Forget the Nunes Circus - FBI Deputy Director McCabe Is More Important

It would be nice not to write about Devin Nunes, for at least day or two. Maybe up to a week. It’s not as if he’s G. Gordon Liddy or Erlichman or John Dean and it’s 1973 (yes Watergate happened in 1972 but became daily news much later). By the way, did you know they successfully entered and bugged the DNC in May, but then had to come back in June of 72 to repair the listening devices? Sorry.

But right now, and for about the next week or two or maybe longer, you can't escape Devin Nunes. Added to the Devin Nunes file, we now have the names of two bright young D.C. staff/intelligence aides: Ezra Cohen-Watnick and the less splendidly named Michael Ellis. These are the guys who seem to have given Nunes access to intelligence they had been working on as part of White House efforts to monitor the Russia investigations. And they apparently found the infamous incidental data and possible unmasking of Trump associates in said intelligence they had been researching/working on/monitoring.

So the question raised is did they use Nunes to further the president's need to verify his twitter accusation of wiretapping against Obama?

That's a shame. Not because it really answers anything or clears anything up, but because it detracts from Senator Grassley's grim and detailed letter to another actor in this increasingly operatic tragi-comic circus by-the-Potomac.

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Who must be lighting a candle at his newly improvised shrine to Chairman Nunes - who is either more than a little clumsy, or is being used by both sides and damn well knows it, and is trying to keep his head above water in a swamp full of sharks. (Yes, Sharks do inhabit swamps, but only in D.C.).

You remember Deputy Director McCabe, don't you? The guy in charge of the FBI's Hillary/Clinton Foundation investigation last year. Whose wife's failed Senate bid received major campaign donations from key Clinton allies like Virginia Governor McAuliffe's PAC, among others.

Senator Grassley wants to know, quite reasonably, how involved in the Russia investigations of Trump associates, FBI Deputy Director McCabe is. And if McCabe has seen fit to recuse himself from the corruption investigation of McAuliffe and wife in Virginia, then shouldn't he recuse himself from any Russia-Trump investigation the FBI may be pursuing?

Grassley also wants to know of any connection between McCabe and the possibility that the FBI both used the GPS Fusion/Christopher Steele (the ex British spy) dossier - which as been largely discredited - and also paid Steele to continue to research Trump's team. Remember that dossier started as opposition research by GOP opponents of Trump.

Grassley also would like to know if Deputy Director McCabe is one of the leakers from the intel community that have helped keep the Russia cloud firmly above the White House for several months now. Another reasonable question to ask. Grassley has 12 questions in all.

But who has time for Senator Grassley's questions to Deputy Director McCabe when the Devin Nunes Circus is still top billing in town?

Posted by Keeley at March 31, 2017 12:46 PM
Comments
Comment #414819
GPS Fusion/Christopher Steele (the ex British spy) dossier - which as been largely discredited

Discredited? I know that much of it remains unverified, but little to none of the allegations uncovered by Steele have been found false. Indeed, much of the dossier has been proven with collaborating evidence from elsewhere (I’ll spare you guys the mountain of links). Granted, it is the most damning aspects of the dossier that remain unproven, but the verification of these other details tells us that Christopher Steele is no Looney Tune. He is a professional who knows his stuff. That isn’t to say his work is infallible, there are undoubtedly errors in his work yet to be revealed. But all this tells us to wait for the FBI and Congress to finish their investigations before leaping to conclusions.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 31, 2017 1:17 PM
Comment #414820

Just to repeat, the Steele Dossier is not discredited. Some points have proven to be true. Others have not been proven or disproven.

Grassley is essentially fishing for information from the FBI on the state of its investigation into the Trump Campaign.

Posted by: phx8 at March 31, 2017 2:00 PM
Comment #414845
So the question raised is did they use Nunes to further the president’s need to verify his twitter accusation of wiretapping against Obama? That’s a shame. Not because it really answers anything or clears anything up, but because it detracts from Senator Grassley’s grim and detailed letter to another actor in this increasingly operatic tragi-comic circus by-the-Potomac.

Hmm. I’d think the distraction is going the other way around. Somebody said that one potential explanation of all this is that the President is trying to spy on the FBI as they investigate him. Why would he need to do that?

This is more misdirection and distraction. Republicans need to realize something: the best way to compel interest is to deny information. Get a investigation in, get it over with, and quit wasting our time. if he’s innocent, this will settle it much more than months or even years of heel dragging. Like Sun Tzu said, nobody ever won a war by protracting their campaign brilliantly.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 1, 2017 3:00 PM
Comment #414860

A whole lot of wantabes to become clandestine service operators. Your “facts” and knowledge are so out of kilter. Your knowledge of history is distorted. Your judgement is faulty. All that I hear is junk news and junk reporting.

That is not for everybody. Those that don’t fit know who they are and are commended for their thoughtfulness.

Posted by: tom humes at April 1, 2017 5:58 PM
Comment #414870

All hail Tom Humes, the prophet has spoken!

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 2, 2017 12:44 AM
Comment #414926

tom humes-
What really frigging annoys me about the way you guys comment here is that you’re always telling us we’re wrong. And that’s it. No explanation, no real argument, you just say, “wrong,” like your mediocre leader did in his debates when confronted with something he did or said.

Explanations, damn it! It’s more political position tennis than actual debate if we’re not getting into the foundations of why you believe something, what you back it up with!

Look, as a matter of course, most on my side won’t believe most on the other side, and the question always is, of some strangers belief or idea, “why should I agree?”

I try my best to come up with a reason that isn’t entirely dependent on my being a part of your intellectual fan club. I try to distill what I believe down to an explanation that somebody else can recover without having to refer to my personal beliefs.

You? You don’t even seem to bother. It might be very heartening to you to just say this s***, but nobody else can reconstruct a good reason to believe what you believe from it. You’re winning the fight to preach to the choir, but everybody else is sliding deeper into doubt about what your people are doing.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 3, 2017 4:43 PM
Comment #414928

Stephen,

What you’ve forgotten is that mediums like Tom Humes don’t need to tell us why he thinks we’re wrong. His odometer has reached a higher number than you or I, which means his pronouncements are infallible.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 3, 2017 5:37 PM
Comment #414933

I believe what Tom Humes is implying, is why waste time arguing a non issue. How many times does it have to be said that the original scenario published first in buzzfeed and then picked up by CNN and others were outlets had been around for months, but was completely made up…a false report.

Let me say one thing about Keeley’s post; everything he has reported is true. But, the leftist on WB will continue to dig a deeper hole for themselves. The evidence of wrongdoing by the Obama administration and Obama appointees in the intelligence community will continue to cascade. Each day more information is surfacing, and no one has yet been subpoenaed to testify before committees. The Democratic Party has lied to its supporters and when the truth comes out we are going to see unhinged people. So we just set back and watch the implosion of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Blaine at April 3, 2017 7:40 PM
Comment #414936

Blaine,

My oh my! We have another clairvoyant who already knows the outcome of Congress’ barely started investigations. I will grovel before your omniscience.

Everyone else,

Big news regarding Trump’s former adviser, Carter Page. Today, Buzzfeed reports that Page was recruited by Russian spies in 2013. It is not known how long Page continued to serve his Russian handlers.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 3, 2017 9:00 PM
Comment #414938

Warren, I think it’s you who believes you are clairvoyant. I read your link twice and I still can’t find where Page was recruited by the Russians. You must be reading something into this that I can’t see. Why would you link to Buzzfeed, it’s already been proven to be a fake news outlet? Furthermore, page was let go from the Trump campaign. Like the rest of the left, you just keep throwing horse crap against the wall, hoping something will stick. Meanwhile president Trump just keeps pressing forward. By Friday midnight, Gorsuch will be the new SC justice. Thank you Harry Reid for changing the rules. But the best part of of the democrats in the senate who force a simple majority vote is that within the next 4 years, one and possibly two more justices will just sail though on the same rules. Can you imagine a SC with a majority of constitutionalist justices? And Trump just keeps plugging along.

Posted by: Blaine at April 3, 2017 9:41 PM
Comment #414939

Unlike Blaine, I have the humility necessary to avoid reaching premature conclusions. I will let the rest of the investigation play out on its own schedule.

That said, Carter Page’s subsequent dismissal from the Trump campaign does not absolve the campaign from Carter Page’s associates and conduct. According to court documents, two Russian spies targeted a certain “Male-1” in order to recruit him. Carter Page told Buzzfeed that he is indeed “Male-1”. While Page may have rebuffed those efforts, it is clear that he is not the sort of person the Trump campaign should have associated itself with.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 3, 2017 10:10 PM
Comment #414941

Blaine-
How is it completely made up? I mean, that’s a categorical statement. There are four kinds: Universal Affirmatives (All A is B,) Universal Negative (No A is B,) Particular Affirmatives (Some A is B,) and Particular Negatives (Some A is not B).

So, when you say, it’s completely made up, that is logical equivalent of saying no evidence exists that the Trump Administration has had improper contacts with the Russians, among other things.

Your statement has a test in it, and that test has already been failed. Flynn’s resignation, Sessions being forced to update his testimony and recuse himself from the investigation would tell you that. Fact that we keep hearing about new meetings nobody told us about, contacts with known agents, circumstantial evidence of coordination, Messenging between Roger Stone, a known associate of Trump, and Guccifer 2.0, known Russian asset and self-described culprit behind the very real DNC hack, also exists.

I could go on, but what’s the point? Your Universal Negative statement has failed. These reports aren’t false. What’s false are the impressions being given to people like you, impressions meant to keep folks like you from bolting. Worse yet, to turn you against all the rest of us who either never had faith in Trump to start, or who have lost faith as the negatives have compounded.

You keep on trying to pull some kind of rhetorical alchemy, transforming the base lead of your lies into the gold of truth. But truth is truth, and lies are lies. You guys keep on giving yourself false hope that badly misinterpreting legitimate law enforcement and counterintelligence operations of the Obama Administration will somehow save you from the reckoning that’s coming. It won’t.

You keep on trying to hold onto Obama Administration as your enemy, but the hateful truth is that the Trump Administration is your enemy, humiliating and deceiving millions of faithful, trusting Republicans in order to try and escape the consequences of their treacherous, corrupt actions.

The Carter Page thing… Jesus. You know, I get to the point where I’m quite often surprised, even though I’m not shocked. We’ve put significant pressure on Russia and the oligarchs over their activities, their invasion of neighboring countries, their outright theft of the Crimea and the general violation of the territory of the Ukraine. So, to deal with that, they’ve deployed this counteroperation, striking at America and the West.

And you, and your folks seems all to eager to take Russia’s side. After years of calling people like me pinkos and fellow travelers, this love affair with Putin, this excessive willingness to buy into the story that they’ve been pushing… It’s galling! It either betrays extreme nihilism and cynicism, or it betrays deep naivete and ignorance. The Soviet Union may be dead, but the brutal and insidious mindset it programmed into generations has not died with it, not yet. Putin was a KGB agent, and he continues to demonstrate the authoritarian behavior of a classic Soviet Premier. The economics might have changed, but the behavior of powerful despots is always symmetric across lines of ideological and economic division.

It’s what the classic Animal Farm finale hauntingly suggested, that there’s little difference in behavior between the worst in capitalism and the worst in socialism The mechanism may differ somewhat, but the results are the same. The Pigs in Russia changed clothes, but they did not change who they are underneath.

Unfortunately, too many in the Republican leadership, in Trump’s campaign, seem to have made the determination that enemies should be beaten at all costs, even if that cost is the sovereignty of the United States over its own electoral system. If you go into denial about what was done to us just to defend the Trump campaign, you serve that violation no less than if you supported it yourself. I may not always agree with the direction our government’s policy takes America, but I want what’s best for my country, and I want that country to determine the composition of its own government without outside interference. Putin won’t choose the leaders that will make this country strong.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 3, 2017 10:54 PM
Comment #414950

Warren, Page denied being recruited and the Trump administration let him go when they found out he was being scrutinized. So where is your proof that something is wrong. You lie when you say you can wait for the investigation results because you continue to claim Trump is guilty, based on non facts. You, as Stephen, continue to live on fake news.

Stephen, you continue to write paragraph after paragraph and saying nothing. Like the fake media, you continue to ignore the facts and continue to argue a false narrative. Russia’s involvement in affecting an American presidential election has been shone to have never happened. People with a pay grade much higher than you have said there’s no evidence; but you continue the fake news narrative.

I hate to burst your bubble; but Trump was elected as the legitimate president of the US, he will not be removed-impeached-or resign under pressure from the left, the American optimism of the economy is up, he will continue to move his agenda forward (despite the fact that the fact news media ignores it), and he will get his nomination, Gorsuch, into the SC. The ignorance of the left in the senate has opened the door for more conservative constitutional justices to be installed based on a simple majority vote.

As I have said before; we are seeing the death throws of the Democratic Party. You have become irrelevant; the power of democrats lies in a dying news media and corrupt activists judges. Which a conservative SC will nullify.

Show us the proof….

Posted by: Blaine at April 4, 2017 8:28 AM
Comment #414953
investigation results because you continue to claim Trump is guilty

Really? Where did I say this?

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 4, 2017 9:08 AM
Comment #414955

I don’t spend many words saying what I believe is truth.

In my posting #413357 in the Dems/libs column and #413330 in the 3rd party column I said what I believe.

The investigations, if done factually, will show Ben Rhodes, James Clapper and John Brennan to be some of the key elements in the present work being done by intel committees in Congress. Their will be others, but you on the left side of WB wander around the wilderness trying to come up with some statements that make you feel like you know what is going on. Then when I keep my words short and to the point and say what I believe is the truth you castigate me. That is one of the reasons I ridicule you southpaws for your irrational comments from time to time. I am not thin skinned. I have been around for some time. I have made the attempt to learn from anybody I can to apply to living in this world in a way that I can apply truth to my daily life. I don’t see that in you southpaws. Do I feel I am right. Darn tootin I do or I would not bother to put it in print.

So you can go ahead and praise me for my knowledge and I accept it and I can deride you for your false “knowledge”. I will continue to be who I am without any reservations.

Posted by: tom humes at April 4, 2017 10:47 AM
Comment #414956

In other words, Tom knows he is just making up lies, but he doesn’t care so long as he ruffles up a few southpaws.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 4, 2017 10:55 AM
Comment #414957

Blaine-

Warren, Page denied being recruited and the Trump administration let him go when they found out he was being scrutinized. So where is your proof that something is wrong. You lie when you say you can wait for the investigation results because you continue to claim Trump is guilty, based on non facts. You, as Stephen, continue to live on fake news.

He denies it. Hmm. That must settle the question, right. You never saw that scene in The Shawshank Redemption? What are you in for? I didn’t do it, my lawyer ****ed me!

He may in fact be. But I’d like to do more than take his word for it, because he’s one of the more Russian connected of the figures out there.

But I look at it, and I’m very suspicious. Claims to be a big deal in so many things, yet so many people can barely remember him, and he’s not positioned where many of the decisions are made. Not much to be conclusive about, but a lot of things that are very, very odd. By the way, report of the approach by the two Russian agents is a court filing, public record, so calling it fake news is fundamentally silly.

Russia’s involvement in affecting an American presidential election has been shone to have never happened.

Sigh. Not unless you disbelieve our intelligence agencies. Do you disbelieve our intelligence agencies? Do you believe its all a conspiracy against Trump? The hacks occurred. Russian involvement is supported by the general intelligence community. We have similar reported interventions in other countries.

It’s not fake news. Do me a favor, and give me some good evidence that it is. Give me something else than Trump saying it could be a four-hundred pound fat boy in a basement.

I hate to burst your bubble; but Trump was elected as the legitimate president of the US, he will not be removed-impeached-or resign under pressure from the left, the American optimism of the economy is up, he will continue to move his agenda forward (despite the fact that the fact news media ignores it), and he will get his nomination, Gorsuch, into the SC. The ignorance of the left in the senate has opened the door for more conservative constitutional justices to be installed based on a simple majority vote.

I don’t think without Kremlin support Trump would have gotten to the finish line, much less to the Presidency. They targeted their approaches, and continue to target the President, with social media fake news bursts timed to coincide with the points at which he checks twitter. They planted fake Bernie supporters in forums and pushed divisive rhetoric and fake news there as well, looking to weaken Clinton.

As for you claim about the justices? It’s always good to acknowledge you are not in control of the way the world turns. You are BRIMMING with confidence, which must be wonderful. But is there much more than sentiment to support your optimism? Perhaps some CEOs have a spring in their step, but he has to keep things nice and stable for that spring to stay. If some of his changes hit the economy hard, they won’t be able to ignore the consequences of that. If he does something stupid like screw up the debt ceiling increase, then all this confidence will simply have been gullibility.

As far as the justices go… I give Gorsuch a good chance of getting in, only if Republicans break the filibuster. But your dreams of perpetual conservative domination of the court ends if you get a good long period with a Democrat in the White House and the party running the Senate. Then your people will get replaced by Democrats, and things won’t go so well for you.

The nuclear option, as Democrats now know, is a double-edged sword. It cuts us now. It will cut you later. You have already lost the ability to keep future Democrats from pushing the most liberal of administrations when they get hold of power. You are now, for the sake of maintaining your majority, giving up your ability to hold up any Democrats’ more liberal justices when they get appointed. If you lose the Senate in 2018 or 2020, and Trump doesn’t get re-elected, then Gorsuch will be your high water mark.

The Generic ballot is tilting back towards Democrats, and your first major legislative effort went down in flames. If you think we’re dead, well, we’re moving around a lot for the dearly departed.

tom humes-
Well, that’s the funny thing. I express myself, and I also don’t put things out I don’t believe.

But I recognize something that perhaps you don’t: personal belief and confidence aren’t enough. Folks can feel things are real that aren’t, believe things are true that aren’t.

Nobody’s prepared for the world that’s coming. We’re going to need quite a bit more courage, intelligence, and wisdom to deal with it than we’re demonstrating now. Change is catalyzing itself. The old truths still apply, the old problems with tyranny and privacy and freedom, but they’re getting expressed in contexts the framers never could dream of. Precision gene editing, the internet and mobile computing, etc…

I’ll admit I don’t know the full implications of all these things. There’s the stuff that’s just a linear shot from what we already have, and then there’s the stuff that branches off at right angles to what we’re familiar with, where the advances in unrelated technologies mesh together to create something entirely new to our experience. I never thought mobile technology would take off like it did, 10 years ago.

The world isn’t going to fit our old interpretation of the Constitution. If we don’t update that and the laws to fit, our expression of those rights will deflect from the reality. We’ll say people have these freedoms, but in practice the police and federal agents will become more invasive, people’s rights will not be observed, etc.

I subscribe to a living interpretation of the Constitution to deal with a living society, one that doesn’t stand still. The principle is that if we can take another look at our constitution, and work something out that better fits society as it is now, without an amendment, that’s what we should do. We should only amend to solve an inescapable problem. Do the best with what you have until you have no other choice.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 4, 2017 12:49 PM
Comment #414958

You link to of all things ‘BuzzFeed’ and falsely state that “Page was recruited by Russian spies in 2013” and that he served “his Russian handlers,” as if it were fact.

Stephen is predicting a “reckoning that’s coming.” Declaring his President to be the enemy who is guilty of “treacherous, corrupt actions.” Claims anybody who disagree’s with the left-wing talking points are “taking Russia’s side.” Purposely trying to deceive people into believing that the rejection of liberal overreach was due to ‘leaking’ irrelevant personal emails and is some kind of dire threat to “the sovereignty of the United States.”
And makes an unproven statement like “Putin won’t choose the leaders that will make this country strong” as if it were fact.

But yet you condemn others for guesses of the future, making up lies, and premature conclusions?

Posted by: kctim at April 4, 2017 1:09 PM
Comment #414959

Warren Porter, so I said, you say let’s wait for the investigation results, and then continue to blame Trump. And you say where?

How about this comment, “That said, Carter Page’s subsequent dismissal from the Trump campaign does not absolve the campaign from Carter Page’s associates and conduct.”

This is called inference and innuendo that Trump must be guilty of something. In the meantime president Trump spoke before the NY trade unions today…to standing ovations and applause. You guys are completely missing what is going on. He enjoys 58% approval of what he’s done with the economy.

Stephen Daughtery, I can’t even force myself to completely read your lofty words. I believe much words doth make you mad…in other words, you sound demented. In order for the Russians to have affected our election, they would have to have hacked the voting machines and they have not. Do you have proof of the Russians hacking our voting machines? There is not one intelligence agency who has said they hacked our system. But there WAS government interference in our election; it was done by Susan Rice at the orders of Obama to hack into Trumps phones and unmask American citizens and then releasing this information to the press. She’s been found out. Stephen, anything you say that strays from the real story, which is what Rice and Obama did is nothing more than fake news.

Posted by: Blaine at April 4, 2017 1:19 PM
Comment #414962

wp

I seldom respond to such rotten, unethical charges. This is only a fair warning that it is impossible for you or your cohorts to suck me into a pissing contest that only I can win and then leave you in a pitiful mess.

Posted by: tom humes at April 4, 2017 1:30 PM
Comment #414967

From Warren’s link;

“Page was quickly cut from the Trump team following reports that federal investigators were probing his ties to Russian officials. White House press secretary Sean Spicer said last month that the campaign had sent Page cease and desist letters last year, demanding he stop associating himself with it.”

Some of my Lefty Pals criticize others of pretending to be clairvoyant but appear to have expected Trump to actually be one.

Stephen writes; “The world isn’t going to fit our old interpretation of the Constitution. If we don’t update that and the laws to fit, our expression of those rights will deflect from the reality.”

OH, NO…not that. The Constitution was adequate for the nation to survive a Civil War, two world wars and inventions and social upheavals beyond my ability to list but; Stephen has pronounced that it is now inadequate.

Since this comes from the “whiner-in-chief”, it must be so. It appears to me that Stephen wants a new deal, a new Constitution, one that will grant him what he can’t get on his own.


Posted by: Royal Flush at April 4, 2017 3:01 PM
Comment #414969

Royal, you bring up a good point. The United States has survived over two hundred years of history, and some of it in real crises; yet in Daughtery’s short lifespan we now need a leftist update of the Constitution. This kind of reminds us of the similar leftist views of the the survival of the earth. Mankind has survived 6000 years of recorded history upon the planet; but in the short lifespan of Daughtery and Porter, we at this point in history about to face the extinction of all life. Are we seeing a pattern here?

Posted by: Blaine at April 4, 2017 3:22 PM
Comment #414979
This is called inference and innuendo that Trump must be guilty of something.

Actually, this is called “Blaine is wrong, yet again”. Instead of responding to hallucinations, why don’t you focus on what I actually write instead?

In order for the Russians to have affected our election, they would have to have hacked the voting machines and they have not.

That is categorically false. And that’s not just my opinion, it is the conclusion of every US intelligence agency. Russia waged an influence campaign and the result was that many Americans cast votes in favor of Donald Trump as a result of Russian propaganda and misinformation. Why bother hacking machines when one can hack people’s minds instead?

Tom Humes,

I seldom respond to such rotten, unethical charges. This is only a fair warning that it is impossible for you or your cohorts to suck me into a pissing contest that only I can win and then leave you in a pitiful mess.

If what I say is wrong, then why don’t you prove it? Share with us the evidence that backs up your claims. Until then, I will continue to file your comments under the category of “fake news” and I will continue to ignore them. I am not going to indulge your delusions. I find it telling that you would rather make threats against Stephen and I instead of actually supplying the evidence which supports your opinion.

Royal Flush,

Some of my Lefty Pals criticize others of pretending to be clairvoyant but appear to have expected Trump to actually be one.

Your perceptions are wrong. I do not expect Donald Trump to have foreknowledge of Carter Page’s associations. However, I do expect him to do his due diligence to vet people he hires. Dozens of other men and women have managed to run for President without hiring someone with Carter Page’s associations. It shouldn’t be hard for Trump to do the same.

Stephen writes; “The world isn’t going to fit our old interpretation of the Constitution. If we don’t update that and the laws to fit, our expression of those rights will deflect from the reality.”

OH, NO…not that. The Constitution was adequate for the nation to survive a Civil War, two world wars and inventions and social upheavals beyond my ability to list but; Stephen has pronounced that it is now inadequate.

Since this comes from the “whiner-in-chief”, it must be so. It appears to me that Stephen wants a new deal, a new Constitution, one that will grant him what he can’t get on his own.

Stephen says we need a new interpretation of the Constitution and you respond as if he said we need a new Constitution entirely. A classic example of fallacious strawman reasoning.

I can’t speak for Stephen, but I support the Constitution as it is presently written. Sure, there are a few amendments that I support, but amending the Constitution is nothing new in our nation’s nearly quarter-millennium of existence. Likewise, changing interpretations of the Constitution is nothing new either. For instance, for 60 years we believed that Separate But Equal was Constitutional according to the 14th amendment. For the past 60 years, we’ve interpreted the Constitution quite differently.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 4, 2017 5:58 PM
Comment #414980

You are correct Warren, you can’t speak for Stephen. And, you don’t understand what he writes either.

Should one dig down into what Stephen has written about a “living Constitution” over a period of time, one discovers an actual disgust for both the writers of it, and the document itself.

Stephen’s comments remind me of one who is constantly whining about their “bad luck” or their having been taken advantage of by others; primarily by successful people and corporations. Evidence of self-pity are abundant in his comments.

He is that rare individual who is incapable of leading; or following.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 4, 2017 6:19 PM
Comment #414981

Speaking of Stephen’s bad luck and self pity; I have been reading and commenting on WB for 15 years or longer and one thing I have found. The left is never happy, they never take personal responsibility for anything, it’s always someone else’s fault, and their lives are full of doom and gloom. Perhaps someone could give me an instance when a liberal was happy. I would imagine the words of Trump to “make America great again” are like fingernails on a chalkboard to a liberal. Obama spent 8 years apologizing for America’s colonialism and the theft of the worlds resources. Has a liberal on WB ever said they were proud to live in America. I know conservatives have, but never the left.

Warren Porter, it is typical of the left to believe the American people don’t have the ability to think for themselves. You have the audacity to accuse the Russians of influencing the election against Hillary Clinton and yet you yourself stated she was not a good candidate and you couldn’t support her. Does that mean the Russians influenced your decision? She was a corrupt candidate that had nothing in common with the American people. I’ll tell you what Warren, why don’t you humor me and tell me once again of the evidence presented that the Russians conspired with the Trump campaign to influence the election? Evidence????

Why don’t we hear your take on the actively blossoming information about Susan Rice’s unmasking on names and releasing them to the media? The real question is can Rice be believed in anything she has said; since she has repeatedly lied.

Posted by: Blaine at April 4, 2017 7:05 PM
Comment #414982
Should one dig down into what Stephen has written about a “living Constitution” over a period of time, one discovers an actual disgust for both the writers of it, and the document itself.

Actually, what one discovers is that Royal Flush’s illiteracy prevents him from comprehending what Stephen writes. To mask this inadequacy, he hallucinates villainous beliefs and projects them onto Stephen.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 4, 2017 7:07 PM
Comment #414983

Blaine,

Was Edgar Maddison Welch thinking for himself when he decided to visit Comet Ping Pong on December 4, 2016?

Evidence????

I do not know whether or not Donald Trump conspired with Russia to influence last year’s election. I support waiting for all relevant investigations to finish before reaching any conclusions.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 4, 2017 7:27 PM
Comment #414984

OH, OH…guess I got Warren riled up. Actually, Warren is more fun to read when he gets HOT!

Let’s see, he calls me “illiterate”, “inadequate” “hallucinatory” and “villainous”. Hillary refers to me as belonging to a “basket of deplorables.” President Obama refers to me as one who clings to religion and guns.

We certainly know from where Warren gets his nastiness.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 4, 2017 7:30 PM
Comment #414985
Actually, Warren is more fun to read when he gets HOT!

I accept the compliment, but trust me, this pupil still cannot compare with the insults smithed by his maestro, Royal Flush.

Hillary refers to me as belonging to a “basket of deplorables.”

What makes you think she was talking about you?

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 4, 2017 8:10 PM
Comment #414990

Royal, you will notice that when the left loses the argument, or when they become so frustrated at not being able to present the facts, they resort to name calling. Trump won the election and he is our president, yet we see unprecedented lunacy from the left. They have gone nuts. I have never, in my seventy years ever seen such insanity from the left. Name calling, screaming and cursing; even the head of the DNC gives a radical speech decrying that Trump is not the legitimate president. Either president Trump is the legitimate president, or we are facing a constitutional crisis that could lead to civil war.

Warren, you know perfectly well that Trump had nothing to do with the Russians. It is a smokescreen. There is no evidence. Yet you continue to ignore the fact that Hillary was a flawed candidate. If I remember correctly, you even called her a liar at the time you said you couldn’t vote for her. My guess is that you are too ignorant to make that assessment. Your decision to not vote for Hillary had to have been planted there by an outside source. Doesn’t that last sentence sound ignorant? Yet that is what your trying to say about the majority of Americans who voted for Trump.

Tell me Warren, you didn’t support Hillary and you don’t support Trump…what do you actually propose for America.

One more question; what if it had been the Bush national security adviser who had called for the wiretapping of the Obama team both before and after he was elected, and then released the findings to the media? Would the actions have been important enough to talk about then?

Posted by: Blaine at April 4, 2017 9:50 PM
Comment #415000

“Russia waged an influence campaign and the result was that many Americans cast votes in favor of Donald Trump as a result of Russian propaganda and misinformation.”

First, we have absolutely no idea about how many votes or what they were the result of. It is just more convenient to blame the nationwide rejection of the left on Russian meddling, than it is to address it.

Second, exactly what propaganda and misinformation are you claiming to have been so successful? The actual reporting of her server debacle, rather than ignoring it as is usually done? Quoting her on immigration, illegal aliens, refugees, gun control, the ACA, and desire to continue on where Obama left off? The rehashing of conspiracy theories that have been around since the 90s?

Posted by: kctim at April 5, 2017 10:14 AM
Comment #415003

I don’t think that Russia intervene at any point in US elections.

Posted by: truck racing games at April 5, 2017 11:03 AM
Comment #415013

The democrats are no longer considered liberal or progressive, they are extremists and radicals. They have moved away from the majority of the American people. Hillary Clinton chose to not even campaign in the rust belt states. They determined that they did not need the working class blue collar votes. Obama distanced himself from the “bitter clinger”. Trump, unlike previous republicans, chose to go after the union blue collar workers and still is going after them. Yet, we see the ignorance of the left on WB, to claim it was a concerted effort by Trump and the Russians to beat Hillary. Hillary was a flawed candidate. She catered to the fringe radicals of the Democratic Party and assumed no one would really know what she stood for. The democrats lost 1200 state and local seats as well as the presidency and the congress and it’s not over. Instead of trying to change the DNC platform to better represent the old guard Democratic Party, they have doubled down on radicalism. It doesn’t make sense to me, but I love it. When the average American voter watches the MSM, they see a bunch of baby killing, military and police hating, gun grabbing, Christian hating, constitutional and law violating, and Muslim and illegal immigrant loving radicals. And exactly who in America wants to vote for these clowns?

Posted by: Blaine at April 5, 2017 3:25 PM
Comment #415019

Will my Pals on the Left help us understand their position on the election?

We are told that Wikileaks revelations hurt Hillary because they were true. Is truth a bad thing?

We are told that the Russians changed people’s minds about whom to vote for from from Hillary to Trump. What lies did they circulate about Hillary? Is truth a bad thing?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 5, 2017 3:51 PM
Comment #415020

Royal, my question is, if the democrat voters were duped by the Russians into voting against Hillary. Who duped Warren Porter into not voting for Hillary?

Posted by: Blaine at April 5, 2017 3:55 PM
Comment #415026

I don’t expect answers from anyone Blaine. They are cornered and know it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 5, 2017 7:09 PM
Comment #415036
Second, exactly what propaganda and misinformation are you claiming to have been so successful?

The release of emails purportedly from the accounts of John Podesta and DNC staff. Also, the preponderance of conspiracy theories similar to “PizzaGate” which were complete fabrications, but which were trafficked by Russian propaganda websites.

Is truth a bad thing?

Yes, it can be. This is why we have a fourth amendment protecting us from unreasonable searches and seizures as well as granting us a more general right to privacy.

Who duped Warren Porter into not voting for Hillary?
Faulty Generalization. Different people cast their votes for different reasons and sometimes based upon different information. Posted by: Warren Porter at April 6, 2017 7:31 AM
Comment #415040

“Different people cast their votes for different reasons “

Warren, you don’t believe this comment. You have stated many times, along with your radical brothers, that the Russians in collusion with Trump, swayed the independent and democrat voters into voting for Trump. You claim that your intelligence allows you to make a decision to not vote for Hillary, for a plethora of reasons, and yet the unwashed masses are not capable of making their own decisions. What hypocrisy.

I know your pre-determined beliefs will not allow you to get your information from any other source than a radical leftist media, but if you were to watch a conservative media source, you would see many interviews being done around America with people who had actually voted for Obama, but now voted for Trump. And they give their reasons, which have nothing to do with the Russians.

While you and your radicals, along with the extremist media continue to rant and rave like the spoiled children you are; the Trump administration moves forward. By tomorrow, Gorsuch will be on the Supreme Court. Not only that, but Trump will have the opportunity to place one or maybe two more justices on the court in the next 4 years. The left is crying “it’s not fair” for McConnell to change the rules; but what a bunch of hypocrites. It was Reid, whom you side supported, who introduced the nuclear option into the selecting of judges. The chickens have come home to roost, quoting Obama’s racist mentor for 20 some years.

Posted by: Blaine at April 6, 2017 9:25 AM
Comment #415041

The left dismissed those leaked emails and declared them to be irrelevant. Spent hour upon hour ‘proving’ that there was nothing there. They did such a good job that even today most people can’t tell you what the emails said.

Clinton conspiracy theories have been around since the 90s and have always been promoted by the so-called far-right. The idea that they just now swayed an election is silly.

In the future, I wouldn’t use ‘PizzaGate’ as some kind of measuring stick. Especially when you have the almost identical actions of Floyd Lee Corkins II that it can be compared to.

Posted by: kctim at April 6, 2017 9:44 AM
Comment #415043

Blaine,

We’ve been down this road before. You have no idea what you are talking about and the assumptions you make about me are only a further testament to your ignorance. Worse still, you take pride in your dementia, spouting right-wing talking points instead of thinking critically. Break out of your bubble and learn a new thing or two and maybe we can have a productive dialogue, otherwise any discussion is fruitless.

kctim,

The left dismissed those leaked emails and declared them to be irrelevant. Spent hour upon hour ‘proving’ that there was nothing there. They did such a good job that even today most people can’t tell you what the emails said.

Of course a political campaign will do everything it can do to minimize the damage from negative propaganda. However, when it comes to last year’s election it doesn’t matter what “most people” think. Technically speaking “most people” thought Hillary Clinton was a better choice to be President. Our Constitution dictates that it is the Electoral College that elects our President, which is why a relatively small number of votes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania ended up swinging the election.

The unanswered question is why did people in these states vote for Trump after a lifetime of voting for Democrats. Nobody truly knows the answer conclusively. Republicans allege that they switched due to a substantive policy issue or genuine flaws in Clinton’s character. Democrats allege that Hillary Clinton suffered a character assassination at the behest of Russian propaganda and illegal hacks of private communication. Personally, I think there is a combination of the two at play and I will leave it to historians to debate the exact proportion of each.

Clinton conspiracy theories have been around since the 90s and have always been promoted by the so-called far-right. The idea that they just now swayed an election is silly.
I was referring to the new ones such as PizzaGate or the issue regarding the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom, not the old ones regarding Whitewater or Vince Foster.
In the future, I wouldn’t use ‘PizzaGate’ as some kind of measuring stick. Especially when you have the almost identical actions of Floyd Lee Corkins II that it can be compared to.

The differences between Floyd Lee Corkins II and Edgar Maddison Welch are important. Corkins actions were unlawful regardless of whether or not the things he read on SPLC were true or false. However, if PizzaGate had actually been a true story, Welch would have been justified killing someone if another person’s life was truly in danger.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 6, 2017 11:15 AM
Comment #415052

Warren Porter, yes we have been down this road before; but you refuse to answer the question; when you decided to not vote for Hillary Clinton, it was based upon your intellectual ability to choose; and yet when the unwashed masses of American humanity decided to not vote for Hillary Clinton, it was because they were swayed by Russian propaganda. Hypocrisy.

I’m watching C-Span2 with my youngest grandson, who is majoring in History/Pre-Law. The Senate majority leader McConnell has finally grown a pair and is over riding the democrats and placing the Senate on a pre George Bush simple majority vote for a SC Justice. I explained to my grandson that history was just made. Tomorrow, after an additional 30 hours of debate, Gorsuch will be confirmed and the SC will once again regain sanity. The look on the faces of the democrats is breathtaking. They have tried every political maneuver to stop or slow the process down, to no avail.

Posted by: Blaine at April 6, 2017 1:01 PM
Comment #415053

Warren,
You offered the emails as proof that the propaganda and misinformation was successful, so of course it matters if people knew what they said.
And “Technically speaking” most people polled thought Hillary Clinton was a better choice to be President. To blame that disparity between polling and reality on a relatively small number of voters somehow being swayed by irrelevant emails, is nothing but desperation.

Clinton pedophile, satanist, 1% and NWO conspiracies are not new. ‘PizzaGate’ was just the latest incarnation and only made the news because it was election season and the idiot shot off an AR.
So, with all the years of NWO, Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg and Epstein type conspiracies, why would it be ‘PizzaGate’ to change the results of an election?

The Uranium One conspiracy isn’t all that new.

“The differences between Floyd Lee Corkins II and Edgar Maddison Welch are important.”

In the context of ‘fake news,’ which we are discussing here, the similarities are more important: They both took action based on false information being passed off as truth.
The absolute rarity of their actions only further disproves the rhetoric about how powerful ‘fake news’ is.

Posted by: kctim at April 6, 2017 1:37 PM
Comment #415054

Comment #415052 demonstrates nothing other than the fact that Blaine does not understand the meaning of the word hypocrisy.

The reasons I chose to vote for one of Hillary Clinton’s opponents do not necessarily have to be the same reasons other people used when casting their votes. To assume otherwise is beyond stupid.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 6, 2017 1:42 PM
Comment #415055

Comment #415054 demonstrates Warren’s hypocrisy. He comments that his reasoning for not voting for Hillary is based on his intellectual ability to choose between her and other candidates; but regular Americans do not have the intellectual ability to choose. Instead, their simple minds were swayed by so called Russian influence. Just keep digging that hole.

Posted by: Blaine at April 6, 2017 2:19 PM
Comment #415057
You offered the emails as proof that the propaganda and misinformation was successful, so of course it matters if people knew what they said.

It matters whether or not 80,000 people in MI, WI and PA knew what they said. It doesn’t matter what the millions of Americans elsewhere knew or did not know. Because said emails featured prominently in the Presidential debates, the idea that no votes were impacted is very dubious.


And “Technically speaking” most people polled thought Hillary Clinton was a better choice to be President. To blame that disparity between polling and reality on a relatively small number of voters somehow being swayed by irrelevant emails, is nothing but desperation.

More votes were cast for Hillary Clinton than for any other candidate last November. Your emphasis of polling conducted by the media is an attempt to distract from that fact.

So, with all the years of NWO, Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg and Epstein type conspiracies, why would it be ‘PizzaGate’ to change the results of an election?
In 2016, the conspiracies got an assist from Russia. In previous elections they did not get such an assist, which is why they were not as influencial. Posted by: Warren Porter at April 6, 2017 2:44 PM
Comment #415058
but regular Americans do not have the intellectual ability to choose. Instead, their simple minds were swayed by so called Russian influence

Instead of putting words in my mouth, why don’t you try reading what I actually write. Different people cast their votes for different reasons and sometimes based upon different information. This is not a comment on anyone’s intellect, but simply an affirmation of the diverse tapestry that makes up the American people.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 6, 2017 2:48 PM
Comment #415061

Warren said, “Instead of putting words in my mouth, why don’t you try reading what I actually write”.

Ok, I can do that:

“That is categorically false. And that’s not just my opinion, it is the conclusion of every US intelligence agency. Russia waged an influence campaign and the result was that many Americans cast votes in favor of Donald Trump as a result of Russian propaganda and misinformation. Why bother hacking machines when one can hack people’s minds instead?”

You said exactly what I claimed you said. That the simple minded Americans, who did not have your intelligence ability to choose to not vote for Hillary Clinton, were duped by the Russians into voting for Trump. Of course, you were speaking of independents and democrats, considering republicans were a given for the republican candidate.

Warren, I don’t see how your assessment could be considered any other way. I stand by the hypocrisy comment.

Posted by: Blaine at April 6, 2017 3:19 PM
Comment #415062

Warren should have learned by now, that national elections always center on “bread and butter” and sometimes, war issues. The last presidential election certainly followed that precedence.

All the Lefty bullshit being flung around about the election being stolen is nonsense. Hillary was a flawed candidate, her party offered nothing that the public wanted, and Trump ran a novel and effective campaign that will be copied by others in the coming years.

The democrats are proficient in attracting dissidents, the give-me-something-for-nothing crowd, freedom haters, whiners and kooks to their party. As we have seen at local, county, state and national levels, their constituency is out of step with America.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 6, 2017 3:29 PM
Comment #415063

“Of course a political campaign will do everything it can do to minimize the damage from negative propaganda.”

Will Warren please enlighten us as to when “truth” becomes propaganda?

“Instead, their simple minds were swayed by so called Russian influence. Just keep digging that hole.”
Posted by: Blaine at April 6, 2017 2:19 PM

So very true Blaine. We wonder if Warren considers himself an elitist? He certainly writes that way.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 6, 2017 3:40 PM
Comment #415065

I’m just surprised that Warren can’t comprehend the error of his comments. It surely is elitist to claim he voted against Hillary for reasons the rest of America could not comprehend. In 8 years, the democrats lost 1200+ state and local political seats. Not to mention both houses of congress. Yet they attempt to convince us the American people supported Clinton up until the Russians threw it for her. If she was so popular, why did Warren vote against her? Inquiring minds would love to hear that reasoning.

Posted by: Blaine at April 6, 2017 4:49 PM
Comment #415066

Blaine, this “inquiring mind” does indeed believe that our Lefty Pal Warren considers himself above others in his lofty cogent thinking about political candidates.

He would probably never admit being influenced by releases of emails that have never been denied as truthful, but I suspect otherwise.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 6, 2017 5:21 PM
Comment #415068

Royal, I know that I seem to be hard on Warren; but as I said, I’ve been on WB for many years. I was around to read the ridiculous comments of David Remmer. So I find it so hypocritical of Porter to make the bogus statement that he is willing to wait for the results of yet another investigation. An investigation at this point by the heads of the intelligence community that finds no connection between Trump and the Russians regarding influence over the election. The investigation is code for “do as much damage to the Trump presidency as you can”. But the idea of him waiting for the results of an investigation reminds me of when he had tried, convicted, and lynched George Zimmerman several years ago, before the trial ever started. In fact, Porter did not even accept the not guilty verdict of the jury. So I say, so much for Porter’s claim to be waiting for results.

Posted by: Blaine at April 6, 2017 5:53 PM
Comment #415070

Blaine, I had a lot of fun debating our friend Remer. He was considerably more interesting than Warren.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 6, 2017 6:26 PM
Comment #415071
That the simple minded Americans, who did not have your intelligence ability to choose to not vote for Hillary Clinton, were duped by the Russians into voting for Trump.

I did not say the people influenced by Russian propaganda were less intelligent or of a simple mind. Those are YOUR phrases, not mine. Shame on you for making assumptions about someone just because they may have been a victim of Russian influence.

national elections always center on “bread and butter” and sometimes, war issues
That would be the conventional wisdom, but last year’s election was anything but conventional.
Will Warren please enlighten us as to when “truth” becomes propaganda?
The leaked emails were never confirmed to be true.
He would probably never admit being influenced by releases of emails that have never been denied as truthful, but I suspect otherwise.

Why does it matter whether or not I was personally influenced by the leaked emails or not?

he had tried, convicted, and lynched George Zimmerman several years ago, before the trial ever started. In fact, Porter did not even accept the not guilty verdict of the jury.
Blaine, you are going to have to report my position accurately if you are going to have any success here. The summary you present today is nothing but a straw man caricature. Posted by: Warren Porter at April 6, 2017 6:47 PM
Comment #415072

There has been some chatter about a revised attempt to pass a bill fixing or replacing Obamacare. We sure hope this is true.

Great Britain’s Increasingly Scandalous National Health Service

“Comparing data for cancer, heart disease, and stroke, the most common sources of sickness and death in the U.S. and Europe, and the diseases that generate the highest medical expenditures, we see the overt failure of the NHS and its socialist relatives.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottatlas/2013/07/05/happy-birthday-to-great-britains-increasingly-scandalous-national-health-service/#5e647530136a

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 6, 2017 6:54 PM
Comment #415073

“Why does it matter whether or not I was personally influenced by the leaked emails or not?”

It only matters, Warren, as a means to absolve others of your contentions. If you weren’t personally influenced; to claim that others were, with no proof, indicates hipocrisy or elitism.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 6, 2017 7:02 PM
Comment #415077

No Warren, shame on you for inferring that you have the ability to make the decision that Hillary Clinton was a liar, a crook, unqualified…you pick the reason; but then you go on the say the rest of the democrats or independents were too stupid to see the same things, but were swayed to vote against Hillary by Russians. This is ignorance and hypocrisy. You can spin it all you want, but that’s exactly what you said. You said that Americans were swayed to vote for Trump as a result of Russian propaganda. That’s what you said, you want to now withdraw that comment?

Regarding Zimmerman, once again you said he was guilty even after he was found not guilty. I remember because I was the one who had the discussion with you…check the archives.

Posted by: Blaine at April 6, 2017 10:04 PM
Comment #415078

Once again, Trump is moving to correct the troubles that Obama caused in Syria. Not only will Assad not try to second guess President Trump , but I’m sure the little fat creep in North Korea, and the radicals in Iran will get the message.

The world has become used to the spineless piece of crap we had for a president for the past 8 years. The God we have a man in the WH and not a coward that infected our country.

Posted by: Blaine at April 6, 2017 10:14 PM
Comment #415087
It only matters, Warren, as a means to absolve others of your contentions. If you weren’t personally influenced; to claim that others were, with no proof, indicates hipocrisy or elitism.

Saying that everyday Americans get their marching orders from me rather than make their own decisions strikes strikes me as far more condescending than whatever allegation you are trying to craft. Americans are not a homogenous blob. Different people cast their votes for different reasons and different motivations. Last year’s Russian propaganda was designed and targeted in order to influence working class Whites in the upper midwest. So, it is not incredulous to believe that those people would be affected and I would not.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 7, 2017 8:28 AM
Comment #415094

Warren,

“the idea that no votes were impacted is very dubious.”

No more dubious than the idea that it changed the results of an entire national election.

“Your emphasis of polling conducted by the media is an attempt to distract from that fact.”

My emphasis was on how silly it is to use polls as some kind of magical proof that ‘the people wanted Hillary to be President.’

“In 2016, the conspiracies got an assist from Russia. In previous elections they did not get such an assist, which is why they were not as influencial”

With all due respect Warren, you really don’t know all that much about this topic, do you?


Posted by: kctim at April 7, 2017 9:27 AM
Comment #415097

kctim, it appears Warren Porter knows nothing about the subject. He’s trying to prove an argument using the flawed talking points of the extremist media.

Warren, I never claimed anyone got their marching orders from you. God help us if they did. You seem like a very confused young man. My argument is that you claim to have the intelligence to determine that Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate and therefore (by your opinion) you determined not to vote for her. On the other hand, you claim (and thank you for now isolating the ignorant masses to be working class white democrats from the upper Midwest) to not have the same ability to decide as you did, but were tricked by the Russians into voting for Trump. This has to be one of the most ignorant arguments I have ever heard. But let’s bring it back to your decision to not vote for Hillary. Was your decisions based upon Russian propaganda? If not, then pray tell us how you know that Midwest white people were duped by the Russians?

Posted by: Blaine at April 7, 2017 9:50 AM
Comment #415098
No more dubious than the idea that it changed the results of an entire national election.

At least one man was influenced enough to shoot up a Pizzeria in DC. My Bayesian reasoning tells me that there must be many more people who ingested the same information and it impacted their votes.

My emphasis was on how silly it is to use polls as some kind of magical proof that ‘the people wanted Hillary to be President.’
I wasn’t citing media polling, but the actual election results, which clearly indicate that more Americans preferred Hillary Clinton over any other candidate for President.
With all due respect Warren, you really don’t know all that much about this topic, do you?

At this point, your argument is that conspiracies regarding Whitewater & Vince Foster didn’t impede Bill Clinton’s reelection in 1996 therefore other conspiracy theories surely couldn’t impede Hillary Clinton’s candidacy 20 years later. I am quite confident that the nature of the situations in 2016 and 1996 are different enough such that no inference about 2016 can be made on the basis of what happened in 1996 (or 1992 for that matter).

Before 2016, no one connected to the Clintons had ever run in a Presidential general election in an era of widespread internet access (including a preponderance of social media) nor had any such person run in an election dominated by a backdrop of concerted Russian efforts to sway voters against him or her nor had anyone connected to the Clintons run in a Presidential general election in a time when the Right had severely discredited the mainstream media and replaced it with alternative outlets prefaced on telling damaging lie after damaging lie.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 7, 2017 10:02 AM
Comment #415099
My argument is that you claim to have the intelligence to determine that Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate and therefore (by your opinion) you determined not to vote for her. On the other hand, you claim (and thank you for now isolating the ignorant masses to be working class white democrats from the upper Midwest) to not have the same ability to decide as you did, but were tricked by the Russians into voting for Trump.

Did I say anything about intelligence? No. Did I say anything about ability? No.

Your argument is a straw man.

Different people choose their votes based on different reasons. This is not a reflection of these people’s ability or intelligence.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 7, 2017 10:11 AM
Comment #415107

You failed to answer the question twice, was the so-called Russian interference the reason you didn’t vote for Hillary. Secondly, give us the proof that Russian hackers influenced the White working class of the upper Midwest. You just can’t accept the fact that the white working class came to the same conclusions for the same reasons as you when it came to voting for Hillary. You implied the intelligence; that you are smarter than regular people. This flaw shows in yours and SD’s writing. It is a flaw of the left. You can’t comprehend why the working class or union members would vote for anyone other than a democrat, can you? If you can convince me that Hillary or Obama actually sought the white working class democrats, then I would concede the point. But even the democrats said Hillary failed to go after the white working class. She didn’t even campaign in the upper Midwest. Who knows why, arrogance or perhaps she thought they would support her no matter what she did. The problem is, you are taking flawed data, of which there is no proof, and trying to build a case for Russian interference. It’s not there, it never has been, and it’s the left grasping at straws for the reason they were whooped.

Posted by: Blaine at April 7, 2017 12:04 PM
Comment #415108

kctim-
Are you saying that Putin would favor a leader that would strengthen his principle rival? It’s some pretty simple logic. Most of what Putin does is consistent with pushing back against the US’s hegemony, amplifying Russian power in the region. It’s the unifying principle that makes sense of his actions in Crimea and his intervention in our election. Is it just odd coincidence that Trump took a more Russia-friendly foreign policy direction?

Putin would choose a weaker, more divisive leader for us, a more isolationist sort of fellow. Not somebody who could or would unite the world against him. And if he becomes that?

Then the other shoe from the hacks drops, I expect.

Blaine-
I read through your comments, despite the fact it causes me to break out in hives, bleed out of my eyeballs, and go through bouts of spasmodic gout.

Seriously, though, I’m not so much of a snowflake that I can’t at least familiarize myself with what I’m responding to. The only reason not to do that, is if your response has nothing to do with the content. I’m not in the business of relying on pre-cooked material like that.

On the matter of Carter Page, I’d tell you that he’s a very odd duckling. The Trump Campaign seems to have elevated his status in a way that doesn’t match his actual work, which seems mediocre at best. My suspicious side tells me he could be a kind of go-between, purposefully unremarkable so as to avoid attention. My more ironic side tells me that he could just be one of those toadies that likes to think of himself as a big player, and finally got his big break with Trump.

As far as hacking voting machines… maybe they graduate to that later, maybe not. What they did here was more disruptive. Why go through all the trouble to deal with all the different vendors, deal with all the mechanical and opto-electronic devices, when you can take advantage of social media and the internet to stir up mass hysteria? Hack the voters, who are running more consistent software, so to speak (GOP-OS, OS-X Sanders) across the hardware platforms!

They didn’t just spill the beans, illegally leaking DNC secrets. They deliberately sowed misinformation, deliberately targeted the President with social media posts that turned him into an amplifier for their fake news.

As for your charges?

That’s all they are! Any evidence of an order here? No. Any evidence Susan Rice leaked any information? No. Any evidence that she unmasked any information? No. Any evidence yet that Trump’s phones were tapped? No.

Charges like that, made without evidence, are fake news. It’s this gullibility of yours that made the Russian efforts successful. When people want their confirmation biases flattered, they can be lead to believe anything that fits.

Royal Flush

As far as the Constitution goes? Your announcements of my intentions are more of the same, more lies. More fake news.

I believe the Constitution, for the sake of our nation’s stability, should be changed minimally over time. Large revisions can create profound changes with implications that echo for decades to come.

One thing to keep in mind is that the Constitution is a framework, not the whole edifice. It’s not built to limit everything to one set of interpretations. It is built to support a dynamic, changeable government, one that is responsive and accountable to the needs of its people, but also stable and distanced enough in critical ways that it doesn’t destroy itself in populist frenzies.

The Constitution belongs to us, the living. The original intentions are important in certain ways… the preservation of the private sphere, the liberties we expect as citizens… the reason we want it today are little different than the reasons that the Framers wanted it. The Framers had the right idea about the need to keep speech open, to keep government’s hands off the private practice of religion. They had the right idea about protecting the rights of the accused. In taking these approaches, they helped make America exceptional.

Thing is, Constitutional principles alone cannot keep us free, cannot limit government power as it needs to be. Modern technology and changing events alter the ability of the government to intrude. They change the landscape of the human needs of the citizens. They change how we behave economically. The monumental increase in the speed of communication and travel have altered how international trade takes place, much less interstate trade, making what was once a constellation of local economies mostly trading within their own states into a national framework of inherently interstate operations.

The law has to catch up, and since the law must start with and work with the Constitution, the interpretation has to catch up, be renewed the way our bone cells must be renewed. If the Constitution is not living, it is obsolete.

The challenges of the world are too numerous for the purposefully difficult process of amendment to keep up. The Constitution is not meant to be a fast moving, quickly revised set of laws. It’s meant to be a stable foundation, rarely changed, and then only with extraordinary consensus behind it.

If we want to respond quickly to our needs, but in a way consistent with the Constitution, then we must be willing to exhaust all possibilities of legitimate reinterpretation before we go pushing into the amendment process. Rather than simply violating the constitutional order, I would say the idea would be to adhere to it until you have no other choice.

I would think the point of the Constitution itself was to provide a space of legitimate power with critical restraints woven into it. While the original intentions and beliefs of the Framers are important, the document was written with the idea that the current generation would have the responsibility of figuring things out for themselves. They didn’t specify too much, or advocate for one ideology or another. In fact, the addition of the Bill of Rights was one of our nation’s first major bipartisan compromises, the Federalists compromising with the Anti-Federalists to create a document everybody could get on board with.

Here’s the thing: today’s right has contracted an illness, the illness of unbridled partisanship. They’ve come to the conclusion that there is no compromise, no legitimate compromise, with Democrats on their beliefs. They’ve come to believe that they should be able to do whatever they want, regardless of what stands in the way. Whether that means violating the spirit of the Judicial appointments clause, or getting in the way of majority rule when it suited their purposes, the Republicans have shown a disturbing unwillingness to share power with others.

Republicans need to realize that they are not the sole heirs of the framers, that we are all the children of their system. However absolute their belief in their beliefs, it is the right and the freedom of our nation to disagree. However perfect you think your ideas are, you can’t force others to give up their own.

You want to win all debates, for all time. But nobody is given that in terms of infallibility or persuasiveness. Do yourself a favor, and humble yourself to the task of governing with your equals.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 7, 2017 12:49 PM
Comment #415111
You implied the intelligence; that you are smarter than regular people

Blaine, your deductive reasoning is flawed. I think you should stick with what I actually write instead of hallucinating that I imply something else. Different people cast their votes for different reasons and that is not necessarily a reflection of anyone’s intelligence.

You can’t comprehend why the working class or union members would vote for anyone other than a democrat, can you?
Considering that I voted for someone other than a Democrat, it is quite easy for me to comprehend a WWC voter in the upper Midwest doing the same. I had my reasons for thinking Hillary Clinton was unfit to be President and I think it is perfectly plausible that a small number of WWC voters may have followed the same line of thinking. However, I am not vain enough to possibly believe that my strange and idiosyncratic ideology is terribly widespread.

In any case, it is hubris to believe that all the WWC voters switching from voting for Obama to voting for Trump did so for the exact same reasons. America is way too diverse for such a simple model. There are certainly people who voted against Democrats for reasons very different than my own.

The CIA, FBI, NSA and fourteen other US intelligence agencies have all agreed that Russian influence affected last year’s election. Nobody will ever be able to quantify the impact the Russians may have had, but considering how narrow Trump’s margin of victory was, even a relatively small number of brainwashed individuals could be responsible for changing the result.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 7, 2017 1:41 PM
Comment #415128

“So, it is not incredulous to believe that those people would be affected and I would not.”

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 7, 2017 8:28 AM

I will not continue with this argument Warren as I know that you feel justified in considering others as being less politically discerning than yourself.

That is stinking thinking.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 7, 2017 5:52 PM
Comment #415129

Royal Flush-
Yes, because you’re always so kind to others about their dissent from your views.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 7, 2017 5:57 PM
Comment #415130

I read your thoughts on the Constitution and Law Stephen. You are mistaken on many levels.

Your continued confusion between the Constitution and Laws is astounding.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 7, 2017 6:00 PM
Comment #415132

WP

So name me all 17 intel agencies by name. You are just one of the left that keeps reminding others that there 17 intel agencies but you never name them to inform the readers that they really do concur with other intel groups. You can wait until next week to finish any investigation you might want to finish. Don’t want to hurry ya.

In the meantime I will enjoy my cubs, and blackhawks in their respective sports.

Posted by: tom humes at April 7, 2017 7:26 PM
Comment #415134

Royal, I agree with you completely. You are a better man than I to be able to finish Stephen’s posts. My eyes glaze over about a third of the way through. I already know Stephen’s views of the constitution, he doesn’t believe in it. Warren Porter believes himself to be much smarter than the common people, but then that is to be expected. It’s a waste of time trying to discuss a subject with someone who thinks they know everything.

Posted by: Blaine at April 7, 2017 8:09 PM
Comment #415136
I know that you feel justified in considering others as being less politically discerning than yourself.

That is stinking thinking.

Making faulty assumptions is far more odorous than these faulty accusations of elitism. Like Blaine, you are ascribing thoughts to me that are not mine. If others were affected by propaganda and I was not, that does not imply anything about intelligence or any other ability. It might be simply because I was not a target given that my vote was far less influential last year than the vote of a Wisconsinite, Michigander or Pennsylvanian.

I’m not even vain enough to completely dismiss the possibility that I wasn’t affected by Russian propaganda. It’s hard to self-assess in these sort of situations. What I do know is that my own personal experiences are not representative. Americans are too diverse and heterogeneous for everyone to think the same way I do. I don’t know if my thinking is better or worse than other people’s, all I know is that it is my own and others have different worldviews shaped by different values and experiences.

So name me all 17 intel agencies by name. You are just one of the left that keeps reminding others that there 17 intel agencies but you never name them to inform the readers that they really do concur with other intel groups.

The USIC consists of:

1. Director of National Intelligence
2. Central Intelligence Agency
3. Federal Bureau of Investigation (Intelligence Branch)
4. National Security Agency
5. Defense Intelligence Agency
6. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
7. National Reconnaissance Office
8. Military Intelligence Corps
9. Office of Naval Intelligence
10. Twenty-Fifth Air Force
11. Marine Corps Intelligence
12. Coast Guard Intelligence
13. Office of Intelligence and Analysis
14. State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research
15. Treasury Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
16. Drug Enforcement Agency’s Office of National Security Intelligence
17. Energy Department Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence

Before you ask, I only knew a third of these from memory. Feel free to chastise me for having to look up the rest. I’m not trying to suggest I possess superior knowledge here.

Is the whole “17 departments/agencies” thing a talking point? Probably. “Seventeen” sounds a lot more convincing than just saying the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA and whoever else has cybersecurity expertise. Out of the numerous players here, I’m sure the heavy lifting is being done by just a few. But the fact still stands. Our finest intelligence analysts have made their conclusion. While past experience may make us too wary to start a war over nothing but an intelligence report, it certainly merits further investigation.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 7, 2017 10:17 PM
Comment #415155

WP

That “challenge” was so simple. My point was that reference is made many times of a variety of intel agencies and people do not even know who they are referencing. Just some political hack in the “do not tell” levels of government. And I refer to Clapper and Brennan et.al. as political hacks who work for agencies in our government.

Any body who feels they must lie to the American people and are employed as intel officers are political hacks.

Those who prostitute themselves to the American public to spread their mouthings do not deserve employment in our government institutions.

There is much press coming from those 17 and many more agencies that are not honest. And no I am not going to document that last statement. You know the truth and so do I, so there is no argument.

Blackhawks are coming on shortly and the cubs in 2 hours
Good night.

Posted by: tom humes at April 8, 2017 5:41 PM
Comment #415157

Tom,

Back to the business of weaving tall tales and pawning them off as fact, are we? You shamelessly attack the integrity of Clapper and Brennan without offering a shred evidence.

Sure, Clapper engaged in a bit of subterfuge when describing the NSA surveillance program to Congress in 2013. But the leap from there to the realm of political hackery is beyond my imagination. I’d like to learn why you think this.

I note that the NSA’s surveillance program, while certainly controversial, spans both Democratic and Republican administrations. Lying about it is hardly evidence of political hackery. Our history is full of honorable and professional intelligence officers who may have lied to the American people in order to safeguard our nation’s most precious secrets.

Blackhawks are coming on shortly and the cubs in 2 hours

Enjoy your evening. In due time, we’ll see how those Blackhawks fare when they meet the Bruins in the Stanley Cup Finals.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 8, 2017 7:00 PM
Post a comment