According to reports, these investigations went on for several weeks prior to the election and concluded sometime in late October. The FBI found no evidence of a correlation between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government at all, much less any link that tied Trump to any Russian hacking.
Based on this extensive investigation, the FBI also concluded that there was little evidence that the hacking was done with any intention "other" than to disrupt the process. They found no evidence that anyone was specifically intending to help Donald Trump. Moreover, these investigations led to the conclusion that the hackers themselves were not directly tied to the Russian Government, but rather they were simply hackers who most likely were Russian.
The reality is that there is nothing immoral, unethical, or illegal about the fact that Donald Trump has openly pondered the possibility of working "with" rather than "against" the Russians. Nor is is wrong for Trump to want to open up a better line of communications with Putin than we have had in the past. None of this suggests that there was any collusion in the election process, much less actually proves anything of the sort.
Ultimately all members of the CIA will report to the Director chosen by Trump (at this point Mike Pompeo). I would hope that they have some concrete evidence to back up their reports that appear designed to call the election of their new Boss's Boss into question. Otherwise, I am guessing some heads will roll.
UPDATE: Another intelligence agency (independent of what Donald Trump states) has also broken ranks with the CIA:
The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.
While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.
56 comments:
Last night
Prediction
Our esteemed host will, if he posts on the subject again on the Russian hackers, will use every argument used by Trump. Despite that McConnell and Ryan called for congressional investigations.
The CIA can't be trusted.
They told Bush that Saddam Hussein had WMD.
He won a mandate.
You can't tell who hacked into the Democratic systems.
Bingo!
Well Roger... I guess you are wrong.
Since my post very specifically is referencing the argument used by the FBI as reported by the NY Times. There was no reference in my post about Donald Trump or what Donald Trump has stated.
So thank you, your apology is accepted.
Exactly what is it the Loser Liberals have as hard facts that the Outcome of this Election was taken from Hillary by the Russians?
Got a list or link ?
Despite that McConnell and Ryan called for congressional investigations."
Yep, CYA.
And IF they do in fact find that the Russians did hack the WikiLeak docs and released them upon the voters and it caused Hillary to loss, what do you do then HB?
Revote?
Recount?
what is the next step IF all of this goes just as you envision?
Three New Polls Shatter The Myth That The Presidential Election Is Tightening
By Jason Easley on Wed, Oct 26th, 2016 at 5:21 pm
Three new polls, one national and two states, have killed the Republican hopes that the presidential election is tightening. "
It was this kind of fake news that was meant to keep Republicans and the majority of the Indy's that voted , to stay home.
It failed and now it is the Russians that out smarted not only the Dems by publishing the Dems Emails, but every last voter that voted Trump.
That is who the left is really attacking all of us Trump Voters.
The Deplorables.
the argument used by the FBI as reported
Great cherry pick, CH. Goes with your illegals were voting. LOL
"Since my post very specifically is referencing the argument used by the FBI as reported by the NY Times."
It's almost as if Roger doesn't read your posts....
Goes with your illegals were voting.
Except I never made that claim, Opie...
I only made the observation that a recount does not confirm or deny allegations of illegal voting. Something that "still" appears to be going over your head. But then again, being able to see this distinction probably takes a little more intelligence than certain people show.
It's almost as if Roger doesn't read your posts....
Either that or Mr 140 IQ doesn't excel at reading comprehension.
McConnell supports full congressional investigations.
https://youtu.be/9pL_jLHH_lw
Watch and weep.
According to reports, these investigations went on for several weeks prior to the election and concluded sometime in late October. The FBI found no evidence of a correlation between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government at all, much less any link that tied Trump to any Russian hacking.
Based on this extensive investigation, the FBI also concluded that there was little evidence that the hacking was done with any intention "other" than to disrupt the process. They found no evidence that anyone was specifically intending to help Donald Trump. Moreover, these investigations led to the conclusion that the hackers themselves were not directly tied to the Russian Government, but rather they were simply hackers who most likely were Russian.
The CIA can't be trusted.
You can't tell who hacked into the Democratic systems.
Not perfect but pretty damn close.
Plus multiple Republicans are going to investigate the Russians, not accepting your "simply hackers who most likely were Russian"
You followed the Trump disclaimers and worse than that, you are not a coldheartedtruth seeker.
You took the Trump line, hook and sinker.
There was no reference in my post about Donald Trump or what Donald Trump has stated.
You didn't have to. You just took directions and used your own words.
That doesn't absolve you, you are auditioning for the Trump disclaimers campaign.
My own words, my friend.
What Do We Know About Cyber Hacking of the 2016 Election?
First, according to U.S. intelligence agencies, Russia engaged in a widespread cyber campaign directed at the election. The agencies have not publicly disclosed the details, fearing exposure of their “sources and methods,” the crown jewels of all counter-intelligence operations.
Second, the heart of Russia's campaign was collecting secret information, such as private communication among political operatives, and then disclosing that material selectively. They may also have tried to hack election databases in several states. It is unclear if they actually sought to manipulate votes, but, if they did, they had little success. There is zero evidence they changed any vote counts.
The impact of cyber espionage on the 2016 election came through information, not direct manipulation of the results. The information, dribbled out through WikiLeaks, was apparently accurate. The targets never contested any major disclosures as false or fraudulent, though that is certainly a danger in future elections. So far, U.S. spy agencies have not established that the WikiLeaks material came from Russia—or, if they have, they have not shared that nugget.
Third, the disclosures all hurt Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump. That favoritism does not seem accidental, although it may have been aided by weaker cybersecurity on Clinton's side. The clear implication is that the hackers favored one candidate, or at least opposed the other. The likely reason is Hillary’s tough line on Russia after the failure of the “reset,” plus memories of Bill Clinton’s expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe in the 1990s.
Fourth, although the U.S. intelligence community has determined Russia did the hacking and that it was aimed at Clinton, invesitgators have not reached a consensus on the Kremlin's ultimate motivation. At the very least, Vladimir Putin and his agents were trying to sow doubts about the integrity of the American election process. At the most, they were trying to pick the winner.
They did succeed in sowing doubts. The unending stream of leaks added to Hillary’s woes and impeded her flailing efforts to put out a persuasive message. On the other hand, no one doubts that the votes were counted fairly and Trump won. Few, beyond conspiracy theorists, think outside interference was decisive in that victory.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/12/13/a_brief_guide_to_russian_hacking_of_the_us_election_132556.html
What Should the U.S. Do Next?
Even if foreign cyber operations did not flip the outcome, they are unacceptable interference in American elections. What should we do next?
To begin with, we should recognize this attack for what it is: an assault on our shared constitutional foundations, which require fair elections, free from foreign interference. That is not a partisan issue, and it should not become one. That means we need a thorough inquiry into exactly what happened and who did it. And we need that done in ways that transcend partisan divisions.
The stakes involve not only the 2016 election, but future ones, not only the U.S. election but those in other democracies. Since Russia, China, Iran, and other nations have stakes in those, they will be tempted to interfere. The tighter the election, the greater the chances cyberattacks could change the outcome -- and throw that country into disarray. One way of raising the costs of such attacks, aside from better cybersecurity and tougher countermeasures, is to make sure any interference is discovered, disclosed, and punished.
A serious investigation should not be an excuse for denying the outcome of the 2016 election or for saying it was rigged by a foreign power. The election is over, and Hillary’s loss cannot be attributed to Russian interference.
If the investigation is to be serious and non-partisan, if it is to develop recommendations for future elections, then it cannot be left to Congress. Lawmakers will surely hold hearings, but, if previous hearings are any guide, they will be shallow, backward-looking, and filled with partisan grandstanding. They produce sound bites, not sound conclusions. In any case, the new Congress has a full agenda dealing with health care, tax reform, regulatory changes, executive appointments, a Supreme Court nominee, and more.
The best solution is a bipartisan commission. The model is the 9/11 commission, with a lower profile. It should have subpoena power and cooperate closely with intelligence agencies in the U.S. and abroad. Its mission should be more than pinning the tail on the Russian bear. It should be highlighting areas of vulnerability at the heart of our democracy: the right to free, fair elections.
RCP contributor Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. He blogs at ZipDialog.com and can be reached at charles.lipson@gmail.com.
University of Chicago isn't a bastion of liberal ideas.
The Coldheartedtruth is that a full, non partisan investigation into the Russian government attacks on our electoral system should be conducted. The majority leaders of both houses agree.
I have to wonder why Trump is so against a non partisan investigation?
Does he have something to hide?
I think there is a major point being missed here.
Both Parties made a blatant attempt to picking a nomination winner... In the case of Democrats, they tried to "hide" the fact that they were tipping the scales for Clinton. Ultimately leaked Emails showed that the DNC was covering this up and it pissed off all sort of Bernie supporters.
The fact that the RNC was working against Trump was not hidden or denied. Plus he won. So there would be no use for anyone to hack the RNC emails to prove that they didn't want Trump as their nominee. Everyone already knew it.
Secondly, the Media did try to help Hillary Clinton win the election. They may have denied this, but emails hacked from Podesta once again proved that the cover up was a lie. That journalists ran stories past the Clinton campaign, and that some journalists even provided the Clinton camp with the debate questions.
There was no such effort by the media to help Trump win the election. The media did not run stories past the Trump campaign, and nobody from CNN leaked the debate questions to anyone in the Trump campaign.
Therefor, there would be no reason to hack the RNC, or the Trump campaign. Or perhaps the RNC and Trump campaign "was" hacked and they simply did not find anything worthy of leaking.
So perhaps in the Future... rather than worrying about embarrassing information being hacked and leaked... the Democrats should work on "avoiding" these embarrassing situations and then there would be nothing to leak.
The Coldheartedtruth is that a full, non partisan investigation into the Russian government attacks on our electoral system should be conducted
Have at it! There are already at least three different intelligence agencies who have weighed in on it. The list would not be complete until the GOP controlled Congressional investigations have their turn. I am sure they will have some serious future recommendations (like not doing anything really stupid that can be hacked and make you look like the really stupid people you are acting like).
Of course, none of this will take place before the electors vote or before he is sworn in. So if your point has anything to do with changing the election results, then the point is moot.
The difficulty for those of us that do not have security clearances is that much of the evidence will, and must, remain secret. We shall not have a chance to review it (if so inclined). The questions that investigators should focus on, in my view, are:
1. How extensive are hacks and infiltrations into our Federal computer systems? How do we prevent these going forward?
2. Who is financing and conducting these infiltrations? Are these coordinated by foreign powers or their surrogates, or is information being stolen and then sold by parties with no vested interest in the use of this information?
3. How secure are the private servers used by corporations, campaigns, non-secure government offices, and individuals? And, as with the secure systems, who is financing or coordinating attacks against key US leaders?
4. How do we secure the nation's computer systems, both federal and non-federal, against infiltrations by foreign powers or their surrogates, irrespective of whether foreign powers were involved in the campaign-related infiltrations?
Before this Presidential Election, the Left told us that the Emails of Hillary Clinton was a non-issue.
Remember during the Debate between Sanders and Hillary , when Sanders got a standing Ovation when he famously said:
“I think the secretary of state is right, the American people are sick and tired about hearing about your damn emails,” Sanders
Yet, after the election the Liberal believes they are vital, that they cost her the election.
Which is it Liberals, ignore them or go full blown into them?
Investigations into how secure or not secure government computer systems are are legitimate.
Private entities however are responsible for their own security.
Despite what the liberals here think, the DNC is not a government agency. If is a private entity and the responsibility for securing their servers is theirs and theirs alone.
And as CH said, if they're worried about losing the election over emails made public maybe they shouldn't do anything they wouldn't want the public to know.
No So fast Mr. CHT, the election was stolen, I have the definitive voice of reason, you know the same kind of Reasoning MR 140 IQ uses, he loves this guy.
"Did the combination of Russian and F.B.I. intervention swing the election? Yes. Mrs. Clinton lost three states – Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania – by less than a percentage point, and Florida by only slightly more. If she had won any three of those states, she would be president-elect." Paul Krugman
It should be highlighting areas of vulnerability at the heart of our democracy: the right to free, fair elections.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
LOL.
yeah, where voter fraud is accepted if not encouraged, the dead are resurrected every election day to cast their ballots, and democrats always win.
it's funny how you find a way to get outraged over a giant fucking nothing-burger, but don't make a fucking peep when voter turnout in precinct shitholes like phiily is 120%.
hack, hack, hack...
Five forgotten promises courtesy of the evil Washington Post, owned by the failing bushiness man that owns Amazon.com
1: A news conference
Trump hasn't held a news conference since July, despite criticizing Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign for avoiding her own news conferences. He has also postponed until January, his plan on how he will get out of his business to give full attention to Twitter.
2: Tax returns
From a May 2014 interview with an Irish TV station: “If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely, and I would love to do that.”
From a February 2015 interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt, on whether he would release them if he ran: “I would release tax returns, and I’d also explain to people that as a person that’s looking to make money — you know, I’m in the business of making money until I do this — and if I won, I would make money for our country.” How many times has our esteemed host criticized President Obama for not releasing his college records? Eight long years. How many years did not one of the "Truthers" call out Trump for his birther bull shit? Five years.
3: Melania Trump's immigration details
From August, when questions about whether her early work as a model in the United States was done legally: “She came in totally legally, all right? ... I said to her, 'No, no. Let it simmer for a little while. Let them go wild. Let it simmer, and then let's have a little news conference.' ... Let me tell you one thing. She has got it so documented, so she's going to have a little news conference over the next couple of weeks. That's good. I love it. I love it.”
More to follow. Need to find some addresses for Christmas cards. My lovely wife makes each card by hand and is very talented in that and her artistic abilities simply amaze me.
Nobody cares anymore Roger.
Trump won.
HB, I am so enjoying every one of your links, post, rants, depressions and more, keep going, please.
Your bestest friend KansasDemocrat
Trump won." CS
Not if your the leadership of the DNC, or the Democrat Party or Krugman or Moveon.org or HB.
She won, but, it was stolen from her, making her again a Victim.
Come January 20th reality will hit them.
Trump just announced that he will not release the data on how he's separating himself from his business The President cannot accept any income from foreign nations, in contradiction to the Constitution.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8
On day one he should be impeached.
And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8
Get past that one Truthers who aren't.
If he is not separated completely, from his business interests, any decision he will make can be questioned if it's for the country or his business.
Every ethnic lawyer from Clinton to Bush and Obama have all said he will be in violation of the Constitution.
I doubt if revenue from any business ventures would in itself qualified as a present, emolument, office, or title.
Hillary Clinton would have had far more problems with the donations to her foundation.
They would certainly have qualified as a direct present or emolument.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/13/donald-trump-business-conflicts-ethics-children
Trump’s plan to transfer control of his business empire to his adult children has been dealt a fresh blow by the Office of Government Ethics (OGE).
Tom Carper, top Democrat on the Senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee, wrote to OGE director Walter Shaub last month asking what guidance it is providing to the president-elect about addressing potential conflicts of interest.
Since his dramatic election win, government ethics lawyers have pressured Trump to sell his assets and put the money in a blind trust overseen by an independent manager unrelated to him. While federal ethics rules place strict limits on nearly all government employees and elected officials, the rules do not apply to the president, as Trump himself has pointed out.
But the OGE advised on Tuesday that failing to set up a blind trust would be a breach of the spirit if not the letter of the law.
According to a letter posted on Carper’s website, the OGE wrote: “[I]t has been the consistent policy of the executive branch that a President should conduct himself ‘as if’ he were bound by this financial conflict of interest law [18 U.S.C. § 208].
“Given the unique circumstances of the Presidency, OGE’s view is that a President should comply with this law by divesting conflicting assets, establishing a qualified blind trust, or both. However, although every President in modern times has adopted OGE’s recommended approach, OGE has no power to require adherence to this tradition.”
For decades, occupants of the White House have sold their stocks and other personal holdings and put the cash into a blind trust overseen by an investment manager. Jimmy Carter, for example, sold his peanut farm in Georgia.
Donald Trump says 'no new deals' after postponing business conflicts briefing
Read more
Trump postponed a press conference that was due to address the matter on Thursday but tweeted that he will quit his businesses before his inauguration on 20 January. “Two of my children, Don and Eric, plus executives, will manage them,” he wrote. “No new deals will be done during my term(s) in office.”
But the OGE’s response found this insufficient: “Transferring operational control of a company to one’s children would not constitute the establishment of a qualified blind trust, nor would it eliminate conflicts of interest under 18 U.S.C. § 208 if applicable.”
Trump owns golf clubs, office towers and properties in several countries and has struck licensing deals for use of his name on hotels and other buildings around the world. Deutsche Bank, one of Trump’s lenders, is in settlement talks with the justice department over its role in the mortgage blowup that sparked the 2008 financial crisis.
Carper, a senator from Delaware, said that the numerous conflicts facing the president-elect’s administration would not be solved with the handover of his business to his sons.
“President-elect Trump has a sworn duty to ensure the American people that, in every decision he make as President of the United States, he has no other interests than those of our country, and I urge him to heed OGE’s advice in order to do so.”
Carper is among 23 senators who on Tuesday sent a letter urging Trump to divest his business holdings to resolve potential conflicts between the national interest and his personal financial interests.
A potential challenge to him could come via the “emoluments clause”, Article I, Section 9 of the constitution, which prohibits public officials from taking payments “of any kind whatever from any king, prince or foreign state”.
The anti-science Truthers don't want to think about this.
Scientists (socialists) released this year's so-called Arctic Report Card on Tuesday, and it is a dismal one.
Researchers say the Arctic continues to warm up at rates they call "astonishing." They presented their findings at the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting in San Francisco.
"The Arctic as a whole is warming at least twice as fast as the rest of the planet," says Jeremy Mathis, climate scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and one of the report card's authors.
The cause of the warming is in part due to a feedback loop unique to the Arctic's northern climate. Normally, the region stays cool because snow and ice reflect a lot of sunlight back into space. But warmer temperatures are melting that snow and ice. The melting snow exposes darker ground and water that absorb more of the sun's heat. That makes the Arctic warm up even faster.
Mathis adds that the warming is getting progressively worse.
"The Arctic is getting persistently warmer; sea ice is continuing to show declines, particularly during the summer months," he says. "The second big story for 2016 has been the winter temperatures."
Mathis says it wasn't so long ago that the temperature in Fairbanks, Alaska, where he lives, would drop to minus 40 F for weeks at a time in the winter.
"Now since about 2012 and 2013, it's pretty rare for the temperature to even hit minus 40 in Fairbanks," he says.
Warmer winters have created what polar scientist Marco Tedesco calls a new "precondition" for a higher rate of melting in the spring, when the sun first rises, ending the dark Arctic winter.
"You change the physics of the snowpack so that snow becomes more vulnerable to melting as soon as the sun comes up," he says.
Tedesco, from the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, says polar regions are not as resilient to warming as other places. That's because it takes only one or two degrees to change the Arctic from a frozen world to an unfrozen — and very different — one.
"In other places, going from 75 F to 80 F might not make such a great difference," he says. "But if you cross the melting point, you are basically stepping into a completely new world."
Copyright 2016 NPR. To see more, visit NPR.
"But if you cross the melting point, you are basically stepping into a completely new world."
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
well alky, when it comes to trump you and your cohorts on the left certainly have crossed the melting point. and the world you've stepped into is the world of the whackjob insane.
btw, nice job suppressing page views and comments on the legacy blog with your cut n' paste posts.
Actually, it would not be a new world. It would be the world of 1000 AD when the retreating ice pack allowed the Vikings to colonize Greenland and North America.
See Medieval Climate Optimum
Election Deniers
HB
Jane
Opium
Any one else want to add themselves to this low life crowd.
Liberals, you pollute, why?
On day one he should be impeached.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
go for it.
put your money where your pouty little mouth is. tee up those impeachment proceedings. have them begin as soon as PRESIDENT TRUMP finishes taking the oath of office. have the capitol police frog march him off the dais in handcuffs and leg irons.
i mean, if your goal is to pull off a political coup, i say 'go big or go home.'
sack up, liver boy. let's see what you and your whiny comrades are made of.
Today Madam Yellen will raise rates, why because Trump is about to be the US President.
She has done this once during all the years of President Obimbo.
Why raise rates now and promise to raise them again and again. Well it is simple Under Trump the US is going to be stronger in the world, more fair trade and money will be flowing into the USA.
IBM to add 25,000 jobs, Trump Effect.
When real main street Americans where asked what issues matter to you in the Election , the gave these in order:
Economy
Terrorism
Foreign policy
Health Care
Gun Policy
Immigration
SS
Education
USSC appointments
Trade policy
-------------------------------------
Climate change did not make top ten.
Race and Racism, nope not even an issue that ranked at all.
Want to know why liberals lost this and so many elections.
out of touch with main street working tax paying Americans.
On day one he should be impeached." The ALky Mutt
Ok, which members do you have at your ready that will file this in your behalf?
Name names sissyboy.
DENVER (AP) — Colorado's nine electors must vote for Hillary Clinton because she won the state's popular vote"
"Chris Jackson of the Colorado attorney general's office argued in court Tuesday that the effort undermines democracy."
"What we're asking the court to do is protect against the chaos that would ensue from faithless electors failing to perform their state law duties," he said.
Wait, what is this, Hillary Clinton backlash ,,,, oh yes. Do it, deny her the CO electoral votes.
An interesting read which will make CH and menstral child happy!!!!
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Trump-questionnaire-recalls-dark-history-of-10795201.php
See Medieval Climate Optimum
See arctic record this year. Idiot.
‘In the same way President Kennedy talked about the space mission and got the country behind that. ... I think whether it’s education or stopping epidemics ... [or] in this energy space, there can be a very upbeat message that [Trump’s] administration [is] going to organize things, get rid of regulatory barriers, and have American leadership through innovation.’
Bill Gates
Has one person coming out of Trump Tower had a bad thing to say about Trump?
Opium, let's say everything you tell is True, and everything you say is happening is in fact happening.
What are you individually doing to reduce your carbon foot print?
Surely you never use coal , oil or other natural earth products.
Nor would you eat food that is not grown only locally or by your own hand, right?
Give us your personal blue print for your life changing no/low carbon life.
Thanks , I look forward to your life story and that of all those around you that live so very green as the model for all of us to follow.
Every ethnic lawyer from Clinton to Bush and Obama have all said he will be in violation of the Constitution
Doubtful, since the President and Vice President are immune from those laws.
Do all the WASP lawyers agree with you? :P
Not in violation of the Constitution, nor probably other laws, but it will be a conflict of interest and it's true that every decision will be second-guessed as self-serving. If he's trying to kill regulations, remove oversight and reduce business taxes, how could it NOT benefit his businesses?
Is that why he's refusing to release his tax returns? Because it would make it too easy to see how much he's enriching himself through the Presidency?
As an American businessman who by nature is a job creator... I would hope to high heaven that he can install some policies that help every American businessman succeed and help create more capitol for more investment and more job creation.
I don't see how he can "immunize" his own businesses from that.
As has been pointed out by his supporters. Everyone knew he was a billionaire businessman, so we shouldn't be surprised or alarmed that he has business dealings that will be effected by policy. He wrote a check for $25 million to cover the costs of his campaign... as he has stated, if his goal to to just make more money, he could probably continue to do that much more effectively without taking the time to be President.
On the flip side, every time a politician creates another regulation or expands another government agency, it gives politicians (and the Government) more control... creating an inherent conflict of interest. Nobody seems to care that the elected officials continuously pass laws that provides "them" with more power.
decision will be second-guessed "
WP. you and others here are already doing it and for the love of GOD , he has yet to be sworn in, can you back off the hyperbolic crap for a couple of weeks.
At least let his right hand go up, the other on the Bible and let Obama take his failed tired stupid ass back to his multi million dollar homes.
Will Obama forgo the retirement checks of the US Presidency, living his own life as he wanted , preached to all others.
After all in his first few years after he has power torn from his fingers he will make 100's of Millions of dollars , writing a book, doing interviews , being named to boards of all kinds of think tanks and whatnot. so why bilk the US Tax payers?
Unreal Malpractice: To Run Up Popular Vote, Hillary Spent Millions in...Chicago and New Orleans
We've stated previously that the 'Hillary won the popular vote' is immaterial and not dispositive of anything because, understandably, neither campaign was strategizing to win on that metric. Turns out that's not entirely accurate. Team Clinton did fashion certain tactics with the popular vote in mind, diverting potentially-gamechanging resources in order to drive turnout in big cities in non-competitive states, based on a fear that Clinton could potentially wrap up the electoral college while losing the popular vote to Trump. That outcome would have made her president, of course, which she will not be. Top Democratic officials were apparently concerned enough with the appearance of an 'undemocratic' outcome, on which Trump might seize to undermine her legitimacy in the eyes of an electorate that was already predisposed to dislike her.
In other words Trump's statements about a "rigged election" gaslighted the Clinton campaign to waste money and resources on places she couldn't win or already had in the bag.
Impressive, most impressive.
Intel panel nixes briefing on alleged Russian interference in US election after resistance
The House Intelligence Committee abruptly canceled a briefing set for Thursday on alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election, after intelligence agencies refused to provide representatives for the session, Fox News is told.
Amid concerns about reports that conflict with details previously provided to the committee, Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., had requested a closed, classified briefing Thursday for committee Republican and Democratic members from the FBI, CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence and National Security Agency.
But Fox News is told the agencies refused to provide briefers, which is unusual given the panel is the most-senior committee with jurisdiction.
"It is unacceptable that the Intelligence Community directors would not fulfill the House Intelligence Committee’s request to be briefed tomorrow on the cyber-attacks that occurred during the presidential campaign," Nunes said in a statement. "The Committee is deeply concerned that intransigence in sharing intelligence with Congress can enable the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes."
Nunes also had given the agencies until Friday to address conflicts in the record.
Seems the very agencies who leak allegations to the press refuse to answer questions from Congress.
How does this not stink of politics.
It looks today, that this claim of "fake" hacking quite foolish.
The Trump Loyalists are going to be embarrassed many times.
Our esteemed host also looked foolish when he claimed that this clause of the constitution does not apply to the President.
And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8
" accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever"
Objectively, none of that describes a business profit.
Trump should divest himself of business interests, the international ones at a bare minimum. Failure to do so will expose a cynical paucity of integrity. But it's not clear that it's legally required of him.
Post a Comment