The Unofficial *Official* Politics Thread
- Thread starter House of Wax
- Start date
House of Wax
Active member
House of Wax
Active member
rlmccarty2000
Active member
Just waiting on the infamous “Pee-pee tape” to be released. Makes me proud to be ‘Merican. Where there is smoke there is fire.
Rumor has it that tape was the inspiration for the Donald`s often used "Leaker and a Layer" accusation.
Anthony O.
New member
If the driver of the bus, who committed the horrible crime of killing people with a rented van, turns out to be Muslim, is it time to ban Muslim`s from van and truck rentals? Perhaps he was a virgin who wanted to seek justice against a perverse generation? Do all virgins share in this guilt?
Are not all Muslims guilty and have blood on their hands because of a few who do these horrible acts?
What of virgins?
Are not all Muslims guilty and have blood on their hands because of a few who do these horrible acts?
What of virgins?
rlmccarty2000
Active member
Can we possibly get a Director of Veterans Affairs that actually knows something about running a huge healthcare business? I’m for privatization, but that seems to be such a good idea that no one will take it seriously. Just keep forcing Veterans to get substandard care instead of giving them a choice of real doctors. All the VA winds up with is doctors that can’t make it in private practice.
jrock645
New member
Veterans deserve so much better thn to suffer because of political bs. Absolutely should be privatized. Only thing the VA would seem uniquely more qualified to handle would be ptsd, but even that could likely be handled better by giving vets access to the best dr’s in their area.
This actually seems like a relatively easy problem to fix. Like you said, though...
rlmccarty2000
Active member
There are not enough psychiatrists to fill current needs. My closest VA Med Center has slots for 10 psychiatrists and only 3 of the slots are filled. The VA has a vetting system that takes so long that most qualified doctors do not want to put the time and trouble into. The system is so broken that the only solution is to close the doors and let the private sector take over. But it’s like the Post Office, so entrenched that it will never go away.
Setec Astronomy
Well-known member
Well, now that that`s all settled:
https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo..._committee_report_redacted_final_redacted.pdf
https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo..._committee_report_redacted_final_redacted.pdf
House of Wax
Active member
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018...court-manafort/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
House of Wax
Active member
https://www.wsj.com/articles/about-...11?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/n7IcV5frzD
The Department of Justice lost its latest battle with Congress Thursday when it agreed to brief House Intelligence Committee members about a top-secret intelligence source that was part of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. Even without official confirmation of that source’s name, the news so far holds some stunning implications.
Among them is that the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation outright hid critical information from a congressional investigation. In a Thursday press conference, Speaker Paul Ryan bluntly noted that Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes’s request for details on this secret source was “wholly appropriate,” “completely within the scope” of the committee’s long-running FBI investigation, and “something that probably should have been answered a while ago.” Translation: The department knew full well it should have turned this material over to congressional investigators last year, but instead deliberately concealed it.
House investigators nonetheless sniffed out a name, and Mr. Nunes in recent weeks issued a letter and a subpoena demanding more details. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s response was to double down—accusing the House of “extortion” and delivering a speech in which he claimed that “declining to open the FBI’s files to review” is a constitutional “duty.” Justice asked the White House to back its stonewall. And it even began spinning that daddy of all superspook arguments—that revealing any detail about this particular asset could result in “loss of human lives.”
This is desperation, and it strongly suggests that whatever is in these files is going to prove very uncomfortable to the FBI.
The bureau already has some explaining to do. Thanks to the Washington Post’s unnamed law-enforcement leakers, we know Mr. Nunes’s request deals with a “top secret intelligence source” of the FBI and CIA, who is a U.S. citizen and who was involved in the Russia collusion probe. When government agencies refer to sources, they mean people who appear to be average citizens but use their profession or contacts to spy for the agency. Ergo, we might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign.
This would amount to spying, and it is hugely disconcerting. It would also be a major escalation from the electronic surveillance we already knew about, which was bad enough. Obama political appointees rampantly “unmasked” Trump campaign officials to monitor their conversations, while the FBI played dirty with its surveillance warrant against Carter Page, failing to tell the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that its supporting information came from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Now we find it may have also been rolling out human intelligence, John Le Carré style, to infiltrate the Trump campaign.
Which would lead to another big question for the FBI: When? The bureau has been doggedly sticking with its story that a tip in July 2016 about the drunken ramblings of George Papadopoulos launched its counterintelligence probe. Still, the players in this affair—the FBI, former Director Jim Comey, the Steele dossier authors—have been suspiciously vague on the key moments leading up to that launch date. When precisely was the Steele dossier delivered to the FBI? When precisely did the Papadopoulos information come in?
And to the point, when precisely was this human source operating? Because if it was prior to that infamous Papadopoulos tip, then the FBI isn’t being straight. It would mean the bureau was spying on the Trump campaign prior to that moment. And that in turn would mean that the FBI had been spurred to act on the basis of something other than a junior campaign aide’s loose lips.
We also know that among the Justice Department’s stated reasons for not complying with the Nunes subpoena was its worry that to do so might damage international relationships. This suggests the “source” may be overseas, have ties to foreign intelligence, or both. That’s notable, given the highly suspicious role foreigners have played in this escapade. It was an Australian diplomat who reported the Papadopoulos conversation. Dossier author Christopher Steele is British, used to work for MI6, and retains ties to that spy agency as well as to a network of former spooks. It was a former British diplomat who tipped off Sen. John McCain to the dossier. How this “top secret” source fits into this puzzle could matter deeply.
I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it. But what is clear is that we’ve barely scratched the surface of the FBI’s 2016 behavior, and the country will never get the straight story until President Trump moves to declassify everything possible. It’s time to rip off the Band-Aid.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
The Department of Justice lost its latest battle with Congress Thursday when it agreed to brief House Intelligence Committee members about a top-secret intelligence source that was part of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. Even without official confirmation of that source’s name, the news so far holds some stunning implications.
Among them is that the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation outright hid critical information from a congressional investigation. In a Thursday press conference, Speaker Paul Ryan bluntly noted that Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes’s request for details on this secret source was “wholly appropriate,” “completely within the scope” of the committee’s long-running FBI investigation, and “something that probably should have been answered a while ago.” Translation: The department knew full well it should have turned this material over to congressional investigators last year, but instead deliberately concealed it.
House investigators nonetheless sniffed out a name, and Mr. Nunes in recent weeks issued a letter and a subpoena demanding more details. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s response was to double down—accusing the House of “extortion” and delivering a speech in which he claimed that “declining to open the FBI’s files to review” is a constitutional “duty.” Justice asked the White House to back its stonewall. And it even began spinning that daddy of all superspook arguments—that revealing any detail about this particular asset could result in “loss of human lives.”
This is desperation, and it strongly suggests that whatever is in these files is going to prove very uncomfortable to the FBI.
The bureau already has some explaining to do. Thanks to the Washington Post’s unnamed law-enforcement leakers, we know Mr. Nunes’s request deals with a “top secret intelligence source” of the FBI and CIA, who is a U.S. citizen and who was involved in the Russia collusion probe. When government agencies refer to sources, they mean people who appear to be average citizens but use their profession or contacts to spy for the agency. Ergo, we might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign.
This would amount to spying, and it is hugely disconcerting. It would also be a major escalation from the electronic surveillance we already knew about, which was bad enough. Obama political appointees rampantly “unmasked” Trump campaign officials to monitor their conversations, while the FBI played dirty with its surveillance warrant against Carter Page, failing to tell the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that its supporting information came from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Now we find it may have also been rolling out human intelligence, John Le Carré style, to infiltrate the Trump campaign.
Which would lead to another big question for the FBI: When? The bureau has been doggedly sticking with its story that a tip in July 2016 about the drunken ramblings of George Papadopoulos launched its counterintelligence probe. Still, the players in this affair—the FBI, former Director Jim Comey, the Steele dossier authors—have been suspiciously vague on the key moments leading up to that launch date. When precisely was the Steele dossier delivered to the FBI? When precisely did the Papadopoulos information come in?
And to the point, when precisely was this human source operating? Because if it was prior to that infamous Papadopoulos tip, then the FBI isn’t being straight. It would mean the bureau was spying on the Trump campaign prior to that moment. And that in turn would mean that the FBI had been spurred to act on the basis of something other than a junior campaign aide’s loose lips.
We also know that among the Justice Department’s stated reasons for not complying with the Nunes subpoena was its worry that to do so might damage international relationships. This suggests the “source” may be overseas, have ties to foreign intelligence, or both. That’s notable, given the highly suspicious role foreigners have played in this escapade. It was an Australian diplomat who reported the Papadopoulos conversation. Dossier author Christopher Steele is British, used to work for MI6, and retains ties to that spy agency as well as to a network of former spooks. It was a former British diplomat who tipped off Sen. John McCain to the dossier. How this “top secret” source fits into this puzzle could matter deeply.
I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it. But what is clear is that we’ve barely scratched the surface of the FBI’s 2016 behavior, and the country will never get the straight story until President Trump moves to declassify everything possible. It’s time to rip off the Band-Aid.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Setec Astronomy
Well-known member
Just to be clear, and for the record, that`s an opinion column, and not news reporting.
rlmccarty2000
Active member
I will be very happy when all this is over with. I lived through the Watergate and Bill Clinton scandal eras. Nothing gets done in the government when there is a scandal. No one really wants to pick a side then lose. Of course the Republicans really didn’t want Trump as their candidate so I doubt there will be any crying on either side of the aisle if Trump is found guilty of something. As much as I despise Trump,VP Pence scares me more with his positions on moral issues. You are right about this being an opinion column, these days there are too many people taking other peoples opinion as fact.
Setec Astronomy
Well-known member
I believe the other day Mr. Giuliani stated "how do you separate opinion from fact?"...that`s a pretty serious problem if we as a nation can`t figure that out.
PS To put a finer point on it, I remember O`Reilly getting asked about some of the questionable "news" on his show, and his answer was, his was an opinion show, not a news show. When it was pointed out that his show was on Fox NEWS, and did viewers understand he was giving his opinion rather than news, he maintained that everyone knew the difference.
Ronkh
Wax Waster
BREAKING: Mueller to indict 62,984,828 Americans for conspiring to elect Trump
rlmccarty2000
Active member
Each one of the was using Facebook to get their “opinions”.