It’s because the FBI lied to judiciary committee, lied to Congress, lied to the media. I too thought the same until I read the report, which thoroughly refutes the FBI’s claims. It’s a bloody shame.

They were there to "get General Flynn to inadvertently offer information that might be helpful to the FBI in their investigation" as "he was a subject of an FBI investigation at the time".

So if you're alleging that the FBI were using the briefing as a pretext to target Trump and to try to damage his election chances (or whatever it is this conspiracy theory is) then the facts aren't on your side.

I’m only alleging that they weren’t warning Trump that Russia was trying to infiltrate their campaign. They decided against informing the campaign about the information the FBI received from the “friendly foreign government”. It wasn’t a defensive or security briefing. It was a strategic briefing. The facts are not on your side.

It wasn’t a briefing so much as it was an opportunity to investigate the campaign.

M. Horowitz: (15:48)
They sent one of the supervisory agents from the Crossfire Hurricane team to the briefing, and that agent prepared a report to the file of the briefing.

Lindsey Graham: (16:00)
About what Trump said?

M. Horowitz: (16:01)
About what Mr. Trump said and what Mr. Flynn said.

Lindsey Graham: (16:04)
Okay. So when we get defensively briefed tomorrow, would it be okay for FBI agents to open up 302s on what we said?

M. Horowitz: (16:15)
We have very significant concerns about that, and I would note that in Director Wray’s response, he underlined that that would not occur going forward.

Lindsey Graham: (16:22)
To those who can set aside how I feel about Trump for a minute, under the guise of protecting the campaign from Russian influence, they never lift a finger to protect the campaign. Every time they had information that the people they suspected were working for the Russians, it went the other way and they kept going. When they did generically brief candidate Trump, they sent an FBI agent in to do a 302. If this doesn’t bother you, you hate Trump way too much. Was that FBI agent spying on Donald Trump when he went in there?

https://www.rev.com/blog/inspector-general-report-hearing-transcript-michael-horowitz-testifies-on-fbis-findings


They weren’t protecting the campaigns; they were gathering intel, spying on them. Besides that, the strategic briefing was merely a “baseline” of security threats, including both Russian and Chinese threats, and nothing specific nor any warning to the Trump campaign about Russian infiltration into their campaign.

Not poor little Greta. How dare he?

There’s a lot of equivocating between critical thinking, criticism, and critique. Is this an example of critical thinking without context?

The DNC was hacked and information exposed by WikiLeaks. The victim was the Trump campaign? That's a stretch of the imagination.

I was told Russians were trying to infiltrate their campaign. I make an entire argument and you quibble about one word.

That's exactly wrong. It's those who have taken the time to understand the topic who are in the best position to critique it.

My point is they would not properly understand the topic without a base of critical thinking. They would understand how to repeat information, sure, but they wouldn’t understand if what they were repeating was true or false without some ability to objectively and rationally form judgements.

Without critical thinking learning is simply uncritical acceptance of information. I think critical thinking is a basis for understanding fields properly, that is, not merely the repetition of what one learns but a reasonable grasp of it. I would argue it is critical thinking, not understanding of the topic, that lead to advancement in most areas.

Deep state or stupid state?

As IG Horowitz explains his report in the senate hearing, it is becoming more and more apparent that the FBI completely failed, top to bottom, in this investigation. He correctly says there is no evidence of political bias given the evidence, but the alternative to political bias in order to explain these failures is incompetence. So true believers will have to wonder if they were duped by political bias or admit they merely trusted incompetent agents as they failed in their duties.

Impeachment is falling apart as the charade becomes more evident.

Based on the testimony from Sondland and other witnesses, the final report from the House Intelligence Committee concluded last week that Sondland made this offer of a quid pro quo clear to Yermak that day in Warsaw. “Following this meeting, Ambassador Sondland pulled aside President Zelensky’s advisor, Mr. Yermak, to explain that the hold on security assistance was conditioned on the public announcement of the Burisma/Biden and the 2016 election interference investigations,” the report states.

Yermak disputes this. “Gordon and I were never alone together,” he said when TIME asked about the Warsaw meeting. “We bumped into each other in the hallway next to the escalator, as I was walking out.” He recalls that several members of the American and Ukrainian delegations were also nearby, as well as bodyguards and hotel staff, though he was not sure whether any of them heard his brief conversation with Sondland. “And I remember – everything is fine with my memory – we talked about how well the meeting went. That’s all we talked about,” Yermak says.

These comments cast doubt on an important moment in the impeachment inquiry’s reconstruction of events: specifically, the only known point at which an American official directly tells the Ukrainians about the link between U.S. aid and the announcement of specific investigations.

Exclusive: Top Ukraine Official Andriy Yermak Casts Doubt on Key Impeachment Testimony

They didn’t tell the victims of the crime and instead investigated them. Barr also said exculpatory evidence was withheld from warrant applications, as confirmed by the IG report, meaning it is likely the victims were known to be innocent long before the FBI stopped investigating them. But they did it anyway.

So why would they do that? Why would they withhold exculpatory evidence from warrant applications? Why would they continue to investigate Americans for a number of years despite knowing long before that they were innocent? To defend the republic, democracy, or some other euphemism?

Barr did a recent interview on NBC, and If Barr is right it’s looking like the hoax is worse than Watergate. We’re talking about the use of state power to spy on a political campaign, all of it fanned by an irresponsible press.

According to a damning expose by the Washington Post, Afghanistan was a monumental failure and all administrations knew it. They fudged the truth to disguise it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/

http://archive.is/fARjB

Horrific stuff.

The Executive is bound by laws passed by Congress unless the Constitution explicitly says otherwise. Does the Constitution explicitly protect the Executive from the demands of 18 U.S. Code § 1505?

The executive branch has “executive privilege”. It’s just not that easy. It’s going to be tricky for the Dems.

If I'm earning £30,000 a year and I buy a £500,000 sports car in cash then the government is warranted to open an investigation to determine if I have an unreported income or if I'm stealing, even though there's no direct evidence of there being any crime.

If there's a whistle-blower complaint, deemed credible by the Inspector General, that the President is improperly (or illegally) withholding aid approved by Congress and asking the would-be recipient of that aid to investigate a political opponent then Congress is warranted to open an investigation to determine if the President is abusing his power.

I agree they are stonewalling congress. But we cannot pretend that stonewalling congress is out of the ordinary or every president would have to be impeached.

Don't you see the hypocrisy in always accusing Democrats and Obama-appointees of being partisan and biased? You dismissing every accusation because they come from a Democrat or an Obama-appointee is the very partisanship and bias that you're accusing them of.

Congress can't just dismiss a complaint based on the political-affiliation of the complainant. They have to investigate to see if there is any substance behind the accusation. Otherwise I guess when it's a Democrat President we can ignore any Republican or Trump-appointee?

My speculations on the motivations of the whistleblower are speculations, and I’m not pretending otherwise. It is true that he could just be deluded by poor reporting, as I’ve previously stated, but that he is connected to Biden and the previous administration, which is the subject of Trump’s concerns with respect to Ukraine, is worrying to any accusation of malfeasance.

I made no such conclusion. The conclusion I did make is bolded for all to see.

Just going to point out that, over here in the real world, it's perfectly normal for charges to be downgraded during the course of an investigation. So is selecting the most promising charges to proceed.

But obviously impeachment proceedings are highly political. They're not, or only in a small part, about justice.

Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime.

You concluded that Trump couldn't ask for the investigation for the 2020 election because the primary hadn't occured yet.

Second, the primary hasn’t even occurred yet, so unless Biden is a foregone conclusion (which is often how the DNC operates) he is not yet Trump’s opponent in 2020.

From the horse’s mouth. more fantasy.

That Trump would be interested in the dealings of Biden's son wouldn't be about the upcoming elections? Gimme a break, you are simply very silly now.

Do you believe Ukraine shouldn’t investigate possible corruption because it might hurt Biden’s chance in the next election?

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

That’s a problem for Dems because again they’ll have to prove corrupt intent.

He wasn't just protesting. He was refusing subpoenas or ordering others to refuse subpoenas. Even someone who's innocent can be guilty of obstructing justice, so not even that defense works. Congress issued subpoenas; they must be complied with. It's their job to determine innocence or guilt, not the accused. Otherwise Congressional oversight is moot. We've discussed this before.

The US constitution does not explicitly grant Congress the power to investigate the executive branch. It has been stonewalling congress since time immortal because it has the power to do so. Congress could hold the branch in contempt of Congress, sue for the documents or hold the office in criminal contempt, but absent that they have nothing.

Also, they weren't the ones making accusations. It started with the whistle-blower complaint which was deemed by the IG to be urgent and credible. It's Congress' job to investigate further, and to carry out their investigation they need to subpoena evidence and testimony. That testimony warranted further investigation.

You seem to be saying that they need proof that he's guilty before they can even start an investigation into whether or not he's guilty, which is nonsense.

The IG also deemed the whistleblower to have an an indica of arguable political bias in favor of an opposing candidate. The alleged whistleblower is a CIA Obama holdover connected to Biden. He used a New York Times articles as the basis for one of his accusations, that trump was doing so for his own benefit and for political dirt.

Guilty of what? The problem is there was no crime, no direct evidence of any intention of committing a crime.

No, my only point was the Dems were waffling, more concerned with messaging and optics than justice. The fact they use focus groups to see which worked better is evidence of this. In other words, the accused Trump of crimes and then changed their minds upon realizing it wouldn’t work. It’s all a show; it’s all Democrat dinner-theater.

As for obstructing congress, this is the type of fishing expedition I was talking about: accuse Trump of a trumped up charge and then accuse him of obstructing the sham investigation when he protests. I’m not sure what crime “obstruction of Congress” is (Obstruction of Justice?) but I suspect they’ll make the case that he is somehow “violating his oath of office” moving forward. I think that without a crime we’ll be entering the court of opinion.

But Trump isn’t impeaching Schiff. We’re speaking about messaging for the purposes of influencing an investigation into the president of the United States.

The shift in messaging from “quid pro quo” to “bribery” was the result of DNC focus groups. I suspect it’s the same with “abuse of power”. It’s not so much about truth or justice as it is opportunism and politics.

Probably because those kind of crimes require greater evidence.

You’re probably right. What’s curious to me is that people were arguing for it without the evidence to do so, only to abandon the idea when it wasn’t politically expedient. Is there no sense of justice here?

What I mean is one moment they were pushing bribery and extortion, the next moment they’re pushing “abuse of power”. Why wouldn’t they put bribery and extortion in the articles of impeachment? They’re crimes.

I also feel that asceticism is escapism, a way to avoid the troubling work of existence.

But I do not think all hope is lost on consumerism. The consumer is not necessarily devoid of spirituality and completely full of self-interest. The same is true of materialists. I even suspect that, in due time, the world has room for a completely materialist religion, one that need not appeal to gods and ghosts but can no less sanctify and make holy the world.

Life has never been better. Moping isn’t going to fix anything.

Well the Dems have released their articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. So first they led you to believe Trump was guilty of bribery and extortion, to the point that you defended the accusation and believed it simply because they told you to, only to watch as the Dems abandoned you when it finally came time to make it formal.

In my defense I believe it is a credible source insofar as it describes the fears of scientists. My only argument is their fears have turned out to be mistaken and a broken clock is not an appropriate symbol for atomic scientists

None taken.

What conspiracy would that be?

How naive. But I guess you have to regurgitate and stand by every imbecile argument that Giuliani makes in defence of Trump. Because...otherwise you wouldn't stand by your President against the evil "cultural-marxists" here.

Honestly, let's just remember when Trump started his campaign for the 2020 elections.

You believe the accusations of the opposition without evidence, and I’m naive. I’ve never used the word “cultural marxists” so it makes no sense putting it in quotes. Fantasy begets fantasy I suppose.

I never drew from it the conclusion you pretend I did. I’m only saying that it isn’t true Biden is Trump’s opponent in 2020, so why keep saying it?

It’s the other way about. Trumps explicit reasoning for what he said is relevant to his motives, but the Democrat conspiracy theory isn’t. The motives are the key because if what he said is true there is nothing wrong—indeed it was moral and right—with what he did. Of course the only people with direct knowledge of Trumps intentions are all consistent, and it lines up with the transcript.

It’s statement of fact that Biden is not the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party. The primary hasn’t occurred yet.

As Giuliani said, if he wanted to meddle in the election he would have waited until October 2020

I use the term “fantasy” because the idea he is using it for political benefit for the purpose of winning the 2020 election is imagined, made up, presumption without evidence, and contrary to the explicit reasoning of all parties involved.

I’ve been consistent on this argument to no avail.

In fact, both the whistler blower and Bill Taylor both cite the same NYT article as their evidence. The NYT article on the other hand cites no evidence, and Giuliani’s quote in the article—We’re not meddling in an election, we’re meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do—is completely contrary and exculpatory to that fantasy.

Second, the primary hasn’t even occurred yet, so unless Biden is a foregone conclusion (which is often how the DNC operates) he is not yet Trump’s opponent in 2020.

I resurrected the thread because I wanted to debate neoliberalism. No ill will was intended. I will step away so as to comply with your orders.

We can imagine what the founders envisioned until the cows come home.

The only one bending legal interpretations are the ones impeaching a president based on fantasy.

Neo-liberalism is a political choice. Clinton, Thatcher, Blair, Bush they all started to deregulate and let the market loose what previously had been the public sector. Banks were deregulated, Public utilities sold off and then all the tax cut and tax breaks and tax havens to dismantle the rest.

They merely disguised the failures of socialism and the post-war consensus with market reforms, as did Sweden and many others. If Thatcher hadn’t privatized entire industries the Winter of Our Discontent would have lasted for more than a season.

The problem with Blair, Bush and Clinton is they never deregulated enough, and never gave liberalism a chance. Their middle-of-the-road policies were socialism in the outward guise of capitalism.

In a way that suggests that the former are more biased than the latter?

If Trump’s holdovers exist in the next administration, I would feel the same way.

But holdovers of the previous administration are much different than appointees of the current administration.

I also stated that IG Horowitz was limited in scope and power. Durham’s report is quite the opposite.

No one sold neo-liberalism. It’s essentially anti-market term of abuse.

In this article, we analyze contemporary scholars’ unusual use of neoliberalism in the study of political economy and offer an explanation for why this situation has come about. Based on a content analysis of journal articles, the first section of the article documents three key characteristics of this use. First, neoliberalism is employed asymmetrically across ideological divides: it is used frequently by those who are critical of free markets, but rarely by those who view marketization more positively. In part, proponents avoid the term because neoliberalism has come to signify a radical form of market fundamentalism with which no one wants to be associated. Second, neoliberalism is often left undefined in empirical research, even by those who employ it as a key independent or dependent variable. Third, the term is effectively used in many different ways, such that its appearance in any given article offers little clue as to what it actually means.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12116-009-9040-5