What's new
By:

White House Discord: Bob Woodward Book, NYT Op-Ed

Stoked said:
@red. I can agree that history will be the judge. It usually is.

But I still feel that we need to be watchful of the FBI, and other government agencies being used for political means. It’s not a precedent we want to really set. Yes a rogue agent is different but they should still be dealt with.
Click to expand...

I would also keep in mind that this president clearly wants to use the Department of Justice for his own political ends. So far, he has not fired Sessions, he has not ended the Mueller investigation. But clearly he would love to do both, and he may fire Sessions after the midterms.

Now FBI director Hoover certainly used the FBI for political ends, so, in that respect, that SOB set that precedent, and my history is a bit foggy at this moment, he was FBI director for so long, maybe he coordinated some of his politicization of his agency with past presidents. I'm not sure, will have to check.

I don't want Trump to put himself above and outside our law. I guess that's the one precedent I would most be concerned with, personally.
 
Zombie said:
Not making the very easy step of simply calling a press conference like they did for Hillary is a hell of a way to botch something. That's ****ing dumb man.
Click to expand...
I do not understand why you believe that making their Trump investigation public seems like a good strategy. Seems to me that they probably wanted to do the opposite. They were using government resources to spy on the opposition parties campaign during the election. They didn't want anyone to know what they were up to. If this is what happened it might have seemed to those insiders like a pretty ingenious plan... until it failed and the opposition party got put into a position of power. Time to start leaking because everything suddenly depends upon destroying any shred of credibility that the new leadership might have.

Yeah, it's conspiracy theory. The crazy thing is, as texts and documents continue to get released they seem to give theories along these lines more credibility, not less.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I respect you, Red. I always have. I agree with you that we stand on different sides of the political spectrum. I've explained on this board many times where I get most of my political news. I listen to Sirus Satellite Radio while driving. I listen in approximately equal portions to CNN, MSNBC and Fox. I rarely listen to Hannity because I am usually eating dinner with my family at that time, but I have heard him, and I have also heard Rachel Maddow. It fascinates me how differently these different sources report the same events. I think it's very useful to see things from the perspective of people who don't agree with you. In my view there is a lot of unhinged and overboard reaction on CNN and MSNBC. I can understand why people become haters when they listen to too much of that hateful rhetoric. Yes, the possibility exists that you will be right and we will discover that Trump is an incredibly hideous threat to our future (comparable to Hitler, etc.). More likely in my mind, I will be right, the Trump era will pass, and some new era will begin with an entirely fresh set of reasons for both sides of the political spectrum to freak out. No matter how this plays out, you appear to me to be a good and well-intentioned person. And I sure do hope you are wrong. I assume that you do too.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Joe. It was Trump's authoritarian streak that most alarmed me, at least to try and put it in just a few words. Thanks for sharing your sources.

Like yourself, I am interested in the existence of narratives that are so in conflict with each other. You'll recall that quite some time ago we had a thread going on possible psychological/brain biological differences between liberals and conservatives.

Although I don't watch Fox, I hear their spin on things all the time. From my wife. Until Trump was elected, I can't believe this, but it's true, I never realized how far apart we were politically, and to a degree, the culture wars. To say it has been difficult on me is putting it mildly. But, at the same time I am witnessing the divisiveness within this country as close to home as it can possibly get. I think that perhaps there was a purpose to this. To teach me that love trumps all, that the differences are somehow inconsequential. But boy, the battles, oh the battles, lol. Shame on me, actually.

Yep, I hope there is reconciliation all around one day. I do believe, where Trump is concerned, that "this too shall pass". I need to remind myself more often. Life is too short.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I do not understand why you believe that making their Trump investigation public seems like a good strategy. Seems to me that they probably wanted to do the opposite. They were using government resources to spy on the opposition parties campaign during the election. They didn't want anyone to know what they were up to. If this is what happened it might have seemed to those insiders like a pretty ingenious plan... until it failed and the opposition party got put into a position of power. Time to start leaking because everything suddenly depends upon destroying any shred of credibility that the new leadership might have.

Yeah, it's conspiracy theory. The crazy thing is, as texts and documents continue to get released they seem to give theories along these lines more credibility, not less.
Click to expand...
Do you not remember the talking point against Hillary (on the right and left) that we shouldn't vote for a president under federal investigation? It's widely recognized that the eleventh hour publicized reopening of the investigation into Hillarys email played a large role in sinking her campaign.

What would even be the point of 'spying' on Donald Trump's campaign if they weren't planning on using the information gathered?
 
Zombie said:
Do you not remember the talking point against Hillary (on the right and left) that we shouldn't vote for a president under federal investigation? It's widely recognized that the eleventh hour publicized reopening of the investigation into Hillarys email played a large role in sinking her campaign.

What would even be the point of 'spying' on Donald Trump's campaign if they weren't planning on using the information gathered?
Click to expand...
We've already agreed that they botched things badly. Yes, the reopening of the investigation was very harmful to Clinton's campaign. We know from Comey's testimony why that happened. Emails that the FBI had previously dismissed as lost had been found on Anthony Weiner's computer. Comey was now in the very uncomfortable position of knowing that the emails would eventually become known, yet having closed the investigation with what many people already believed to be a poorly supported conclusion. Do you recall his bizarre press conference where he called her actions "extremely careless" and then cleared her? He has since testified that he was sure she would win the election even if he reopened the investigation. It appears he believed he had to do it in order to save her credibility and his. I think he was probably right. Unfortunately for him and her, he was wrong about how certain her victory was.

There was no reason for Comey to publicly announce the Trump investigation. First, as noted above he thought the election's outcome was already certain. Second, he didn't necessarily ever want it to be known that he opened an investigation into the campaign of a political rival on the basis of allegations made in an opposition research document. Why do you think the information is only worth gathering if the intention is to use it publically? If this investigation really was opened for the reasons that people on the right are beginning to believe it was, the scandal is huge. Far worse than Watergate. So as I said previously, justifying it once Trump won, and damaging his credibility in every way possible (and yes, I'm in full agreement that Trump make this pretty damn easy) became incredibly important.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
We've already agreed that they botched things badly. Yes, the reopening of the investigation was very harmful to Clinton's campaign. We know from Comey's testimony why that happened. Emails that the FBI had previously dismissed as lost had been found on Anthony Weiner's computer. Comey was now in the very uncomfortable position of knowing that the emails would eventually become known, yet having closed the investigation with what many people already believed to be a poorly supported conclusion. Do you recall his bizarre press conference where he called her actions "extremely careless" and then cleared her? He has since testified that he was sure she would win the election even if he reopened the investigation. It appears he believed he had to do it in order to save her credibility and his. I think he was probably right. Unfortunately for him and her, he was wrong about how certain her victory was.

There was no reason for Comey to publicly announce the Trump investigation. First, as noted above he thought the election's outcome was already certain. Second, he didn't necessarily ever want it to be known that he opened an investigation into the campaign of a political rival on the basis of allegations made in an opposition research document. Why do you think the information is only worth gathering if the intention is to use it publically? If this investigation really was opened for the reasons that people on the right are beginning to believe it was, the scandal is huge. Far worse than Watergate. So as I said previously, justifying it once Trump won, and damaging his credibility in every way possible (and yes, I'm in full agreement that Trump make this pretty damn easy) became incredibly important.
Click to expand...
Your head is so full of misinformation I don't even know where to start. For one the investigation into Trumps campaign started well before the dossier. Comey should never have made the announcement about Hillary that he did, it's not his job to take the political calculations into account when making those kinds of decisions. You are the one claiming the FBI was spying on Trump's campaign because they had it out for him, I'm pointing out that doesn't make any sense because if that were true why wouldn't they have used the information they gathered to try to prevent his election. They could have leaked the details to the press or the opposition, and kept the whole spying Op under wraps.
 
Zombie said:
Your head is so full of misinformation I don't even know where to start. For one the investigation into Trumps campaign started well before the dossier. Comey should never have made the announcement about Hillary that he did, it's not his job to take the political calculations into account when making those kinds of decisions. You are the one claiming the FBI was spying on Trump's campaign because they had it out for him, I'm pointing out that doesn't make any sense because if that were true why wouldn't they have used the information they gathered to try to prevent his election. They could have leaked the details to the press or the opposition, and kept the whole spying Op under wraps.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clearing so much up for me. I was previously unaware that the only motivation to spy on someone was in order to reveal what you learn publicly. I'm also looking forward to learning the reasons that the investigation was opened in the first place.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Thanks for clearing so much up for me. I was previously unaware that the only motivation to spy on someone was in order to reveal what you learn publicly. I'm also looking forward to learning the reasons that the investigation was opened in the first place.
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ dude. That's what the right wing is alleging. That the FBI was spying on Trump to hurt him. I'm pointing out that literally makes no sense.
 
Red said:
I would also keep in mind that this president clearly wants to use the Department of Justice for his own political ends. So far, he has not fired Sessions, he has not ended the Mueller investigation. But clearly he would love to do both, and he may fire Sessions after the midterms.

Now FBI director Hoover certainly used the FBI for political ends, so, in that respect, that SOB set that precedent, and my history is a bit foggy at this moment, he was FBI director for so long, maybe he coordinated some of his politicization of his agency with past presidents. I'm not sure, will have to check.

I don't want Trump to put himself above and outside our law. I guess that's the one precedent I would most be concerned with, personally.
Click to expand...

While not equal I find them all concerning. I don’t want the justice dept used as a political weapon either. I agree that is more dangerous. But that has been talked about endlessly. Less attention has been in the FBI agents. At least in conversations I’ve been involved in.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I didn't say the leak strategy was to protect Hillary. It was to harm Trump.
Click to expand...

Your said, "Here is an example: It has become absolutely clear that Peter Strozk was utilizing his position in the FBI to protect Hillary and harm Trump. There is indisputable proof that he was purposely leaking information to the press in order to accomplish both those objectives."

Has the meaning of the word "both" changed in the last few days?
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I do not understand why you believe that making their Trump investigation public seems like a good strategy. Seems to me that they probably wanted to do the opposite. They were using government resources to spy on the opposition parties campaign during the election. They didn't want anyone to know what they were up to.
Click to expand...

So, they planned to sabotage Trump's campaign by not saying anything negative about Trump? Those devious jerks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top