Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

Timeline of the numerous times Roger Stone, friend of Trump for decades, boasted of knowing in advance the contents of Wikileaks releases.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/20/politics/kfile-roger-stone-wikileaks-claims/

[Da Geezer]

I heard Rep. King of NY, a member of the intelligence committee do an interview. Admittedly, he is influenced by having actually read whatever Nunes saw. What he indicated was that this could be one foreigner talking to another foreigner and discussing things that they know about a member of the "Trump team". The names of the Trump associates were unmasked. This applies not only to Gen. Flynn, but there were "other" individuals talked about.

Rep. King said that the surveillance created no intelligence about the foreigners involved, but the unmasking created a brief about the Trump associates.

Can any of you Trump haters tell me why it was a good idea to allow raw data acquired by the NSA to be shared with 16 additional agencies during the last 3 weeks of the Obama presidency? What was the policy reason for that move? I believe it was for the purpose of leaking the classified information to the press; having enough persons have access to the information to cover for the actual leaker. I'd appreciate other explanations, though.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I've heard that the order to share info was not even really enacted before the end of the Obama admin (do YOU believe a govt agency, let alone a dozen of them, can radically change in 3 weeks time?) and it was much more broad than reported in right-wing media.

I've also heard that Nunes admitted that most of the names are NOT UNMASKED, but he's complained that even without unmasking you can figure out who the individual in Trump's orbit is.

Let's all recall right now that Nunes is an ardent supporter of Trump and worked on his transition team.

I've also NOT heard that anyone other than Nunes himself has actually seen this 'evidence". Is Peter King claiming to have seen everything Nunes has? Your post is unclear. And Nunes himself admits he's only read reports, which came from no one in the intelligence community.

[Da Geezer]

froot:

I don't understand the logic that passing a highly unpopular bill will make you look good.

Agreed.

I can say that the employer mandate affects around 170,000,000 people. That includes children. Eliminating this mandate is what the bill is actually about. The newly insured individuals amount to about 8 million who are on the exchanges. It's the employer mandate that was the killer in Obamacare, and that includes the 29 hour work week it promoted.

Apparently, Senate rules prohibit some policy changes to be done in reconciliation. The conservatives want to change the various mandated coverages that drove up the cost of Obamacare, and they are unwilling to trust Price or his successors to promulgate rules to eliminate some of the required coverages. If they want to change the law, then the Rs have to do it in the same way that the Democrats passed the law 7 years ago.

[Da Geezer]

I've also NOT heard that anyone other than Nunes himself has actually seen this 'evidence". Is Peter King claiming to have seen everything Nunes has? Your post is unclear. And Nunes himself admits he's only read reports, which came from no one in the intelligence community.

My post was unclear. The King interview starts at about 2:25.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/22/trump-wiretapping-report-shows-shameful-intelligence-violations-peter-king-says

[SeattleLionsFan]

Is Nunes owned by the Russians too? Why is he trying to interfere with the investigation that much?

[Wild Hoss]

From half a continent away it looks like Nunes ran over to the WH so they could their stories straight before whatever he stumbled across today gets out.

[Dr. Strangelove]

My post was unclear. The King interview starts at about 2:25.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/2...eter-king-says

I watched the full interview. Not at any point does Peter King admit he's seen anything. Everything he knows is from what Nunes told him. Yet he's going to national tv and saying that Donald Trump had his rights horribly violated. And he and O'Reilly are saying that this is all awful and Trump is being treated so unfairly. Neither one of them has seen a single item Nunes claims exists. And all he knows is what he was told on a phone call (so far).

[Dr. Strangelove]

After Nunes ran to the White House to hand over all "evidence" that he had to Trump, John MCCain says Congress can no longer credibly investigate the Russia connection. He wants a Select Committee

http://time.com/4710342/john-mccain-russian-investigation-special-committee/

[Dr. Strangelove]

Geezer- Seriously

1) Nunes is supposedly investigating possible ties between the Trump campaign/administration and Russia and also if illegal wiretaps were placed on him

2) Nunes receives 'new information' from an anonymous source, which all Republicans have said for months are untrustworthy

3) Nunes feels the first person who should be told about the new evidence is Trump himself

Can you explain why that makes perfect legal sense?

[Dr. Strangelove]

Ryan & Trump are reportedly desperate enough to give the Freedom caucus blankcheck to gut the mandatory coverage provision of Obamacare. Here are the items the Freedom Caucus may try to gut from Obamacare. These are items that, under the previous act, health insurers are required to cover. NO LONGER! HALLELUJAH! No more requirements to cover: ambulance rides, ER room visits, prescription drugs, childbirth, lab tests, oral, or vision vision care.

Those poor coal miners in Eastern Kentucky, so mistreated by Obama, will be thrilled that their premiums will drop...and their health insurance will cover...uh, nothing. But hey...FREEDOM, BY GAWD!

[Dr. Strangelove]

Geezer is unlikely to listen to me, so here's Jay Caruso, author at both the Federalist and Red State, who writes that Devin Nunes royally fucked up today.

http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2017/03/22/4-reasons-devin-nuness-stunt-created-more-of-a-mess/

[iam416]

It would be so fascinating to have seen how the conservation movement would have matured if it weren't born of ideology, but was just driven by facts. That would have been an opportunity to present important ideas without the values and ethics angle that pissed off opponents. But I don't know that it gets off the ground without that sense of outrage against greed.

I liked this thought enough to comment on it a day later. It certainly beats the nonsense that followed. One quick quibble -- as an environmental science grad, heh, it's the preservation movement, not the conservation movement.

The larger point is one we've discussed in several contexts, but the movement needs activism at the outset. The trick is that when you finally get critical mass political attention, how do you pull back into a more facts-driven mode. Honestly, I'm not sure it can be done both as a logistical matter (the people running the show would almost have to be swapped out) and as a political matter (you need to do it before you damage your reputation).

The environmentalism of the 1960s and 1970s came pretty close. NEPA was a huge deal and one that intuitively makes sense -- a definite conservation play (requires an EIS -- consideration of environmental impacts). The CWA was another one with a clear rationale as well as the CAA. There were real problems that needed addressed. I mean, a river caught fire -- talk about your political optics. Carson, to her credit, was a very effective activist. I think that comes with good and bad (IMO more good, but I'm not going to overlook negative consequences). But, overall, it was a movement that produced results most Americans agree with. I mean, those bills are still in full effect 40+ years later.

Activism is at it's best when you can point real problems that we, as a society, consider to be real problems -- they may be anecdotal, but they're fact-based and indisputable. A river catching on fire. Peaceful marchers being hosed or attacked by dogs BY THE POLICE. Bankers fucking up and getting bailed out. Hell, on the right, the sometimes indefensible campus culture as a broadside against PC. That shit resonates.

Activism is at it's most frail when dealing with problems that don't gain political purchase b/c not enough folks see them as real problems, intangible problems and, worse of all, false problems. And I think it is compounded in this regard because the weaker the cause, the louder the voices seem to get -- it's almost as if volume is intended to compensate for facts or sway your opinion of what the facts ought to mean. When we all know it's far more effective when you cause is apparent.

Anyway, it interests me a great deal -- the way issues bubble up.

[hack]

Thanks. Good post. I'll do my best to find fault with it later.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Heh.

I read it very throughly.

Good luck with that.