What's new
By:
Filters

Donald Fires FBI Director who's investigating Russian Election Hacking

Stoked said:
I do have a question in regards to this whole thing that I would like someone to explain it to me if they wish.

The WH meeting with the Russians (Lavrov) where the President release classified info. Yes it looks bad and was probably poor judgment which is reason to have concerns. But isn't that up to his and his teams discretion? Are they not perfectly justified, legally, in releasing that info? Yes or no, and why?
Click to expand...

The President can release any classified intel he wants, so I guess it's perfectly legal. Perfectly justifiable isn't as clear:

"Intelligence sharing between allies -- in particular those as close as Israel and the US -- is standard practice. But Sofrin points to an unwritten rule between intelligence agencies: sensitive information will not be shared with other countries without explicit permission, and the way in which that information is shared will reflect its sensitivity.

In defending Trump's disclosure of the information, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster appeared to acknowledge Tuesday that those protocols had not been followed. "I should just make the statement here that the President wasn't even aware of where the information came from," he said. "He wasn't briefed on the source or method of the information either."......

".....Russia's alliance with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which has close ties to Iran -- and by proxy, the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah -- means Israel must be careful with its intelligence.
This caution specifically applies to intelligence about ISIS, where Arad says there is no security coordination with the Russians.

Arad points out that not sharing classified information, especially with an ally as close as the United States, is not feasible.
"The only other option is not to say anything, but that can lead to even greater harm [to Israeli interests]," Arad said. "Leaders must be able to weigh the benefits and costs when speaking with other leaders."

The concern is that Trump never made that calculation."

https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/israel-trump-intelligence/

I think Trump potentially put in danger the Israeli agent embedded within ISIS, and who was the ultimate source of the intelligence Trump shared with the Russians.
 
It looks one result of an appointment of a Special Council is that we will almost certainly not hear Comey speak in any public hearings. After Congressional leaders were briefed by the Asst. Attorney General yesterday, Sen. Graham and others stated to reporters that the investigation by Mueller should be regarded as a criminal investigation. Making it unlikely he would allow any potential witness to disclose evidence in any public hearing. I think it was Graham himself who stated to reporters that appointment of a Special Council or Special Prosecutor means "the public loses". We should no longer come to expect leaks either, at least not from Meuller's investigation. I think the Congressional investigations continue, however.
 
Stoked said:
lol, stop with the "they would have done it" excuses. Terrible argument. My reply to that is the same as when Bush was brought up on Obama stuff. Obama isn't in charge anymore and this isn't about him. Never a good argument.

I have almost 0 faith that this is about the media "doing their jobs". All your call for perspective is is an attempt to make your view on it the norm.

And I am not defending the President. I am glad the congressional hearings and a prosecutor was named. It needs an investigation. Absolutely. But no, I don't believe the media is doing their job in any kind of good faith.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that there is a feeding frenzy among liberal leaning media. They compete among themselves, and in the case of broadcast media, especially the cable outlets, too often they are competing for ratings, and for years now our big news stories have often been presented in an entertainment oriented format. Like taking a big national event and giving it a label or title like "Terror in the Heartland" or some such. Just making that last part up, but all the big events that become big news are often packaged as entertainment with movie-like titles.

One thing I would point out. Trump has brought much of what has happened upon himself, both through his words and his actions. And, while we would still have a liberal press and media determined to go after him, we can also point to the fact that, during the campaign, at his rallies the press was kept segregated in chicken wire cages, and in each and every rally, Trump encouraged catcalls and derision be directed against those press/media representatives that were present. As well, the whole "fake news" narrative promoted by Trump, and absorbed and subscribed to by his base, probably was bound to only increase bias against Trump on the part of those media outlets he singled out as lying about him, and promoting fake news. Surely, that cannot help. The media is made up of human beings, and he spent months attacking those people. If he expected to be treated "fairly" once elected, that was not the best tact to take to get a result different from the result we now have from that media.
 
Stoked said:
I have almost 0 faith that this is about the media "doing their jobs".
Click to expand...

Well, whether approaching things and interpreting things from a left leaning perspective, or a right leaning perspective, the press and media are going to reflect a bias. But, and somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but did not the founding generation view the press, the so-called Fourth Estate, as the "watchdogs" of American society? Was it not expected that a free press would keep the public informed and educated if that free press discovered information that that free press felt the public, the citizenry, the electorate, should know? Should be brought to the attention of the electorate? Even acknowledging an underlying bias, are not organs like the Post and Times publishing info in their role as "watchdogs"? It's not as if, at least as I see it, that the info they are revealing, and which has led directly to a Special Prosecutor, is simply so much BS. Although Trump is claiming it is. But is it not in fact still justifiable in seeing the press as in fact "doing their job" as the founding generation envisioned?
 
Some older musings on the role of the press as society's "watchdogs".

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/tags/watchdog.html

https://www.ee.columbia.edu/~shane/words/watchdog.htm

And examples of notable investigative journalism in American history:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/broo...rthy-moments-in-u-s-investigative-journalism/

I guess I would argue, as I have elsewhere in this thread, that good investigative journalism is what organs like the Times and Post are doing. But I fully understand that point of view that sees this investigative journalism as fanning a type of feeding frenzy with the aim of removing Trump from office. But, it will come down, for many, to whether one believes what is being reported is nothing but "much ado about nothing"(certainly that is Trump's view and his base does see the liberal press as having the aim of destroying the Trump Presidency), or whether one believes these revelations should be forthcoming and the public should know these things. We live in one of the most polarizing eras in our nation's history, so that polarization will be reflected in the manner people respond to this investigative journalism.
 
Good grief.

Stoked is already blaming this as a media "witch hunt." Sigh

I just wish he shared the same skeptism when he was posting thread after thread about Clinton and Benghazi. Funny how in some people's views democrats and liberals can do no right while the other side can do no wrong.
 
Red said:
Well, whether approaching things and interpreting things from a left leaning perspective, or a right leaning perspective, the press and media are going to reflect a bias. But, and somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but did not the founding generation view the press, the so-called Fourth Estate, as the "watchdogs" of American society? Was it not expected that a free press would keep the public informed and educated if that free press discovered information that that free press felt the public, the citizenry, the electorate, should know? Should be brought to the attention of the electorate? Even acknowledging an underlying bias, are not organs like the Post and Times publishing info in their role as "watchdogs"? It's not as if, at least as I see it, that the info they are revealing, and which has led directly to a Special Prosecutor, is simply so much BS. Although Trump is claiming it is. But is it not in fact still justifiable in seeing the press as in fact "doing their job" as the founding generation envisioned?
Click to expand...

Good post but this is not how I view the press (that applies across the board). I do not think they are in it to be a watchdog. They are in it to whip up emotion and direct the people where they want them to go. I do not see the media faithfully carrying out their role as watchdogs.

Good investigative journalism is fantastic. I hope it continues forever. The problem I have is with how they present what that journalism found.

I also agree with your earlier post about the President bringing a lot of this on himself. I am very interested in what they find. I think they will find something but I am not sure what.
 
Stoked said:
Good post but this is not how I view the press (that applies across the board). I do not think they are in it to be a watchdog. They are in it to whip up emotion and direct the people where they want them to go. I do not see the media faithfully carrying out their role as watchdogs.

Good investigative journalism is fantastic. I hope it continues forever. The problem I have is with how they present what that journalism found.

I also agree with your earlier post about the President bringing a lot of this on himself. I am very interested in what they find. I think they will find something but I am not sure what.
Click to expand...

Well in that respect, I do find some degree of difference between print journalism, which I personally depend on for 95% of the news I read, and broadcast journalism, particularly of the cable venue, where the left and right echo chambers are seldom disguised very well at all, as far as promoting their respective narratives/agendas. Since the Comey firing, I have been watching the MSNBC echo chamber nightly. While I like the first hour, because I respect the sharp and quick thinking mind of Chris Matthews, and while I like the depth of investigation that Rachel Maddow has been undertaking, particularly in following the Manafort money trail, overall, I do not like, and have never liked, the tone of almost, well not almost, rather literal level of outright glee and "too cutesy" deliveries of Maddow and the others in that 7-11 pm Eastern time zone nightly presentation of talking heads. I really get turned off by that as I like Joe Friday's "just the facts, ma'am" approach. But, although print journalism can convey the presence of agendas by the type of headlines they use, I just find good journalism is more prevalent in the venue of print journalism. I think there are some very good such journalists out there, but I do admit editorial staffs may direct agendas and influence what is or is not reported.
 
DutchJazzer said:
well but nobody trusted comey a few weeks ago. not the left not the right

but suddnely when trump fires him the left loves him!


nobody had confidence in comey now they do?

hahahahaa
Click to expand...

These are blatantly not true. Upset with him? Yeah. Feel like something was dirty? Yes.

Did they trust him? Yes.
 
DutchJazzer said:
well but nobody trusted comey a few weeks ago. not the left not the right

but suddnely when trump fires him the left loves him!


nobody had confidence in comey now they do?

hahahahaa
Click to expand...

People have not been criticizing this move because of how much they "love" Comey. I don't think he's anybody's favorite. Can you please try to understand that instead of trying to score additional jackass points.?
 
Bulletproof said:
People have not been criticizing this move because of how much they "love" Comey. I don't think he's anybody's favorite. Can you please try to understand that instead of trying to score additional jackass points.?
Click to expand...

it isn't about favorites. media pundits, politician on both left and right saw him as untrustworthy and incompetent. suddenly a note he writes might be irrefutable evidence in the eye of the left
 
DutchJazzer said:
it isn't about favorites. media pundits, politician on both left and right saw him as untrustworthy and incompetent. suddenly a note he writes might be irrefutable evidence in the eye of the left
Click to expand...

In the eyes of a court. Huge difference
 
DutchJazzer said:
it isn't about favorites. media pundits, politician on both left and right saw him as untrustworthy and incompetent. suddenly a note he writes might be irrefutable evidence in the eye of the left
Click to expand...

Quite a few memos involved, not just that particular one. And it will be Mueller, not media pundits, not Republicans, not Democrats, who will decide the credibility of Comey's contemporaneous memos. And yes, if Trump cannot produce evidence(tapes??) that contradict Comey's memos, then those memos may very well carry considerable weight, regardless of what partisans from either direction may feel. And because testimony will not be public, and Mueller is known to be extremely demanding where not leaking info is concerned, we are all likely in for a long wait. At any rate, your opinion is beside the point at this stage. If Trump had not fired Comey, we would not even have a Special Prosecutor now. As recently as a week ago, the Ast. Attorney General had no intention of appointing a Special Council. The revelation of the Comey memo stating that Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation of Flynn led to where we are. So I guess that Ast. Attorney General thought somewhat better of Comey then you do. And it now turns out that Ast. Attorney General knew before he wrote his opinion of Comey that Trump intended to fire Comey. Now, is this Comey's revenge? Well, he enjoys his reputation for integrity, which you cannot strip from him, BTW. But, bottom line, Trump uses his head for once, and all this is not even happening........
 
When I was stationed aboard the USS Nimitz (CVN 68) I was assigned to temporary duty for 6 months to shipboard security. My training for that role was minimal and piecemeal. However, we were all required to carry a notebook. We could not choose what type of notebook, we had to carry the standard notebook. Also, we could not remove any pages from the notebook. We could not erase anything from the notebook. We could not obscure entries made in the notebook in any way. It was stressed to us that this notebook was potential evidence for any encounter we had in the line of duty. New entries must be made on the first available page. etc.

Anyway, these notes are not taken as a one-off. If the notebook is submitted as evidence it is submitted as a whole. If there are any irregularities or inconsistencies the entire notebook can be ruled invalid.

There are standards here. They will be adhered to. I'd assume the Director of the FBI dots his "I's" and crosses his "T's" with the best of them.
 
Last edited:
Steak...and ketchup?

Burn him. Hang him. Cover him in Honey and let the ants eat him.
 
Stoked said:
Was looking at the news yesterday and I saw that Joe Lieberman is the leading candidate to take Comey's place leading the FBI. Was surprising to me because as far as I knew it came out of left field.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/wa...o-picking-a-new-fbi-1495135505-htmlstory.html

Thought's on him if he is the choice?
Click to expand...

Bad choice in my opinion. Not that I particularly have anything against Lieberman, but he is too old for a 10-year appointment, and it would be better if the position was held by someone that is not a politician.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top