor addressing non-meritorious complaints?

Anyway, the core of the issue here is that Nunez's memo could not be more transparently in bad faith. So there's no real merit in responding to it as a complaint, rather than as a document saying essentially "we intend to shut down the Mueller investigation ASAP."

Fine to all that. But then let’s be clear that we’re in opposition to Nunes and have no faith in the Republican led House Intel committee. Not that we have faith in the FISA process.

I think what I’m objecting to is what seems like some reflexive teamism going on that has normally skeptical liberals (to be clear, I see that as a good thing) all of a sudden trodding out some BS about national security and the need to keep surveillance veiled in secrecy for “the national good.”

Kurth wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:00 am

El Guapo wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:36 pm

Kurth wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:30 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:21 pm

Kurth wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:13 pm
Also, is anyone else remotely uncomfortable that the left-leaning sentiment seems to be that we should ignore these complaints that state surveillance was abused?

Kurth wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:46 pm

Holman wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:33 pm What makes you think state surveillance was "abused"?

Seriously? You know that’s not even close to what I said. Not worth further response.

It's so weird that Holman thought that you think that state surveillance was abused.

Agreed. It is weird. I have no idea if there’s been an abuse of state surveillance. I do know there are complaints of such. Those complaints should be put to rest.

But like...presumably you think the complaints are at least somewhat credible, right? Or is it that you favor addressing non-meritorious complaints?

Anyway, the core of the issue here is that Nunez's memo could not be more transparently in bad faith. So there's no real merit in responding to it as a complaint, rather than as a document saying essentially "we intend to shut down the Mueller investigation ASAP."

Fine to all that. But then let’s be clear that we’re in opposition to Nunes and have no faith in the Republican led House Intel committee. Not that we have faith in the FISA process.

I think what I’m objecting to is what seems like some reflexive teamism going on that has normally skeptical liberals (to be clear, I see that as a good thing) all of a sudden trodding out some BS about national security and the need to keep surveillance veiled in secrecy for “the national good.”

Oh yeah, we're in agreement. My position on the Nunez memo has little to nothing to do with what the FBI / DOJ says about it. Though to the extent that there *are* legitimate national security issues involved in releasing the underlying information, obviously that wouldn't help matters.

I'm surprised the potential Hope Hicks obstruction regarding the Donald Jr. Trump Tower meeting hasn't surfaced in this thread yet.

Former Trump team legal spokesperson Mark Corallo had concerns that White House communications director Hope Hicks could be considering obstructing justice after a comment she reportedly made about emails between Donald Trump Jr. and Russians, according to a New York Times story.

Hicks allegedly told President Donald Trump on a conference call that the Trump Jr. emails "will never get out," and Corallo plans to share the conversation with special counsel Robert Mueller, the Times reported Wednesday night, citing three people with knowledge of his interview request.

El Guapo wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:24 am

Kurth wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:00 am

I think what I’m objecting to is what seems like some reflexive teamism going on that has normally skeptical liberals (to be clear, I see that as a good thing) all of a sudden trodding out some BS about national security and the need to keep surveillance veiled in secrecy for “the national good.”

Oh yeah, we're in agreement. My position on the Nunez memo has little to nothing to do with what the FBI / DOJ says about it. Though to the extent that there *are* legitimate national security issues involved in releasing the underlying information, obviously that wouldn't help matters.

I don't think the issue is that Democrats principally fear that the memo contains sensitive info that could be compromised (although that's a possibility given the slapdash way Nunes has proven to operate). The concern is that info is being very selectively packaged and massaged to give an impression of abuse where none exists. The concern is that Nunes is using his power to create an official lie aimed at derailing legitimate investigations.

Holman wrote:

El Guapo wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:24 am

Kurth wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:00 am

I think what I’m objecting to is what seems like some reflexive teamism going on that has normally skeptical liberals (to be clear, I see that as a good thing) all of a sudden trodding out some BS about national security and the need to keep surveillance veiled in secrecy for “the national good.”

Oh yeah, we're in agreement. My position on the Nunez memo has little to nothing to do with what the FBI / DOJ says about it. Though to the extent that there *are* legitimate national security issues involved in releasing the underlying information, obviously that wouldn't help matters.

I don't think the issue is that Democrats principally fear that the memo contains sensitive info that could be compromised (although that's a possibility given the slapdash way Nunes has proven to operate). The concern is that info is being very selectively packaged and massaged to give an impression of abuse where none exists. The concern is that Nunes is using his power to create an official lie aimed at derailing legitimate investigations.

It's sort of both. You're mainly right, but the intelligence community is supposedly furious because it potentially, because no one has really vetted it, contains passages that compromise methods and Republicans particularly Nunez and the WH don't give a shit because it furthers their ability to obstruct.

Also, Rand Paul explained to me this morning why I think the don't trust the FBI shtick doesn't hold water In this case. He's trying to correlate actual law enforcement bias and abuse with the political goals of politicians.
He basically said, because two idiots I the bureau had the idea to speak their public minds on a company phone, the FBI shouldn't be allowed to Investige politicians. Because it makes the FBI political. And that because several members of Trump campaign got caught up in a FISA investigation the FBI shouldn't be allowed to investigate Trumps business dealings based on democratic oppo research document. He even through in that it was unfair to Hillary to investigate her misuse of emails because of leaks.

If we want to talk the FISA should be reworked, fine. But then don't lie and obfuscate the facts, time lines, scope, and seriousness in order to suggest that politicians get a free pass on crime because 2% of cops might be biased against politicians.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Not to mention that political affiliation in your personal life doesn't necessarily (and I'd argue, most of the time doesn't) translate to bias in your career. A good deal of the managers and co-workers I deal with on a daily basis are die-hard Trump supporters. That has zero influence on how I perform my job duties, and in my business interactions with them. I'd think in an intelligence position where being unbiased is part of the job, you'd be even more sensitive to it.

I mean, I thought talking shit about your boss after work was an American institution, no matter what your political stripe.

Doing it on the company phone is generally a career-limiting move.

YellowKing wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:25 am I'd think in an intelligence position where being unbiased is part of the job, you'd be even more sensitive to it.

I can't count how many times I have heard an FBI or CIA employee, whether high, mid level, or low, stating this again and again (and believably, sincerely I think). That yes, of course we all hold political views, but we hold the professionalism of our work and our loyalty to country AND office of the president above those personal views. We do the job as asked, and the best we know how, no matter who is at the top of the chain.

Incredibly, what the WH and Repubs are doing now is actively tearing that neutrality apart. Keep it up, shitbags, and we'll be Peru in 10 years.

As long as Trump believes that the AG's job is to "protect the president" and asks every top law enforcement official for their personal loyalty, I don't think this is about eliminating bias.

So I must be confused here, but didn't Nunez recuse himself from the House investigation last year after it was revealed he was getting all his OMG LIBERAL CONSPIRACY talking points straight from the White House?

Fake News CNN is now reporting that Trump can't stop blabbing to associates how he thinks the memo is going to discredit the Russia investigation.

This guy is one step shy of stamping I AM OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE on his forehead.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:36 am So I must be confused here, but didn't Nunez recuse himself from the House investigation last year after it was revealed he was getting all his OMG LIBERAL CONSPIRACY talking points straight from the White House?

No he recused after he was accused of leaking confidential information and was being investigated by the House Ethics Panel. The Ethics panel eventually 'cleared him'. I'm quoting it because the details that came out about how that investigation was conducted suggests the results are shaky at best. But the upshot is it freed him to resume 'investigating' Trump.

YellowKing wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:44 am Fake News CNN is now reporting that Trump can't stop blabbing to associates how he thinks the memo is going to discredit the Russia investigation.

This guy is one step shy of stamping I AM OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE on his forehead.

I'm at the point where I get how he could be at 'Why not say it'? As long as justice is obstructed then he is in the clear. There are no consequences. He won't be indicted. He won't be impeached. Even if impeached, he won't be convicted. He is in it for the ducats and the ducats shall flow.

For any Trump supporter that doesn't believe that FBI professionals can set aside personal bias to run a legitimate investigation, I'd ask these these questions:

1) Do you support Donald Trump?
2) Doesn't' the fact that you support Donald Trump make you biased and unable to fairly judge any questions related to the President?
3) If you believe that FBI agents are unable to set aside personal bias, then why should I believe you are unable to set aside personal bias? By your own standards, how can I trust you? Will you therefore recuse yourself from any potential impeachment vote?

Isgrimnur wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:32 am Doing it on the company phone is generally a career-limiting move.

Yeah, that was dumb. My understanding is that they were doing that because they were having an affair, and communicating on their personal phones would risk their spouses learning that.

LOL at the idea that the GOP just so earnestly cares about Carter Page and his civil liberties.

Carpet_pissr wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:01 am

YellowKing wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:25 am I'd think in an intelligence position where being unbiased is part of the job, you'd be even more sensitive to it.

I can't count how many times I have heard an FBI or CIA employee, whether high, mid level, or low, stating this again and again (and believably, sincerely I think). That yes, of course we all hold political views, but we hold the professionalism of our work and our loyalty to country AND office of the president above those personal views. We do the job as asked, and the best we know how, no matter who is at the top of the chain.

Right, this applies to all federal employees, not just those that can actually impact high level politics. It's like they're suggesting that the millions of federal employees need to be republican during a republican presidency, and then they are all fired and millions of democrats are hired to replace them when the presidency is held by a democrat.

Ludicrous.

If you can't trust departments to do their job, you're going to spend all your time micromanaging. That's why this questioning of loyalties is not about bias, it's about the lack of bias, and why there isn't bias FOR the president. Its Nixonian in it's corruption.

If there are signs of actual misuse/abuse of authority, then investigate with a bipartisan committee, don't drag departments through the mud, through the media, for political gain. That undermines the federal government as a whole. Of course if that's your goal, then you're a destroyer, not a builder. In the past destroyers destroyed other people and their cultures/countries. Now they want to destroy their own?

It's insanity.

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2018 1:34 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:01 am

YellowKing wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:25 am I'd think in an intelligence position where being unbiased is part of the job, you'd be even more sensitive to it.

I can't count how many times I have heard an FBI or CIA employee, whether high, mid level, or low, stating this again and again (and believably, sincerely I think). That yes, of course we all hold political views, but we hold the professionalism of our work and our loyalty to country AND office of the president above those personal views. We do the job as asked, and the best we know how, no matter who is at the top of the chain.

Right, this applies to all federal employees, not just those that can actually impact high level politics. It's like they're suggesting that the millions of federal employees need to be republican during a republican presidency, and then they are all fired and millions of democrats are hired to replace them when the presidency is held by a democrat.

Ludicrous.

That's kind of how it used to be - federal jobs were kind of a patronage to be awarded to your supporters after winning an election. Obviously that had less than salutary effects on the quality of the federal workforce, which is a big part of the reason that early 20th century reforms moved it to more of a civil service model.

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2018 1:34 pm That undermines the federal government as a whole. Of course if that's your goal, then you're a destroyer, not a builder. In the past destroyers destroyed other people and their cultures/countries. Now they want to destroy their own?

Yes - have you read any Steve Bannon? Heard him talk? Not just the fringe boys either. Lots of current Republicans have corrupted the original "SMALL GOVERNMENT!" Republican party mantra and turned it into "DESTROY/DISTRUST THE GOVERNMENT!". There is definitely an element there that probably realizes that they as a party didn't or couldn't make the government as "small" as they wanted, and now seek to discredit and implode it as a second (maybe first for some) option.

We are watching that happen now. It's been mentioned a thousand times, but look at who was appointed to head up some of the larger federal agencies...generally people who have a history of being "anti" whatever that agency represents.