OK, this is too rich

[CitizenBBN]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/05/14/donald-trump-james-clapper-fbi-director-comey-fired-founding-fathers-assault

James Clapper, accusing Trump of eroding the institutions created by the Founding Fathers.

For those who dont' remember, James Clapper was the intelligence chief who testified prior to the Snowden releases that the government didn't collect information on Americans. it was later found that at least metadata was collected in vast amounts.

He has been accused of perjury before Congress, he ran an intelligence organization that operated under the Patriot Act. All of that, from the existence of the intelligence entity to its gathering of information on Americans without cause or warrant, and misleading Congress, would have the Founders spinning in their graves.

I'm not going to defend Trump, and he may turn out to be hiding something very serious (I'm dubious at this point that it's any more than any other iffy connection that all administrations seem to have with other groups), but for Clapper to invoke the Founder's vision of how our government should operate is just so over the top I had to comment.

The Founders would be horrified at the strength and direction of our entire government, and Clapper himself directly did exactly what he's accusing Trump of doing, thwarting the oversight role of Congress.

[Doc]

Are you suggesting hypocrisy is alive in our government?

[CitizenBBN]

Are you suggesting hypocrisy is alive in our government?

I'm suggesting if we stopped all the hypocritical statements coming out of Washington they could fit a years worth of comments on a post it note. Lol

[UKHistory]

Citizen makes a great in this debate over Trump. I am taking from his comments that those who are warning of Trump's behavior a level of criticism.

Many of these people are being hypocritical or at a minimum not realizing the manner in which their actions have eroded individual freedom either.

That is the nuance and problem here. Those who are trying to stand at the gate are no saints and have not lived up to what most of us here consider to be the Constitution.

So in some ways Trump's primary critics have not falsely cried wolf but rather brought in packs of wild dogs on leashes to do damage are now saying there is a big bad wolf on the loose. The dogs were bad but under their control. The wolf is independent and much worse.

It is easy to dismiss Clapper and others. We can see instances where liberals and conservatives in Washington have passed laws and imposed regulations that limit freedom.

The Patriot Act signed by Bush has been terrible for personal liberty. Obama's expansion of those policies and the advancement in technology has made it worse. So too was the use of executive orders that became more common as the Congress was unwilling or unable to pass legislation.

So Clapper has not been an ideal flag bearer for the Constitution. It doesn't mean Trump is not the villain I and other think he is. It just means those who can lead the fight now are very flawed individuals.

I am sure many FBI agents had issues with Comey. I doubt those same people liked how Trump fired him.

So yeah the Democrats and many in the intelligence world are being hypocritical about their love of the rule of law and individual freedom. Doesn't mean that the blind squirrel didn't find his nut.

The latest to me is the statement that Trump asked for a pledge of loyalty from Comey. That is scary. And if Trump can't distinguish between loyalty to the country or himself is another real danger.

The oath is to the Constitution not a man or even an institution like the Presidency.

[suncat05]

While still not sure about Trump, I think sometimes he is misunderstood by the way he speaks and by the way he says things publicly. He is just not a good impromptu public speaker, and a lot of times he says things that make everyone scratch their heads and wonderr what he was trying to say.
Again, still not sure about Trump and what he may be up to, but to me he is a huge improvement over the previous occupant of our White House. Easily.
And guys like Clapper are exactly what's wrong with D.C. Too many career bureaucrats & career politicians doing whatever they want with almost zero accountability attached to their actions.

[UKHistory]

Suncat, the debate about Trump's words would be fine as tv show personality or a commentator. As president Trump needs to choose his words carefully.

Trump is the leader of the free world. So when he embraces dictators that sends a much stronger message than he realizes. Twitter is not a great tool for offering thoughtful discourse on matters of public policy. He thanks in one message and then taunts Rosie in the next.

We can respectfully disagree regarding the current resident vs the previous. Ironically both are quite arrogant and neither had sufficient experience for the job. As bad as Obama's foregin policy was I am very concerned about Trump.

One thing I will say about career politicians and bureaucrats...you need good people who know where to get the toner and replace the lights (speaking metaphorically).

Experience is important. Having people who don't have experience in foreign relationships or how executive orders are written or how to negotiate with Congress slows down the process.

Part of the issue "doing what they want" and "zero accountability" has to do with the level of detail in the laws. Passing a bill like the patriot act where folks have not read the bill closely has unintended (or not so unintended) consequences. Or say a very short, to the point bill. Without very specific requirements it forces agencies to do a lot of work to implement the law and make sure that one law does not contradict another law. Or when those laws do conflict how to negotiate that if Congress doesn't amend one of the laws in conflict.

[CitizenBBN]

The latest to me is the statement that Trump asked for a pledge of loyalty from Comey. That is scary. And if Trump can't distinguish between loyalty to the country or himself is another real danger.

The oath is to the Constitution not a man or even an institution like the Presidency.

While I agree with you completely, on this and much of what you also posted, I will say that this in particular doesn't give me any real pause only b/c, while in the ideal the oath is to the Constitution, we all know it doesn't work that way.

The only difference is Obama and Bush and Clinton etc. are career politicians with career political parties behind them, so their oaths to the party and the person are there but don't have to be stated. And we see that everywhere.

We saw it with Obama and Lynch, we all knew there was no way they were going to really prosecute Hillary even if she clearly broke the law. No way. Likewise no GOP administration would do it to one of theirs either.

Obama's National Security Advisor went on national TV and knowingly liked about the Benghazi attack, and we've subsequently found out there is a lot of other questionable things she may have done, all clearly out of loyalty to Obama and not the office or the nation or the Constitution.

And likewise I'm sure in the Bush Admins it was the same, as well as Reagan, Clinton, Carter, etc and so on.

The difference for Trump is he has as many enemies in his own party as he does on the other side, so it's even harder for him to sweep out the old guard and get his people in place, and we see the result in the increased leaks and issues.

Obama came down like a ton of bricks on ANYONE who spilled any beans, setting a record for prosecution of government officials for leaks. there are real questions about the use of the IRS and now the national security apparatus for political gain, and there was absolutely no investigation.

Tellingly there isn't much outrage on Capital Hill either, of course b/c both parties are part of the same corruption. The only people raising a stink are the outsiders, like Trump and also Rand Paul. That's not a coincidence.

So Trump expecting loyalty, even if he asked for such a thing (which isn't certain), is to me no different than the obvious political loyalty we see from officials on both sides all the time. It's a given that Obama's people were going to put Obama first, and Bush's put Bush first. The problem for Trump is there isn't a large pool of people loyal to him that he can put in place quickly, b/c even relying ont he GOP to staff a lot of positions leaves him exposed to people who see him as the enemy of the GOP rather than its leader.

Ideally all these people should put nation and Constitution first, but that's clearly not the case, and I won't hold it against Trump that he expects to operate the same as every other President, with a team in place that is basically loyal to his goals and objectives.

Now covering up crimes starts to get a lot more serious, but I have no doubt Hillary committed crimes if through nothing else her gross negligence, and nothing was done, and lots of people think Bush's people did too with things like Halliburton, and nothing came of that either.

[UKHistory]

A lot of people might. It take it seriously

The people I work with carry copies or have a copy on our desks

More people need to care but some of swamp dwellers (sounds like damn gator fan) care

Some of the left think this is business is usual

I worry it is not. I worry that the missteps of the imperial presidency have brought us to trump world and that gives me great pause

[UKHistory]

Hilary definitely could have been prosecuted for the server. I think protecting her from indictment was more about saving the democratic process than her.

And it is dangerous when one candidate in the campaign wants to jail his opponent. That's third world to me.

And I'd be more worried about Hillary had she won. But she did not. And here we are

[Catonahottinroof]

Hindsight is 20/20. I'm more concerned about the 20% of the uranium stockpile that ended up with Russian beneficiaries and the subsequent donations to the Clinton Foundation. To me that is prosecutable......

Hilary definitely could have been prosecuted for the server. I think protecting her from indictment was more about saving the democratic process than her.

And it is dangerous when one candidate in the campaign wants to jail his opponent. That's third world to me.
Cv
And I'd be more worried about Hillary had she won. But she did not. And here we are

[UKHistory]

Hindsight is 20/20. I'm more concerned about the 20% of the uranium stockpile that ended up with Russian beneficiaries and the subsequent donations to the Clinton Foundation. To me that is prosecutable......

I don't disagree. But after today's allegations I'd say inviting the Russians into the oval and sharing classified intel sounds a lot like treason to me.

[Catonahottinroof]

There was no press at the meeting.....a leak by an un-named source possibly. There is little of late from the WaPo that is trustworthy. If Trump has connections to the Russians, follow the money trail that may exist. That would be damning....


I don't disagree. But after today's allegations I'd say inviting the Russians into the oval and sharing classified intel sounds a lot like treason to me.

[CitizenBBN]

I don't disagree. But after today's allegations I'd say inviting the Russians into the oval and sharing classified intel sounds a lot like treason to me.

The fact that you would accept that as factual on its face highlights the issue. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but to me, who thinks the media is nothing more than a cabal of liars pushing an agenda, I don't have any reason to think any of it is true.

You hear that and think "there goes Trump again". OK, but I hear that and I think "there goes the media again."

As for "treason", since the President is the man who in the end determines what is shared with other nations and what isn't, I'd say its his call. It may be the wrong call, and I can list several examples of the same with Obama and Bush and others, but it's not treason. It may be a bad decision, but it's not prosecutable unless it was done to undermine the United States, and that's not something I believe about Trump or Obama or Bush or any other President.

[UKHistory]

The best examples of actual alternative facts are in the sports world. A real alternative fact is that Duke was an all white team in 1966 just like UK was. That goes under reported.

Another example is Azuibuke's father was in prison--there were many other factoids to note about Kalenna other than that one. I don't know the national political writers well enough (in comparison to Bozich, Forde, Dukestein, Goodman) to know who has an agenda or an ax to grind. I just have not looked at it that closely.

In the world of politics and national news it is true that the New York times and Washington Post lean liberal. Fox news is conservative.

Based on the words and deeds of the Commander in Chief I do view the national news as more accurate, rational, and cogent in their arguments.

As a Federal employee who has concerns about RIFs and furloughs to build a wall that won't keep people out and doesn't address a very serious component of illegal immigrants (those who stay after their visas have expired) I have bias and certain point of view.

Legally speaking, treason would be very hard to prove let alone charge Trump with. It has not stopped the conservative media for two decades to all but call Clinton and Obama traitors at times.

But treason is strong without real proof that financially Trump is beholden to the Russians or is being blackmailed. After watching his campaign and his behavior I believe he is unfit and unqualified to serve as commander in chief.

I am confused by the president's almost constant criticisms of our allies and his embracing of totalitarian bullies-even to the point of saying he would be honored to meet with North Korea's president.

If the President has intentionally or unintentionally shared classified information with Russia and has in effect endangered our intelligence gathering apparatus, he is not fulfilling his oath of office.

Clinton had a personal server with classified information that could have been hacked. Trump is allowing Russian diplomats with sensitive equipment and potentially FSB staff posing as photographers into the oval office. He verbally shared information that could have serious long term negative implications for our nation.

I think that goes beyond making a bad decision. And while the Nixon phrase of "it is not illegal if the presidnent does it" has legal justification, the Founders never would have imagined someone who has such financial ties--that is all but documented fact" with a foreign power.

[CitizenBBN]

I'd like to get to the rest, but what are Trump's documented financial ties to Russia that are so alarming? He has ties all over the world, but I know of no interests with Russia that have surfaced.

In your view the national media is behaving reasonably sanely, b/c you believe Trump is a Russian stooge or at least a raving lunatic.

But I don't see him as either, and I've seen the national media as an absurd farce since before I knew Trump's name. This is just them at their most exposed worst, but this BS has been going on forever.

Releasing intel to the RUssians? It's a documented fact that Obama released intel on sites and locations in Syria to the russians that led to our allies there being attacked. Where was the outrage from the media, the calls of corruption or impeachment? Nowhere, b/c they would let Obama murder people in the streets before they'd cross him, he's their hero.

All of this is mostly just bias. If Obama did these things they would be quickly explained away by that same national media. Likewise if a GOP candidate was as stupid and corrupt as Hillary they would be so relentless that person would have no future at all. Sure they went after Hillary some, but even then they started to question if they were too tough on her. A GOP Sec of State who behaved like she did would be crucified in the national media.

Trump MAY Have given away some intel to the Russians of his own volition and there are calls of treason and impeachment. Obama did it and no one said a word, and Hillary (the far worse sin IMO) through her own ego and pompousness let the Russians and others likely have access to all kinds of information, and that was downplayed so much she won the party nomination.

Trump is a petulant child as Doc put it, no doubt. But when he does something that is the same as something Obama or Hillary did it's the end of the Republic, when they did it it was no big deal and conservatives were all loonies to complain.

The difference is you see these media reports as fact. I do not. They weren't fact filled before Trump, why would they be now? You're sure he shared information that would have long term implications? Were you this upset when Obama was found to have shared information? How about when we found out during other administrations that there were key breaches of intel?

if this were Obama the media would be quickly dismissing this as not a big deal. ANd I can prove it, b/c he in fact did do it, and they played it as no big deal, even though that information led to attacks (and surely deaths) on our allies in Syria. But that didn't even make the evening news. That's the level of bias we have to cut through these days.

[CitizenBBN]

BTW, on the wall and immigration, visas are a big source of "illegal immigrants", but not a big source of the problems. The problem with illegal immigration is lack of control of the border b/c it is driving the drug cartels in Mexico and the drugs and gangs here. THEY control that border, and it is making them rich and powerful.

MS-13 gang members aren't on visas. IF they are we have a problem with our visa system, but the source of the crime and drugs is illegal crossings, not people getting here legally then not going home.

If we get control of the border then we can address immigration policy, but it makes no sense to deport someone 15 times when they keep walking back over. The wall should have been built in the 1980s when this started to be a problem, and then we could have addressed opening up to more legal, orderly immigration. Instead we have this mess.

And this is from someone who is basically pro-immigration. But you can't allow drug cartels to run your immigration policy, and that is what is currently happening.

[KeithKSR]

Hindsight is 20/20. I'm more concerned about the 20% of the uranium stockpile that ended up with Russian beneficiaries and the subsequent donations to the Clinton Foundation. To me that is prosecutable......

Including the involvement of the Podesta brothers and their shadow corps in the deal, which enriched them by millions.

[UKHistory]

Obama and by extension Hillary's foreign policy was awful. Great point. Putin has been whipping us--that has got to change whoever is in the White House.

My concerns are from the dossier and the quotes from Trump and his family regarding the Russian investments in his properties. When a person mocks NATO and cozies up to the Russians I get a little nervous.

In terms of immigration, I want a much better handle on who comes and goes in this country. I am not sure that his wall is the best way. And I am more than open to reviewing our vetting for foreign nationals too.

For far too long dems and republicans looked the other way regarding illegal immigrants. The rich benefit from this far more than the middle and lower economci class of US citizens.

One thing I learned this year is that in southwestern parks we actually have signs warning those recreating in the park that certain trails are used by drug smugglers? I actually have seen the signs.

If we can spend money to warn people about drug smugglers like we do bears, we need to do something about it. I am there with you.

I am not sure the wall is the way to go. But I want a far more secure border. And regardless of the percentage of violent crime committed by illegals, if we keep them out, the crime is reduced.

[KeithKSR]

The border patrol think the wall and other means of protection is the way to go, and they put their lives on the line to protect our borders.