Pages

Friday, April 7, 2017

No consistency

So, do the ends justify the means... or are the ends irrelevant if the means are suspect? I guess, if you are a liberal, it completely depends on which of the two (ends or means) advances or hinders your narrative.

  • When it comes to the hacking of the DNC and Clinton emails, what the left would like us to focus on is the means of how this information was obtained. What that information told us about the Clinton campaign and the DNC should be considered irrelevant.
  • When it comes to any possible collusion between the Trump team and the Russians, the left would like us to focus on whatever information might be gathered. The means, even if those actions were criminal, should be considered irrelevant.
  • When it comes to gathering evidence on whether or not there actually was any monitoring or illegal releasing of information on Trump team members, the left would like you to focus on how that evidence is being gathered. The information that was gathered should be considered irrelevant.  
At some point you want to say... hey pick a side here. Stick to it. 

Personally (with one exception) I feel that it's all pretty much relevant. The information hacked from the DNC and Clinton campaign is relevant, as is any information as to how they got hacked. Any information gathered on the Trump team is certainly relevant, but the means involved in the information gathering could be a crime and is certainly relevant. 

The only thing I find to be fairly irrelevant is the manner in which evidence of spying or illegal activity by our own Government is being obtained. By nature, this information is not going to be simply offered to the Congressional committees investigating the very people who are being relied on to produce the information. If getting to the truth relies on whistle blowers stepping forward, I have no issue with that. I don't find it "partisan" that we should be working to find out if holdover members of our Federal government were breaking laws to undermine the credibility of the incoming administration.

33 comments:

rrb said...

The information hacked from the DNC and Clinton campaign is relevant, as is any information as to how they got hacked.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

indeed. and it makes one wonder why the DNC declined an FBI request to investigate their hacking, opting to work with crowdstrike instead.

i think that the entire DNC nomination process was SO corrupt, the last thing they wanted was the anyone knowing what kind of shit they were pulling. Also, why would the DNC insist that it was only the trump campaign that could have been in communications with the russians when we know for a fact that hillary has been and can be bought? we even know her price.





Commonsense said...

Please tell me you're not doing this on your honeymoon.

wphamilton said...

No kidding. Even if someone is getting on in years, it's Paris and a new wife. At most, talk politics with Parisians, get the street-level perspective and get back to us with that.

Roger Amick said...

I'm going to take on the last paragraph.

The only thing I find to be fairly irrelevant is the manner in which evidence of spying or illegal activity by our own Government is being obtained. There is absolutely any proof that the tweet last month was accurate. The FBI, and not one of the other non partisan investigations have found anything to support is charges.

By nature, this information is not going to be simply offered to the Congressional committees investigating the very people who are being relied on to produce the information. This information, that said there was no wiretapping happened. Nor could the President order is without at least a ruling by he FISA court and there was no ruling released.

If getting to the truth relies on whistle blowers stepping forward, I have no issue with that. I don't find it "partisan" that we should be working to find out if holdover members of our Federal government were breaking laws to undermine the credibility of the incoming administration. If there was a "deep throat' would be talking to the media today, especially to Breitbart or other similar internet "news" sources.

The bottom line on this comment, CH, isn't valid. You are assuming that Obama did wire tap the incoming administration. The did some things that the Trump administration didn't like. But executive orders can be reversed with a new executive order.


I will take a close look at your other two, They look like they might be written under the influence of wine.

Roger Amick said...

But this might be an even bigger story than we have seen. Yes, it's from the "Fake News" failing New York Times, but hmmm..

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/trump-russia-cia-john-brennan.html?_r=0

C.I.A. Had Evidence of Russian Effort to Help Trump Earlier Than Believed.

WASHINGTON — The C.I.A. told senior lawmakers in classified briefings last summer that it had information indicating that Russia was working to help elect Donald J. Trump president, a finding that did not emerge publicly until after Mr. Trump’s victory months later, former government officials say.

The briefings indicate that intelligence officials had evidence of Russia’s intentions to help Mr. Trump much earlier in the presidential campaign than previously thought. The briefings also reveal a critical split last summer between the C.I.A. and counterparts at the F.B.I., where a number of senior officials continued to believe through last fall that Russia’s cyberattacks were aimed primarily at disrupting America’s political system, and not at getting Mr. Trump elected, according to interviews.

The former officials said that in late August — 10 weeks before the election — John O. Brennan, then the C.I.A. director, was so concerned about increasing evidence of Russia’s election meddling that he began a series of urgent, individual briefings for eight top members of Congress, some of them on secure phone lines while they were on their summer break.

It is unclear what new intelligence might have prompted the classified briefings. But with concerns growing both internally and publicly at the time about a significant Russian breach of the Democratic National Committee, the C.I.A. began seeing signs of possible connections to the Trump campaign, the officials said. By the campaign’s final weeks, Congress and the intelligence agencies were racing to understand the scope of the Russia threat.

This is the critical sentence in this story. But with concerns growing both internally and publicly at the time about a significant Russian breach of the Democratic National Committee, the C.I.A. began seeing signs of possible connections to the Trump campaign, the officials said.

possible connections. Hmm.. probably more important than month old fictional tweets.

Roger Amick said...

Hypocrisyb On Steroids.
I don't object to last night, but he's so fucked up and are his followers, who don't like to be reminded about his past

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!
4:02 PM - 30 Aug 2013

31,921 31,921 Retweets
19,428
Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Why do we keep broadcasting when we are going to attack Syria. Why can't we just be quiet and, if we attack at all, catch them by surprise?

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!
6:20 AM - 5 Sep 2013

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day!
6:21 AM - 7 Sep 2013

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

@walaa_3ssaf No, dopey, I would not go into Syria, but if I did it would be by surprise and not blurted all over the media like fools.
5:09 AM - 29 Aug 2013 · Manhattan, NY

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

If we are going to continue to be stupid and go into Syria (watch Russia), as they say in the movies, SHOOT FIRST AND TALK LATER!
5:19 AM - 29 Aug 2013

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Let the Arab League take care of Syria. Why are these rich Arab countries not paying us for the tremendous cost of such an attack?
5:25 AM - 29 Aug 2013

caliphate4vr said...

I don't object to last night

Liar

Fucking hack

Loretta Russo said...

Are you going to keep spamming every thread again?

Simply can't control your impulsive behavior, eh drunkard?

Roger Amick said...

I posed out that your hero is the biggest hypocrite on the planet.

Hell, I would not surprise me that Trump and Putin didn't work together. Putin would tell Assad make an attack, but not too big Then Trump would fire he missles and look good and take attention away from other news and give Trump a boost in the polls.


Facts are no spam, twit.

Loretta Russo said...

Unhinged lunatic.

Have another drink, drunkard.

Loretta Russo said...

He's drunk- again.

Roger Amick said...

I haven't had a drink for four years ten months and change. Nice try, twit.

The Breaking news is the White House has said that the attack was a one time event. No follow up.

Roger Amick said...

One day at a time! When I walk into the meeting room, most of the people say "Roger!". I'm the only one that call out a name. It's flattering, but I like it. I'm not getting a big ego thing out of it. One of the counselors at the Kaiser Permanente Addiction treatment, told me something that really helped. He said that I should always be humble. The reason is that if a guy like me, gets arrogant, I will lie to myself and think that I was cured of the disease of alcoholism, and could drink like a regular person. That's the dream of every alcoholic. So every single time I start to think I'm tough and can do whatever I want to do, I remember those words of wisdom.

Kiss my sober ass. I will have five years on May 25th. My chip will be on the legacy sie on that day. I keep all my chips in my car.

Loretta Russo said...

Sure drunkard.

Sure.

Roger Amick said...

You are nuts. I've taken it seriously, and even our host complimented me for my sobriety. 1,778 days, 45,695 hours. Kiss my sober ass, twit.

Loretta Russo said...

No one cares, drunkard.

Roger Amick said...

I have gotten several people, usually new comers, thank me for helping them. It feels good.

Loretta Russo said...

No one cares drunkard.

Roger Amick said...

You are so filled with hatred, it's pitiful. I feel sorry for those who have to live with your irrational and judgemental views. I'm done Loretta, if there was a 'ignore' key like Yahoo had on the soars board, you and your fellow idiot from Kansas would be the only two on the list, because neither one of you have ever offered any rational discussion.

Roger Amick said...

You don't care, but others do, including CH.

Loretta Russo said...

CH is a nice guy. You could learn from him, but instead you treat him like shit, continue to disrespect him and act you're some savior.

Stupid impulsive drunkard.

Loretta Russo said...

Big deal.

Loretta Russo said...

Tell us, drunkard....

Since you're so popular, why can't you get any responses on the trash blog?

CH handed you a perfectly good blog, a lot of people once visited and commented.

What's your excuse?

Loretta Russo said...

Hell, you don't even have a handful of people commenting on your Facebook.

Why is that?

Loretta Russo said...

Waiting.....

Loretta Russo said...

THIS is what Roger considers rational discussion...

"Hypocrisyb On Steroids.
I don't object to last night, but he's so fucked up and are his followers, who don't like to be reminded about his past

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!
4:02 PM - 30 Aug 2013

31,921 31,921 Retweets
19,428
Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Why do we keep broadcasting when we are going to attack Syria. Why can't we just be quiet and, if we attack at all, catch them by surprise?

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!
6:20 AM - 5 Sep 2013

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day!
6:21 AM - 7 Sep 2013

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

@walaa_3ssaf No, dopey, I would not go into Syria, but if I did it would be by surprise and not blurted all over the media like fools.
5:09 AM - 29 Aug 2013 · Manhattan, NY

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

If we are going to continue to be stupid and go into Syria (watch Russia), as they say in the movies, SHOOT FIRST AND TALK LATER!
5:19 AM - 29 Aug 2013

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Let the Arab League take care of Syria. Why are these rich Arab countries not paying us for the tremendous cost of such an attack?
5:25 AM - 29 Aug 2013"

Roger Amick said...

I get a lot of likes and complimentary comments.

You are probably in the center time zone. It's almost 2:00 AM. And you are posting hate filled comments. Pathetic

Loretta Russo said...

I'm out of the country.

Now, answer the question drunkard.

Since you're so popular, why can't you get any responses on the trash blog?

CH handed you a perfectly good blog, a lot of people once visited and commented.

What's your excuse?

Loretta Russo said...

AND, no you don't get a lot of likes OR comments.

Roger Amick said...

I get more hits than Mensa.

This is the CH blog, so most go here. This will get 2,500 in a week. There are about ten regulars. Big deal.

Loretta Russo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Loretta Russo said...

CS isn't sitting here bragging about his popularity, nor is CH - that would be YOU, and only YOU.

Now, answer the damn question drunkard.

Since you're so popular, why can't you get any responses on the trash blog?

CH handed you a perfectly good blog, a lot of people once visited and commented.

What's your excuse? Where is your family? Where are your Facebook friends - the ones who "like" your comments?

Loretta Russo said...

Well? Big shot?