The FBI in revolt? re Clinton

Joe?

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/01/07/right-wing-media-cite-discre...

The Daily Caller? Brietbart and Drudge unavailable?

This is why I find it impossible to have meaningful discussions about campaigns.

The two sides on any discussion cannot even agree on the facts.

If you believe the corporate media's facts, of course Hillary is the better candidate.

If you believe the alternative media's facts, of course Trump is the better candidate.

Of course both are 75%-80% BS and 20%-25% grounded in reality. But even if you try to discuss with someone who agrees with this balanced outlook, you're going to believe different things are the "true" 20%.

There are several threads here disparaging those who would support Trump over Clinton. How could they be so blind/hateful/stupid etc? They are none of those things. They just believe a different set of equally credible facts.

Quote:

Someone who believes that hillary is a heartless corporate shill who wants to start a war with Russia to mask the incoming financial collapse would naturally (and rightly) support trump.

Is that one of those "facts" that people sadly cannot agree on?

Because that's your speculation, not a fact.

Quote:

but I bet 90% of the population is not even self aware enough to know the actual reason they hate the candidate they hate. They have the reasons they say they hate the candidate but, chances are, that is just the lie they say to themself and anyone else.

I know, right?

Fortunately, the other 10% are honest enough to stick with FACTS, like:

Quote:

hillary is a heartless corporate shill who wants to start a war with Russia to mask the incoming financial collapse

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Cody87 wrote:

This is why I find it impossible to have meaningful discussions about campaigns.

The two sides on any discussion cannot even agree on the facts.

If you believe the corporate media's facts, of course Hillary is the better candidate.

If you believe the alternative media's facts, of course Trump is the better candidate.

Of course both are 75%-80% BS and 20%-25% grounded in reality. But even if you try to discuss with someone who agrees with this balanced outlook, you're going to believe different things are the "true" 20%.

There are several threads here disparaging those who would support Trump over Clinton. How could they be so blind/hateful/stupid etc? They are none of those things. They just believe a different set of equally credible facts.

JKR wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

This is why I find it impossible to have meaningful discussions about campaigns.

The two sides on any discussion cannot even agree on the facts.

If you believe the corporate media's facts, of course Hillary is the better candidate.

If you believe the alternative media's facts, of course Trump is the better candidate.

Of course both are 75%-80% BS and 20%-25% grounded in reality. But even if you try to discuss with someone who agrees with this balanced outlook, you're going to believe different things are the "true" 20%.

There are several threads here disparaging those who would support Trump over Clinton. How could they be so blind/hateful/stupid etc? They are none of those things. They just believe a different set of equally credible facts.

Independent fact finding organizations have found that Trump is the most deceitful major politician out there while Clinton is generally truthful compared to other politicians.

http://politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

http://politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

http://politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

The FBI is "independant". The corporate media is "independant". Polling is "independant". Just because an entity is "independant" doesn't mean it is free from interference in practice (hence the " marks), and doesn't have it's own biases.

I have seen polifact rate essentially identical statements from Trump and Sanders mostly false for Trump and mostly true for Sanders. I have also seen them take a true statement from Trump downgraded to half true on minor technicalities that are not relevant to the statement. 

But even beyond that, who chooses which statements get assessed for truthfulness? Do they go back and review when new information becomes available?

I bet they didn't assess when Clinton told the FBI she can't remember various details about her email server. I bet they didn't assess when Clinton told the public she was "overheating" or had a cough because of "allergies". And I bet they gave Trump a "false" when he says it was Bernie supporters starting violence at his rallies. As it turns out, it was Clinton's paid protestors pretending to be Bernie supporters - so it'll stay false even though we all know (if we're being honest with ourselves and each other) the important point is that it's not his supporters causing the problems.

Cody87 wrote:

But even beyond that, who chooses which statements get assessed for truthfulness? Do they go back and review when new information becomes available?

Usually they just have to go back to the video of Trump to see that he is lying.

iyraste1313 wrote:

Is This Why Comey Broke: A Stack Of Resignation Letters From Furious FBI Agentsby Tyler DurdenOct 30, 2016 6:30 

Conspiracy theories have swirled in recent days as to why FBI Director James Comey reopened Hillary's email investigation after just closing it back in July concluding that, although Hillary had demonstrated gross negligence in her establishment of a private email server, that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against her.  Democrats, after lavishing Comey with praise for months on concluding his investigation in an "impartial" way, have since lashed out at him for seeking to influence the 2016 election cycle with Hillary herself describing his recent actions as "deeply troubling".  Republicans, on the other hand, have praised Comey's recent efforts as an attempt to correct a corrupt investigation that seemingly ignored critical evidence while granting numerous immunity agreements to Clinton staffers.

According to the Daily Mail, and a source close to James Comey, the decision, at least in part, came after he"could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI" who "felt that he betrayed them and brought disgrace on the bureau by letting Hillary off with a slap on the wrist."

James Comey's decision to revive the investigation of Hillary Clinton's email server and her handling of classified material came after he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI, including some of his top deputies, according to a source close to the embattled FBI director.

 

'The atmosphere at the FBI has been toxic ever since Jim announced last July that he wouldn't recommend an indictment against Hillary,' said the source, a close friend who has known Comey for nearly two decades, shares family outings with him, and accompanies him to Catholic mass every week.

 

'Some people, including department heads, stopped talking to Jim, and even ignored his greetings when they passed him in the hall,' said the source. 'They felt that he betrayed them and brought disgrace on the bureau by letting Hillary off with a slap on the wrist.'

 

According to the source, Comey fretted over the problem for months and discussed it at great length with his wife, Patrice.

 

He told his wife that he was depressed by the stack of resignation letters piling up on his desk from disaffected agents. The letters reminded him every day that morale in the FBI had hit rock bottom.

 

'The people he trusts the most have been the angriest at him,' the source continued. 'And that includes his wife, Pat. She kept urging him to admit that he had been wrong when he refused to press charges against the former secretary of state.

the proof is in the pudding...there are facts out there as described here, whether they may come from so called discreditted sources or not...facts are facts!

So he interfered in an election to make things better for himself around the water cooler at work?

iyraste1313 wrote:

...the proof is in the pudding...there are facts out there as described here, whether they may come from so called discreditted sources or not...facts are facts!

Anonymous sources can neither be credited or discredited. Anonymous sources are anonymous, and thereofore nothing they say (if in fact they exist) can be checked.

That's usually why people discount anonymous sources.

I'm still trying to figure out what charges should have been pressed.  There's no evidence that the email nonsense was anything more than negligence.  And no harm resulted.  Moreover, the FBI only makes recommendations.  Prosecutors decide whether to prosecute.

Let's see, um...hypocracy? What else?

Cody87 wrote:

This is why I find it impossible to have meaningful discussions about campaigns.

The two sides on any discussion cannot even agree on the facts.

If you believe the corporate media's facts, of course Hillary is the better candidate.

If you believe the alternative media's facts, of course Trump is the better candidate.

Of course both are 75%-80% BS and 20%-25% grounded in reality. But even if you try to discuss with someone who agrees with this balanced outlook, you're going to believe different things are the "true" 20%.

There are several threads here disparaging those who would support Trump over Clinton. How could they be so blind/hateful/stupid etc? They are none of those things. They just believe a different set of equally credible facts.

It's not even that. Elections in the US are fixed, not necessarily in terms of who gets elected, but the public policies that are deemed "acceptable" are narrow in their scope and tend to benefit the corporate elite. Look at Obamacare, for example. It's essentially a public subsidy to health and pharmaceutical companies. Obama didn't even make the case for single payer or the public option, either one of which would have expanded coverage for medical care and been more affordable not only for the public but the government. That is one of the reasons elections in the US become so nasty and personal, because the competing factions need to find a way to distinguish themselves when their public policy proposals are so similar. And this bluster between Trump and Clinton is just that: it is theatre. They don't mean any of it. Trump is good friends with the Clintons, and will continue to be so after the election. So these Trump or Clinton supporters screaming and calling each other names can't see that they are being manipulated. No matter who wins, income inequality will continue to grow, greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise, more people will fall into despair, and the fear of terrorism will be used to justify foreign wars abroad and crackdowns on civic dissent at home.

Please, wake me up on November 9 when this nonsense is over.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

josh wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out what charges should have been pressed.  There's no evidence that the email nonsense was anything more than negligence.

That in itself is sufficient evidence to press charges in espionage cases. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden had to leave the country, and Chelsea Manning is in jail, all 3 of them on less grounds than what Clinton did.

josh wrote:

And no harm resulted.

Sending classified information through unsecure e-mail is dangerous. People have already admitted to hacking into her e-mail. You so much leave behind a briefcase marked "classifed" in a bar bathroom and you can get in serious trouble.

josh wrote:

Moreover, the FBI only makes recommendations.  Prosecutors decide whether to prosecute.

So the Democrats are in control of the Executive Branch of the government. The Democratic Party machine has decided that Clinton will be the nominee. So there's a criminal investigation of Clinton's e-mails, and the Justice Department won't charge Clinton. You really believe that Clinton facing no charges is a coincidence?

The cases you mention are totally not comparable. And she had top clearance. That something may be dangerous doesn't make it criminal.

Quote:

You can criticize Assange for choosing the timing of when to release these e-mails

Isn't that what people are primarily criticizing him for?

bekayne wrote:

 

This is your LAST CHANCE to take America back. If you allow the Clintons and the corrupt democrats to seize power through widespread fraud and theft, there will never be an open, fair and free election in America ever again. All opponents of Clinton will be imprisoned or executed. All conservative media outlets will be taken offline or silenced. The borders will be opened to a massive wave of illegal aliens from all across the world, and they will overrun and occupy America, destroying it from within while the bigoted, intolerant democrats turn the entire nation into a "sanctuary nation" where illegals have absolute immunity while patriots are executed or imprisoned by the millions.

I didn't notice this post. Was it really written from someone here at babble? If so,what the hell happened to this place?

dp

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

You can criticize Assange for choosing the timing of when to release these e-mails

Isn't that what people are primarily criticizing him for?

More to the point his web site has been weponized by the Russians. They are the ones who got the e-mails for him to publish right during the elections. Why the Russians think Trump will be easyer on them is just nuts. Teh first time they try and fuck him over he's going to go nuts.

I wish that people would properly source their quotes and not splice their texts into other people's quotes. The "this is your last chance" posting was from iyraste1313 and not bekayne.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

More to the point his web site has been weponized by the Russians. 

Has there been any credible evidence to suggest this is the case?

I mean DNCleaks was Russia, Wikileaks is Russia, Trump is Russia, O'Keefe is Russia, hell, I have literally seen claims online (not here, though it could be here too I haven't looked) that Comey is Russia. 

Is it actually Russia or is that just a useful scapegoat to distract from how unbelievably corrupt Clinton is?

The 1980's called and they want their foreign policy back.

Rev Pesky wrote:

It is some sort of curious psychological quirk that makes people think Russia gives a shit who the president is. If the Russians really wanted to insert themselves into American politics, they would be trying to elect, or un-elect Senators.

I agree with you about that not being the goal, but as for the question of whether they interfere in foreign elections, yes they do.

They do it in France by funding Marine LePen's party. They are believed to be funding the racist Jobbik party in Hungary, and if they aren't they have certainly lent them credibility by inviting them to Crimea to oversee their sham referendum. Sam efor several other far right European parties.

They have done it in less direct ways in Britain and Germany by leaking fake news which has influenced elections:

Quote:

German officials say the controversy -- known as the “Lisa Affair” -- was ginned up by President Vladimir Putin’s propaganda machine to undermine Merkel in the run up to last month’s regional elections, which resulted in stinging losses for her party. The worry now in Berlin, Brussels and beyond is that with Britain poised for a historic referendum on European Union membership and national votes in France and Germany next year, Putin will intensify efforts to divide the 28-member bloc.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-20/from-rape-claim-to-bre...

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/strange-bedfellows-putin-and-...

Would American foreign policy change radically under Trump? Probably not, because he has isolated himself from his own party, and his supporters care more about other issues. But I think the goal is less to gain an ally than to destabilize. In that, the propaganda machines (and now it seems, perhaps the funders) have worked. 

Quote:

And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald...

I doubt the goal was to elect some sociopath as an ally, because how solid would that relationship really be? Much more useful to use the campaign to play on existing racism and hatred, and feelings that the media, the government, and the democratic process is rigged. The damage done by that is not going to go away on November 8.

This is another case of "useful idiots" IMO.

Of course most of this - and specifically Comey's action - would have gone the way it did even without covert help from Russia. The Republican Party has dedicated itself to undermining the executive branch for the past eight years. Longer, if you make the connections between their actions now and when Bill Clinton was president. And the militant anti-government movement has been growing for decades. Putin could have saved his money and things wouldn't have been that much different.

 

 

What Vladimir Putin actually said about the USA elections.

U.S. fixation on Russia

Quote:

President Vladimir Putin on Thursday accused American politicians of whipping up hysteria about a mythical Russian threat as a ploy to distract voters from their own failings in the run-up to the U.S. presidential election.

Putin, addressing an audience of foreign policy experts gathered in southern Russia, repeatedly lashed out at the Obama administration, saying it did not keep its word on Syria, did not honour deals, and had falsely accused Moscow of all manner of sins.

...Putin said he found it hard to believe that anyone seriously thought Moscow was capable of influencing the Nov. 8 election.

"Hysteria has been whipped up," said Putin. He said it was a ruse to cover up the fact  the U.S. political elite had nothing to say about serious issues such as the country's national debt or gun control.

..."It's much simpler to distract people with so-called Russian hackers, spies, and agents of influence. Does anyone really think that Russia could influence the American people's choice in any way? Is America a banana republic or what? America is a great power." 

Further from the same event, but a different source:

CTV News

Quote:

...Putin called the claim that Russia favours Republican contender Donald Trump in the race as "sheer nonsense" that has served as a campaign tool. "It's just an instrument of political struggle, a way of manipulating public opinion," he said.

The Russian leader added that while Trump may sound "extravagant," he was trying to reach out to people who are tired of elites, and "time will tell how efficient it is for him."

"We don't know how Trump or Clinton will behave, what they will or will not deliver," he said. "We feel more or less indifferent about it."

Putin added that it's not clear what stance the next U.S. president will take toward Russia, but added that Moscow welcomes campaign statements about normalizing ties.

"We will work with any president who will be elected by the American people," he said.

Speaking Wednesday evening at the University of Chicago Institute of Politics, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry insisted that Washington has no doubts of direct Russian involvement in the hacking.

...Kerry said he has confronted Russian counterparts such as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the matter.

"Their response is to demand the evidence and to ask for it," he said. "And my response to that is, 'Let's not be foolish here. You know what we're talking about."'

Or, in other words. there is no evidence.

In fact the one country we know for certain searches through emails is the USA. Or has everyone here forgotten Edward Snowden. When Congress was trying to investigate the NSA and their covert activities, they were threatened by their own agency.

Anyone remember James Clapper? The director of national intelligence who lied outright to Congress about the collection of data.

James Clapper lied to Congress

Quote:

A group of congressmen led by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is pushing for President Obama to fire James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, who they say misled Congress about the extent of the NSA's surveillance activity.

The lawmakers called Clapper's position "incompatible" with the administration's effort to restore trust in the NSA, according to a letter sent to the White House Monday. The group is mostly Republican, but includes one Democrat, Rep. Alan Grayson (Fla.).

"Director Clapper continues to hold his position despite lying to Congress under oath about the existence of bulk data collection programs in March 2013," the letter reads. "Asking Director Clapper, and other federal intelligence officials who misrepresented programs to Congress and the courts, to report to you on needed reforms ... is not a credible solution."

Unless, of course, it's actually the Russians who are running the various intelligence agencies in the USA. Now there's a conspriacy theory I like.

"You're a Russian puppet!"

"No, you're the puppet!"

"No, you're the puppet, you're the puppet!"

"You're the puppet, you're the puppet, you're the puppet!"

"No, it's you who's the puppet! You're the puppet, you're the puppet, you're the puppet, you're the puppet!!"

And so on...

voice of the damned wrote:

...Even if Trump doesn't end up doing those things(and I agree, the odds are remote), the mere possibility that he might try would likely make him the prefered candidate of America's geopolitical rivals, since any amount of friction in the enemy camp is a good thing.

Pardon me, but are you saying there's no friction in the USA right now? 

As far as Trump and his NATO fantasy, he can't pull the USA out of NATO, the USA is NATO.

And as far as geopolitical rivals wanting 'friction' in the USA, I will beg to differ. What the geopolitical rivals want is stability, not friction.

Cross-posted with Pesky's post-47.

Quote:

Pardon me, but are you saying there's no friction in the USA right now?

I was referring to the western camp in general, not the internal USA.

And yes, "friction" was probably the wrong word(though, contrary to the babble idea that every single person in a NATO country wants the US out, I'm pretty sure you'd see quite a bit of panic among both the populace and the governments if a President Trump were actually to make good on his promise.) Basically, between a candiate who makes staements like this...

“If Russia wants to spend millions of dollars a day dropping bombs on ISIS, I’m OK with that,” he said, referring to the Islamic State terror group. “Some people don’t like it. They say ‘No, no, that’s our job.’ It’s not our job. Let Russia… if they want to do that, I’m all for it.”

“Ukraine is a country that affects us far less than it affects other countries in NATO, and yet we’re doing all of the lifting,” Trump said. “Why is it that Germany’s not dealing with NATO on Ukraine? Why is it that other countries that are in the vicinity of Ukraine, why aren’t they dealing? Why are we always the one that’s leading, potentially the Third World War with Russia.”

"Sending the Washington establishment into shock once again, Trump dismissed the idea that the US benefited from its military deployments all over the planet. “I think we were a very powerful, very wealthy country, and we are a poor country now. We’re a debtor nation.”

...and the blatant interventionism advocated by Clinto etc, I don't think it's too psychedelic a summation to think that Putin might actually prefer Trump.

http://tinyurl.com/jsvd3on