Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, July 09, 2018

OTP 2018 July 9: Why It’s Hard to ‘Stick to Sports’

A quote attributed to the late U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren reads: “I always turn to the sports pages first, which records people’s accomplishments. The front page has nothing but man’s failures.”

But even in Warren’s lifetime, the sports page was full of things that moved outside the realm of sports accomplishments into the political world of page one: Jackie Robinson breaking the baseball color line, Muhammad Ali’s successful fight to overturn his criminal conviction for refusing military service in the Vietnam War, Tommie Smith and John Carlos’ black power salute from the victory stand of the 1968 Summer Olympics, the enactment of Title IX to expand opportunity for girls in sports, and Curt Flood’s lawsuit to break baseball’s reserve clause.

 

The mix of politics and sports wasn’t unique to Warren’s time. The two worlds have never been, never were, and never will be as separate as many imagine or would like them to be. Sports isn’t immune from capital-P political oversight and opinions, which grow out of the small-p politics about how we as people organize our lives and societies. In other words, angrily telling sports media figures and athletes themselves to “stick to sports”—a popular demand these days when sports and politics mix on social media—is an impossible ask.


(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 09, 2018 at 08:02 AM | 1010 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: off topic, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 7 of 11 pages ‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›
   601. Jess Franco Posted: July 12, 2018 at 05:08 PM (#5709223)
Let me put it this way -- you might convince me to vote for Democrats because they will be better administrators of a plutocratic surveillance state. But is that really going to win you any elections?

The GOP has rigged the electoral system to control the government from an extreme minority postion, but until now, the Democrats have been extremely comfortable with a political system that allowed it. They are strongly against more democratic ways of voting and governing because they think they'll be in charge again, and they do not want any challenge at all from the left or any third-party movements.

If the Democratic Party is forced into more democratic positions and moved away from its subservience to corporate money, they can beat the GOP authoritarian takeover because it is tremendously unpopular. But keep beating up Democratic Socialists and defending the indefensible parts of the capitalist system -- gross economic inequality, a white supremacist carceral system, and a military spy state -- and the Republicans will successfully drive that system to its logical conclusion.
   602. DavidFoss Posted: July 12, 2018 at 05:36 PM (#5709227)
Did you misread the news stories? She wasn't appointed to anything, but you're attacking her to get at her husband, and the president who appointed him.

Ahh... you're trying to twist my own sentences around into some sort of gotcha. Like I'm a hypocrite or something. Darla Shine has unflattering politically incorrect opinions that she is very vocal about. Yes. Bill Shine is the same and he had to leave FoxNews in large part due to how he handled internal sexual assault allegations. Trump himself has a history of being politically incorrect and has been accused many times of sexual harassment and assault. He has chosen Bill Shine as a key communications advisor. This is all out in the open hashed out to the point of being boring.

Peter Strzok's wife got cheated on. We bring her up because... why? What's the link between her and Darla Shine?
   603. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 12, 2018 at 05:48 PM (#5709229)
This destroys Jordan's credibility and his argument that he and all the other coaches knew nothing about the serial abusing team doctor in their midst at Ohio State University.
I am going to assume that Jordan and Hellickson have different names because they are actually different people. So I don't quite see how Hellickson saying that he knew proves that Jordan is lying about not knowing.

Jordan really painted himself into a corner by being so aggressive in his denials. What he should have said, and what is probably true, is that he didn't really appreciate the situation, rather than that he didn't notice anything about it. A bunch of guys in a locker room talking about how some guy is too handsy is not the same as realizing that he's sexually abusing them.
   604. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 12, 2018 at 05:52 PM (#5709233)
   605. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 12, 2018 at 06:02 PM (#5709237)
#603:
Jordan really painted himself into a corner by being so aggressive in his denials. What he should have said, and what is probably true, is that he didn't really appreciate the situation, rather than that he didn't notice anything about it.


Beyond his aggressive denials that are being flatly contradicted by numerous OSU wrestlers, what Rep. Jim Jordan is saying is "CNN is...asking for dirt on me. Getting desperate! How can you ever trust such #fakenews?" (yesterday) and "I think the timing is suspect when you think about how this whole story came together after the Rosenstein hearing and the Speaker’s race" (Friday).
   606. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 12, 2018 at 06:03 PM (#5709238)
@mkraju:

Gowdy presses Strzok about his texts as the Russia investigation began, Strozk tries to give him the context, but Gowdy cuts him off. “If you want to get into context, let one of my other colleagues do that,” Gowdy says to him


I didn't watch the testimony but I'm not seeing the problem with the above. Gowdy has limited time. And presumably he wanted to establish the base facts. It's not like he was the only one asking questions; he knew one of his other colleagues would get into the "context."
   607. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 12, 2018 at 06:12 PM (#5709241)
Strzok earned his notoriety.

By finding Trump beyond-the-pale appalling and saying so.


Wrong again. Why do Trump's critics have such a difficult time framing the proper issues? It doesn't help with credibility and intellectual honesty when you frame an issue nobody was contesting, rather than deal with the issue people ARE concerned about.

At issue is the fact that Strzok had integral roles in two FBI investigations, both with the potential to significantly affect the election, and Strzok displayed not routine bias but, rather, made comments that went beyond that, suggesting that he was putting his thumb on the scales in order to influence either the election ("We'll stop it") or its aftermath ("insurance policy").

Now, perhaps Strzok DIDN'T actually mean anything untoward or do anything untoward, but appearance of impropriety is a thing for a reason -- sometimes there is indeed impropriety, and even if there isn't the problem is that nobody can know for sure and thus nobody -- who is fair minded -- can have confidence in a legitimate process. For example: Was Pete Rose throwing games? Probably not, but the stink from what he was doing in betting on games he was involved in can't be erased and legitimately makes people question whether his actions were on the level. Certainly MLB feels that way. And this is how we know, in the Strzok situation, not to trust or take seriously those observers who try to pass Page's and Strzok's behavior/comments off as nothing to see here. Maybe there is nothing to see here. But no intellectually honest person can conclude that without looking into the issue, an inquiry which reasonably includes asking the principals under penalty of perjury what they meant.

If Strzok actually did influence the election that's a far worse situation than Putin -- an enemy government -- doing so. We expect enemy governments to try to thwart our election process. We don't expect it from our own institutions -- or at least we shouldn't stand for it.

Now, my previous paragraph doesn't frame the more relevant issue either. The more relevant issue -- or at least the more important issue -- is not merely whether an "enemy government influencing our election" but rather is, What's worse: (1) our election being influenced from within our government (Strzok, if he did that), or (2) a candidate (Trump) working with an enemy government (Putin) to influence our election. Neither has been shown, and we'll see what we ultimately learn about both. But that's one important question.
   608. DavidFoss Posted: July 12, 2018 at 06:26 PM (#5709244)
Neither has been shown, and we'll see what we ultimately learn about both.

My understanding is that the Strzok IG report is done and the conclusion is that he did not actually act on any of his personal biases. Will there be another IG investigation into Strzok?

   609. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 12, 2018 at 06:33 PM (#5709247)
My understanding is that the Strzok IG report is done and the conclusion is that he did not actually act on any of his personal biases. Will there be another IG investigation into Strzok?
There was no Strzok report, contrary to what some want people to be focusing on. The first IG report was on the Clinton investigation. There’s still one to come on the Trump investigation. Both, obviously, will discuss Strzok.
   610. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 12, 2018 at 06:43 PM (#5709248)
My understanding is that the Strzok IG report is done and the conclusion is that he did not actually act on any of his personal biases.


Your understanding is wrong.

The IG (it was a more general 2016 election report that focused on specific events and issues) did not conclude that Strzok did not actually act on any of his personal biases; rather, the IG concluded that nobody can know. Essentially yes there were plausible innocuous justifications for why Strzok took certain actions -- and that may well be what actually happened. But since Michael Horowitz is not a mind reader, he could not conclude with any certainty that Strzok's actions were free from bias.

Here's the report and Turley's summary of it in relevant part. Note, significantly, the actual quotes from the report that Turley pulls:

To use the Comey firing now in an obstruction case, Mueller will have to assume that the firing of an “insubordinate” official was done for the wrong reason. Horowitz faced precisely this same problem in his review and refused to make such assumptions about Comey and others. The IG report found additional emails showing a political bias against Trump and again featuring the relationship of Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page. In one exchange, Page again sought reassurance from Strzok, who was a critical player in the investigations of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, that Trump is “not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Strzok responded, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

The IG noted that some of these shocking emails occurred at that point in October 2016 when the FBI was dragging its feet on the Clinton email investigation and Strzok was a critical player in that investigation. The IG concluded that bias was reflected in that part of the investigation with regard to Strzok and his role. Notably, the IG was in the same position as Mueller: The IG admits that the Strzok-Page emails “potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.” This includes the decision by Strzok to prioritize the Russian investigation over the Clinton investigation. The IG states that “[w]e concluded that we did not have confidence that this decision by Strzok was free from bias.”

However, rather than assume motivations, the IG concluded that it could not “find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions.” Thus, there was bias reflected in the statements of key investigatory figures like Strzok but there were also objective alternative reasons for the actions taken by the FBI. That is precisely the argument of Trump on the Comey firing. While he may have harbored animus toward Comey or made disconcerting statements, the act of firing Comey can be justified on Comey’s own misconduct as opposed to assumptions about his motives.
   611. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 12, 2018 at 06:44 PM (#5709249)
How long before he has to recant and apologize? Senator Coons: Democrats Need To Abandon Wild-Eyed Race To The Left:
SEN. CHRIS COONS OF Delaware called on the Democratic Party on Thursday to move beyond the politics of grievance and abandon its "relentless race to the left" that's been triggered by Donald Trump's presidency.

"If we as a Democratic Party are going to move from a minority at every level that is dedicated to resistance, to a majority that is capable of governing, we have got to move from grievance to optimism," Coons said in a speech in Washington. "And we've got to abandon a politics of anxiety that is characterized by wild-eyed proposals and instead deliver ideas and practical solutions."
. . .
He listed abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, promising free health care, guaranteeing jobs through government and attacking energy companies as hyper-liberal policy positions that are undermining the party's chances at winning back the voters it lost in 2016.

He doesn't seem to grasp that those relentlessly racing to the left don't want those voters back, at least not at the cost of doing anything to actually attract those voters. I give him 72 hours before "clarifying" his remarks.
   612. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 12, 2018 at 06:48 PM (#5709250)
If "we'll stop it" is supposed to be some kind of smoking gun about Strzok and the entire FBI (which is what many Republicans are implying), then I wonder when these Republicans will grill Giuliani and the agents in the New York office who tipped him off about Comey's re-opening of the Clinton email investigation. Or will they just take his word when he says that “I do think that all of these revelations about Hillary Clinton finally are beginning to have an impact. He’s got a surprise or two that you’re going to hear about in the next two days.” was only referring to (please swallow a jar of disbelief pills before continuing) a campaign speech by Donald Trump!
   613. DavidFoss Posted: July 12, 2018 at 06:52 PM (#5709251)
There was no Strzok report, contrary to what some want people to be focusing on. The first IG report was on the Clinton investigation. There’s still one to come on the Trump investigation. Both, obviously, will discuss Strzok.

Ah. Yes. By Strzok report, I meant the mid-June IG report that included Strzok. Bad shorthand on my part. So, a second report coming at some point on the Trump investigation but perhaps not for a long time as that investigation is still open. Thanks.
   614. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 12, 2018 at 06:54 PM (#5709253)
[Sen. Coons] doesn't seem to grasp that those relentlessly racing to the left don't want those voters back, at least not at the cost of doing anything to actually attract those voters. I give him 72 hours before "clarifying" his remarks

So if the left wing of the Democrats started making nice to Clapper's kind of Democrat**, I guess the Democrats would be 15% ahead in the generic congressional polls instead of a mere 8% or 9%.

** Dick Morris or Patrick Caddell would seem to qualify for that honor
   615. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 12, 2018 at 06:57 PM (#5709256)
If "we'll stop it" is supposed to be some kind of smoking gun about Strzok and the entire FBI (which is what many Republicans are implying), then


Imagine if Page and Strzok, similarly situated in 2008, had said this:

"Obama is not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”
“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

And then waves being made about an "insurance policy."

You folks on the left would have lost. your. bleeping. minds.

So who's trying to con who here, exactly, by saying that the texts in question are unremarkable? Again, it's not difficult to spot intellectual dishonesty.
   616. Dale Sams Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:05 PM (#5709258)
I thought i posted this already but....question:

Hillary is elected.

GOP vows to block every damn SC appt she makes.

Hillary has either Secret Service or the army escort the Honorable judge to where ever they get sworn in, and does so.

yes....its going nuclear but, result?

Supreme Court immediately convenes without the new judge to rule on this?
   617. -- Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:05 PM (#5709259)
I understand we are living in a political era in which insults and insinuation often drown out honesty and integrity. But the honest truth is that Russian interference in our elections constitutes a grave attack on our democracy. Most disturbingly, it has been wildly successful — sowing discord in our nation and shaking faith in our institutions. I have the utmost respect for Congress’s oversight role, but I truly believe that today’s hearing is just another victory notch in Putin’s belt and another milestone in our enemies’ campaign to tear America apart."


LOL.

Sure thing, Mr. HR. You tell 'em.
   618. -- Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:08 PM (#5709260)
My understanding is that the Strzok IG report is done and the conclusion is that he did not actually act on any of his personal biases.


That's incorrect. The opposite is correct. A perusal of the executive summary will confirm.
   619. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:12 PM (#5709263)
My understanding is that the Strzok IG report is done and the conclusion is that he did not actually act on any of his personal biases.

That's incorrect. The opposite is correct. A perusal of the executive summary will confirm.


What's unfortunate about this board is that people will take 10 seconds to vomit out some blatantly wrong but easily fact-checkable comment, as DavidFoss did in 608, and then to correct the record others have to spend 10 minutes taking the time to rebut him, as I did in 610.

It's not good for the community when this happens.
   620. Dale Sams Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:12 PM (#5709264)
I understand we are living in a political era in which insults and insinuation often drown out honesty and integrity. But the honest truth is that Russian interference in our elections constitutes a grave attack on our democracy. Most disturbingly, it has been wildly successful — sowing discord in our nation and shaking faith in our institutions. I have the utmost respect for Congress’s oversight role, but I truly believe that today’s hearing is just another victory notch in Putin’s belt and another milestone in our enemies’ campaign to tear America apart."


Though social-test wise, I have every bit of faith that I'm one of the most liberal people around these parts?....JFC...every day, I want less and less to do with people who think the above.
   621. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:14 PM (#5709265)
What's unfortunate about this board is that people will take 10 seconds to vomit out some blatantly wrong but easily fact-checkable comment, as DavidFoss did in 608, and then to correct the record others have to spend 10 minutes taking the time to rebut him, as I did in 610.

It's not good for the community when this happens.


I agree. we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than Congress.
   622. Laser Man Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:15 PM (#5709266)
You folks on the left would have lost. your. bleeping. minds.
No, saying it with extra punctuation makes does not make it true. It would be worth looking into, and if no evidence of biased actions can be found, then it could be rightly dismissed.

In this case, as Strzok said in his opening statement, "I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign. This information had the potential to derail, and quite possibly, defeat Mr. Trump. But the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind."

Isn't that the most crucial evidence to show that Strzok did not act with bias towards Trump?
   623. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:21 PM (#5709269)
Imagine if Page and Strzok, similarly situated in 2008, had said this:

"Obama is not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”
“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

And then waves being made about an "insurance policy."

You folks on the left would have lost. your. bleeping. minds.
Hypothetical hypocrisy is the best hypocrisy!
   624. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:21 PM (#5709270)
Hillary has either Secret Service or the army escort the Honorable judge to where ever they get sworn in, and does so.

yes....its going nuclear but, result?

Supreme Court immediately convenes without the new judge to rule on this?

You can't take office without being confirmed. No room for interpretation, so neither the Army nor Secret Service, and certainly not the Supreme Court, would follow Hillary's "swearing in" of a rump-Justice. Probably would get Hillary impeached, too. A President can make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court (like any other presidential nomination position), to temporarily put someone in place, but if the GOP controlled the Senate, they could avoid that by not formally recessing, just holding pro forma meetings. If the Dems controlled the Senate, the nominee could be confirmed under normal procedures, so it's not a likely scenario.
   625. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:22 PM (#5709271)
This Congressional hearing is a shitshow of epic proportions. But it's fascinating to watch, in a "It's bad but I can't look away" kind of way. One Republican congressman just spent his entire time discussing a Strzok tweet about redneck hillbillies in a rural Virginia county. Why in God's name are taxpayers paying for this nonsense?
   626. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:24 PM (#5709274)
Imagine if Page and Strzok, similarly situated in 2008, had said this:

"Obama is not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”
“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

And then waves being made about an "insurance policy."

You folks on the left would have lost. your. bleeping. minds.
And, once again: this is 2018, not 2016. If people knew about these texts in 2016 and raised an alarm to head off potential misconduct, that would be one thing. But it’s 2018, and we know that they didn’t try to “stop him.”
   627. -- Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:26 PM (#5709276)
This information had the potential to derail, and quite possibly, defeat Mr. Trump.


LOL.
   628. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:26 PM (#5709277)
No, saying it with extra punctuation makes does not make it true. It would be worth looking into, and if no evidence of biased actions can be found, then it could be rightly dismissed.


What you miss is that evidence of biased actions is difficult to find. You basically need an admission of it. Otherwise, actions taken for the wrong reasons but with plausible innocuous alternative justifications can't be shown to have been taken for the wrong reasons.

The way this is done in, say, discrimination cases is by looking at, e.g., patterns of behavior. Because even when discrimination is present you often do not have statements on the record of "Let's not hire him because he's a minority" or some such.

In this case, as Strzok said in his opening statement, "I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign. This information had the potential to derail, and quite possibly, defeat Mr. Trump. But the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind."

Isn't that the most crucial evidence to show that Strzok did not act with bias towards Trump?


No. That entire quotation is irrelevant to the issues under discussion. But to hack Democrats it's something to trot out and pretend to have a slam dunk rebuttal.

The issues under discussion have nothing to do with whether Strzok exposed the information. The issues under discussion have to do with whether Strzok acted improperly in the performance of his duties and responsibilities in the investigations. Which centers around whether he made various decisions and undertook various actions for proper reasons or for improper ones.

That has not the slightest thing at all to do with whether he "exposed" information -- and nobody to my knowledge has even accused him of exposing information. It's a complete red herring.
   629. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:27 PM (#5709279)
And, once again: this is 2018, not 2016. If people knew about these texts in 2016 and raised an alarm to head off potential misconduct, that would be one thing. But it’s 2018, and we know that they didn’t try to “stop him.”


They know that. The only point of this hearing is to discredit the Mueller investigation for when he presents his findings.
   630. Laser Man Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:30 PM (#5709281)
The issues under discussion have nothing to do with whether Strzok exposed the information. The issues under discussion have to do with whether Strzok acted improperly in the performance of his duties and responsibilities in the investigations.
Sure, but what would be the goal of Strzok "acting improperly" in the investigation? To derail Trump's campaign for the Presidency. You are missing the forest for the trees.
   631. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:34 PM (#5709283)
But it’s 2018, and we know that they didn’t try to “stop him.”


No, we don't know that, because there's no possible way to know that. We don't know whether Strzok undertook various actions for proper reasons or for improper ones.

Everything he did can be justified, but that's not the same thing as saying it was proper.

Really now, this is a simple concept, of simple discussions. If a company fires a person because he's a minority but they give a plausible-sounding alternate justification ("We simply had to cut costs"), the company has still acted for improper reasons.

That Trump was NOT stopped does not mean that Strzok didn't try.

We don't know that Strzok tried. He may well not have tried. But his texts suggest otherwise. That's the problem that you will never be able to wash away, no matter how hard you try. Appearance of impropriety cannot be washed away. That's the problem with it.
   632. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:36 PM (#5709284)
We don't know whether Strzok tried. He may well not have tried. But his texts suggest otherwise.


In what way?
   633. -- Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:37 PM (#5709285)
Sure, but what would be the goal of Strzok "acting improperly" in the investigation? To derail Trump's campaign for the Presidency.


No. Not derailing. Attempting to derail. That was the purpose of the pretext investigation and the wiretaps.

I hope people understand that if the wiretaps would have heard bad things, those bad things would have been leaked. This should be self-evident. But they didn't.
   634. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:38 PM (#5709286)
In what way?


Your third grade teacher was lying to you. There is such a thing as a stupid question.
   635. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:41 PM (#5709287)
"I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign. This information had the potential to derail, and quite possibly, defeat Mr. Trump. But the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind."

I don't think it's all that clear that revealing the Obama Administration was investigating the opposition party presidential campaign, based on shady opposition reasearch funded by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, would have benefited Hillary or harmed Trump, and it certainly would have put Strzok at risk for career-ending discipline, so his attempt to retroactively characterize his actions rings a bit hollow.
   636. Laser Man Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:42 PM (#5709288)
No. Not derailing. Attempting to derail. That was the purpose of the pretext investigation and the wiretaps.
And the derailing would have been successful if Strzok had just leaked that Trump and his campaign were under FBI investigation. But they didn't - instead the FBI made an unnecessary announcement that Clinton's investigation would be re-opened. And yet people are claiming that the FBI was biased against Trump? This truly defies all logic and reason.
   637. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:44 PM (#5709289)
And yet people are claiming that the FBI had it in for Trump?


Strzok claimed it.

In his texts.

Strzok is part of the FBI.

Thus the conclusion does not require Evil Knievel type leaps. Or really any leap at all. It's clear that Strzok had bias against Trump; the only question is whether Strzok acted improperly due to that bias.
   638. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:48 PM (#5709292)
Your third grade teacher was lying to you. There is such a thing as a stupid question.


So, since you refuse to answer, I have to assume what you mean. You are talking about the "We will stop him" text. So, rather than allowing for the possibility that it means what he has repeatedly say it means, that the we is the US electorate, and stopping him means voting against him in enough numbers to deny him the presidency, you are assuming a senior FBI agent risked his career and jail time, to use his position to sabotage the election, in the face of overwhelming odds that he didn't, would have been caught had he tried.

And I'm the stupid one? When you walk outside your building and the street is wet, do you think "It must have rained", or do you think "Wow, I just missed a pretty big water balloon fight"
   639. -- Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:53 PM (#5709293)
And the derailing would have been successful if Strzok had just leaked that Trump and his campaign were under FBI investigation. But they didn't


Because it was based on a pretext using improper methods and would therefore have raised questions, and they had the secret FISA court under their thumb. Far better for the bureau to do it in secret.

They hoped it would turn up usable material, but it didn't. The usual material would have been far better than just the existence.

And Trump was never under investigation, as Comey said numerous times. So that would have been a lie.
   640. Jess Franco Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:54 PM (#5709295)
JFC...every day, I want less and less to do with people who think the above.


Yes, it's crazy pants, making a mountain out of a molehill for poliyical effect. I'm 100 percent fine with Obama's position, and actions. A dozen Russians staging polityical theater, or Russian-affiliated trolls on the internet, are a drop in the bucket of foreign money, influence, and subterfuge in American elections (hello Saudi Arabia and Israel!)

Now the election security issue is a very serious one which was raised about our patchwork system and vulnerable voting machines a long damned time ago and poo-pooed as unimportant, and the security breaches and hacks of 2016 really had no defense. Why do we think the Russians are the ones most capable and likely to do so? The issue is not who is trying to #### with it, but how to prevent it.

As for the shitshow today, it's where we are in politics in 2018. There are some serious candidates running on platforms addressing healthcare, jobs, and the environment is a serious and systematic way, but both parties are doing the same boogeyman act towards "the left", which is ####### idiotic.

But hey, let's ask why Honduras can't be more like us.
   641. Laser Man Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:54 PM (#5709296)
It's clear that Strzok had bias against Trump; the only question is whether Strzok acted improperly due to that bias.
We all understand the question. And since there is no evidence that Strzok did act improperly, and there are obvious ways that he could have and didn't, what is the logical conclusion?

It's ridiculous that Nunes and Gowdy are arguing that a person's bias taints any investigation they are involved with. Have they looked in a mirror recently?
   642. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:56 PM (#5709298)
And the derailing would have been successful if Strzok had just leaked that Trump and his campaign were under FBI investigation. But they didn't . . .

#635 indicates why Strzok may have been reluctant to unilaterally leak, but that doesn't mean he wasn't involved in anything more subtle. Strzok got the FBI investigation started, then Steele peddled "The Dossier" all over Washington, including to David Corn at Mother Jones, who, unlike his colleagues with higher standards, published a story right before Election Day that indicated the Trump Campaign was being investigated over ties to Russia. Didn't get much traction because there was nothing but bare allegations, but that doesn't mean they didn't try.
   643. -- Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:56 PM (#5709299)
you are assuming a senior FBI agent risked his career and jail time, to use his position to sabotage the election, in the face of overwhelming odds that he didn't, would have been caught had he tried.


He, like the others, assumed Hillary would win and would reward them. Comey himself has talked about this assumption.

Had she won, none of this would have come to light. So really not that much of a "risk" from his perspective.
   644. Jess Franco Posted: July 12, 2018 at 07:58 PM (#5709300)
Your third grade teacher was lying to you. There is such a thing as a stupid question.


Like "how many times were you dropped on your head as a child?"?
   645. -- Posted: July 12, 2018 at 08:02 PM (#5709302)
And since there is no evidence that Strzok did act improperly,


It doesn't become any more true on the 11,890th repetition.

Executive summary:

Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias.

And the IG hasn't even finished with its investigation of the Russia investigation.
   646. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 12, 2018 at 08:02 PM (#5709303)
So, since you refuse to answer, I have to assume what you mean. You are talking about the "We will stop him" text. So, rather than allowing for the possibility that it means what he has repeatedly say it means, that the we is the US electorate, and stopping him means voting against him in enough numbers to deny him the presidency,


This is why we say Lol.

That's one possible reading. There are other, less tortured ones. And that's the problem with appearance of impropriety.

Strzok was in a position to make a difference, and had already displayed his extreme bias. That's why a benign reading can't be held up as a show stopper.

you are assuming a senior FBI agent risked his career and jail time, to use his position to sabotage the election, in the face of overwhelming odds that he didn't, would have been caught had he tried.


Jail time? Under what statute of the criminal code? Show your work, if you've done any.
   647. Jess Franco Posted: July 12, 2018 at 08:05 PM (#5709305)
...the Trump Campaign was being investigated over ties to Russia. Didn't get much traction because there was nothing but bare allegations, but that doesn't mean they didn't try.


The Trump campaign was being investigated for ties to Russia before the election.


   648. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 12, 2018 at 08:11 PM (#5709310)
Jail time? Under what statute of the criminal code? Show your work, if you've done any.


Are you now asserting that there is nothing illegal about a FBI agent using his official position to sabotage a presidential campaign? Is so, what's the big deal if he did?
   649. Count Posted: July 12, 2018 at 08:22 PM (#5709311)
The IG report vindicated democratic complaints that the FBI inappropriately favored Trump over Hillary. The fact that the FBi’s actions favored Trump over Hillary has been obvious since the Russia investigation became public, at least. The hearing today was ridiculous and embarrassing for Republicans trying to protect Trump.
   650. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 12, 2018 at 08:26 PM (#5709312)
Does the left (and David!) now want to argue that no proof of race discrimination means idiscrininaion on the basis of race can’t have happened? It’s the same concept.
   651. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 12, 2018 at 08:29 PM (#5709313)
Misirlou: I am indeed saying that Strzok can’t have committed a crime, at least based on the record we have before us, and assuming arguendo he made certain investigation decisions due to a bias against trump. (If he did something like commit murder that would be a different story.) But I could be wrong. Cite the statute. Otherwise your argument is poorly thought out as is typical with your trump deranged arguments.
   652. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 12, 2018 at 08:35 PM (#5709316)
Yahoo News on "Strzok Hearing Chaos":

During the afternoon session, Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, accused Strzok of lying to lawmakers during his closed-door testimony last month when Strzok testified for more than 11 hours before the committee in a private setting.

“I told some of the other guys, ‘He is really good,’” Gohmert said. “’He’s lying. He knows we know he’s lying. And he could probably pass a polygraph.’”

[Rep. David] Cicilline demanded that Gohmert withdraw his allegation and called Gohmert’s comments a “disgrace.”

“No, the disgrace is what this man has done to our justice system!” Gohmert cried out, before turning back to Strzok. “I can’t help but wonder when I see you looking there with a little smirk, how many times did you look so innocent into your wife’s eyes and lie to her about Lisa Page?”

Democrats on the panel erupted.

“This is insane!” one shouted.

“Do you need your medication?” shouted another.

Strzok was eventually allowed to respond: “The fact that you would question whether or not that was the sort of look I would engage with a family member I have acknowledged hurting goes more to a discussion about your character and what you stand for, and what is going on inside you for than it does me.”
   653. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 12, 2018 at 08:43 PM (#5709320)
Misirlou: I am indeed saying that Strzok can’t have committed a crime, at least based on the record we have before us, and assuming arguendo he made certain investigation decisions due to a bias against trump. (If he did something like commit murder that would be a different story.) But I could be wrong. Cite the statute. Otherwise your argument is poorly thought out as is typical with your trump deranged arguments.


If indeed, in your opinion "We will stop him" means what you contend it means, what could Strzok have done to stop him that was legal?
   654. DavidFoss Posted: July 12, 2018 at 09:13 PM (#5709330)
You folks on the left would have lost. your. bleeping. minds.

In 2010? Two years after the election that Obama won?

I still can't connect the dots here. We know about the Russian meddling. I remember the wikileaks dumps that targeted only Democrats during both the convention and as an October surprise. I remember the trolls on reddit. I was there I've lived through that. Then after the election came the investigation, a bunch of indictments and guilty pleas. Yadda, yadda.

But Strzok is the guy who affected the election because... he texted his girlfriend on his work phone? And we found out about it 18 months later? How did that affect anyone's vote in Nov-2016? I'm certainly glad he's not on the case anymore, but you haven't made any connection between anything he's done and what voters knew about when they voted. He *still* won't tell anyone anything about the investigation because it is still open.

... probably need to send cokes around. I was late replying because I had to eat dinner.
   655. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 12, 2018 at 09:16 PM (#5709331)
Index card version: Collusion is forever around the corner, but Peter Strzok was hiding behind every bush.
   656. Zonk did it for the children of Russia Posted: July 12, 2018 at 09:24 PM (#5709333)
Good god, this european trip...

I do not get why you stupid Trumpkins keep fronting for this moron.
   657. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 12, 2018 at 09:25 PM (#5709336)
But it’s 2018, and we know that they didn’t try to “stop him.”

No, we don't know that, because there's no possible way to know that. We don't know whether Strzok undertook various actions for proper reasons or for improper ones.
We know he didn't undertake any such actions, so what his hypothetical reasons would've been if he had undertaken these hypothetical actions are irrelevant.
   658. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 12, 2018 at 09:27 PM (#5709337)
Just another day in the life....

Trump blasts Prime Minister Theresa May in interview published during his first official visit to Britain
LONDON — After Prime Minister Theresa May rolled out the red carpet at Blenheim Palace on Thursday night for President Trump’s first official visit to Britain, a London tabloid published an explosive interview in which Trump blasted May’s compromise, pro-business plan to leave the European Union and warned that her approach could imperil any future trade deal between the United States and Britain.

The remarks cast an immediate pall over a visit that included a lavish dinner with business leaders Thursday night and plans to meet Queen Elizabeth II for afternoon tea on Friday. It was the latest international incident to erupt during Trump’s brief sojourn abroad, which kicked off with incendiary comments that upended a NATO summit in Brussels and further strained relationships with longtime U.S. allies.

In addition to attacking May on Brexit, Trump also praised her archrival, Boris Johnson, as a potential future prime minister while attacking London’s mayor as soft on crime and terrorism. ...

In the interview, done earlier this week, Trump disparaged May’s Brexit plan: “I would have done it much differently. I actually told Theresa May how to do it, but she didn’t listen to me.”

He added: “The deal she is striking is a much different deal than the one people voted on.”

If May has Britain align its rules and regulations for goods and agricultural products with Europe, following “a common ­rule book” with Brussels, as May puts it, then, Trump said, that could derail a trade deal with Washington.

“If they do a deal like that, we would be dealing with the European Union instead of dealing with the U.K., so it will probably kill the deal,” Trump told the Sun, which published its splash at 11 p.m. in Britain. ...

But you can always count on good old Sarah Sanders!
“The President likes and respects Prime Minister May very much. As he said in his interview with the Sun she ‘is a very good person’ and he ‘never said anything bad about her,’ ” U.S. press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. “He thought she was great on NATO today and is a really terrific person.”

A word of wisdom to May: When you lie down with dogs, you'll wake up with fleas, in this case Big Orange Fleas.
   659. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 12, 2018 at 09:29 PM (#5709338)
Warning to political sign thieves - they're putting GPS trackers on them, and arresting the perpetrators:
A leader of a group that regularly protests against U.S. Rep. Tom Reed, R-Corning, has been charged with petit larceny after being accused of stealing campaign signs. Following the disappearance of campaign signs, members of Tom Reed's campaign team installed a tracker in the signs, which eventually led them to the home of Gary McCaslin.

24/7 visual surveillance works pretty well, too. Much better than the illegal spring guns of yore, or even asking Kevin Brown to keep an eye on your lawn.
   660. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 12, 2018 at 09:31 PM (#5709339)
And yet people are claiming that the FBI had it in for Trump?

Strzok claimed it.

In his texts.

Strzok is part of the FBI.
TIL that the FBI was having an extramarital affair with Lisa Page. See, Strzok was having an extramarital affair with her, and Strzok is part of the FBI.
   661. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 12, 2018 at 09:40 PM (#5709347)

you are assuming a senior FBI agent risked his career and jail time, to use his position to sabotage the election, in the face of overwhelming odds that he didn't, would have been caught had he tried.

He, like the others, assumed Hillary would win and would reward them. Comey himself has talked about this assumption.

Had she won, none of this would have come to light. So really not that much of a "risk" from his perspective.
Fortunately, one only needs to take the Fake LSAT to get into Fake Law School to become a FL(TB), and the Fake LSAT, unlike the real one, doesn't have a logic section. Either he assumed Hillary would win (as did everyone), in which case there was no need for him to take any such risk, or he thought Trump could win, in which case he would've been taking a significant risk. And of course while taking this risk he didn't actually do anything that would prevent Trump from winning.
   662. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 12, 2018 at 09:42 PM (#5709348)
And since there is no evidence that Strzok did act improperly,

It doesn't become any more true on the 11,890th repetition.

Executive summary:

Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias.
FLTB isn't smart enough to understand that his quote does not actually contradict the assertion he is trying to refute.
   663. BrianBrianson Posted: July 12, 2018 at 10:21 PM (#5709366)
TIL that the FBI was having an extramarital affair with Lisa Page. See, Strzok was having an extramarital affair with her, and Strzok is part of the FBI.


Since they were both part of the FBI, it was really more like masturbation, and not an affair.

Strzok is thus totally vindicated.
   664. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 12, 2018 at 10:31 PM (#5709368)
By the way, as to the bolded part:

Are you now asserting that there is nothing illegal about a FBI agent using his official position to sabotage a presidential campaign? Is so, what's the big deal if he did?


You're confused as to basic concepts. Right and wrong and moral and immoral are not necessarily tied to legality. Anti-Trumpers seem to understand this concept when they argue, as they often do, that while collusion with Russia isn't itself illegal it would be bad. (But in reality anti-Trumpers don't actually understand concepts; it's all just whimsy, as you display here.)

Part of what would make Strzok's conduct so untoward and improper -- *if* he acted improperly out of bias -- is the very fact that his actions would not be illegal. People in government and law enforcement are vested with much power. We do not want them abusing that power, such as by engaging in personal vendettas or investigating people for improper reasons. These are fairly basic concepts and it's hard to believe people here don't understand them.

We do not want people in Strzok's position of power, integrally involved in multiple investigations that are important to the country and to the subjects and targets thereof, spewing off unhinged messages about how they're going to "stop" a presidential candidate from winning -- even if these messages are done in private. That's why Mueller removed Strzok from the investigation, because at a minimum there was the appearance of impropriety. And so the deeply confused people here who are arguing that appearance of impropriety is no big deal should explain why Mueller acted to remove Strzok. Walk yourself through the logic train and maybe you'll arrive at the answer.
   665. Howie Menckel Posted: July 12, 2018 at 10:33 PM (#5709369)
I flip on MSNBC, and it's all propaganda.

but then I flip to Fox, and it's even worse.
I probably can't ever unhear Giuliani - a guest of Laura Ingraham - repeatedly using the word "taint."

ok, it was about Strzok's supposed involvement in whatever, but damn.....

I need a hug.
   666. greenback took the 110 until the 105 Posted: July 12, 2018 at 10:38 PM (#5709371)
Good god, this european trip...

I do not get why you stupid Trumpkins keep fronting for this moron.

Yeah, there's a reason the meaning of the Strzok text had to be re-litigated to the same conclusion today, and it wasn't a boring and predictable Congressional hearing.
   667. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 12, 2018 at 10:38 PM (#5709373)
You're confused as to basic concepts. Right and wrong and moral and immoral are not necessarily tied to legality.


And yet, you are on record as saying you would only support impeachment of Trump if a crime could be proven.
   668. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 12, 2018 at 10:45 PM (#5709374)
But it’s 2018, and we know that they didn’t try to “stop him.”


No, we don't know that, because there's no possible way to know that. We don't know whether Strzok undertook various actions for proper reasons or for improper ones.

We know he didn't undertake any such actions, so what his hypothetical reasons would've been if he had undertaken these hypothetical actions are irrelevant.


You might be able to fool the rubes here that SBB refers to as your target demo, but you can't fool anyone who understands these issues. The IG's report says that there's no proof that Strzok's actions were motivated by bias; it does NOT say that Strzok undertook no actions that might have affected the election (i.e., had the effect of "stopping" Trump). One example is whether Strzok was dragging the FBI's feet in the Clinton investigation out of anti-Trump bias. Another is whether it was bias that motivated Strzok to prioritize the Russia investigation over the Clinton investigation. These are the ways in which someone in Strzok's position can act out of bias to "stop" Trump; it's about Strzok making decisions about the investigations in an improper way, decisions that might affect the election negatively for Trump. You're trying to pretend that because Strzok didn't, say, plant a dead hooker in Trump's bed that Strzok didn't act to "stop" Trump. You're not dealing with the actual issues, and as such, your arguments (really they're just baseless conclusions) are easily dispensed with.

I again quote Turley quoting the IG:

The IG noted that some of these shocking emails occurred at that point in October 2016 when the FBI was dragging its feet on the Clinton email investigation and Strzok was a critical player in that investigation. The IG concluded that bias was reflected in that part of the investigation with regard to Strzok and his role. Notably, the IG was in the same position as Mueller: The IG admits that the Strzok-Page emails “potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.” This includes the decision by Strzok to prioritize the Russian investigation over the Clinton investigation. The IG states that “[w]e concluded that we did not have confidence that this decision by Strzok was free from bias.”

However, rather than assume motivations, the IG concluded that it could not “find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions.” Thus, there was bias reflected in the statements of key investigatory figures like Strzok but there were also objective alternative reasons for the actions taken by the FBI. That is precisely the argument of Trump on the Comey firing. While he may have harbored animus toward Comey or made disconcerting statements, the act of firing Comey can be justified on Comey’s own misconduct as opposed to assumptions about his motives.
   669. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 12, 2018 at 10:53 PM (#5709376)
but then I flip to Fox, and it's even worse.
I probably can't ever unhear Giuliani - a guest of Laura Ingraham - repeatedly using the word "taint."

ok, it was about Strzok's supposed involvement in whatever, but damn.....


Did Fair and Balanced Fox ever get around to asking Redass Rudy about his uncannily savvy October Surprise prediction?** Did they ever show any curiosity about pro-Trump bias in the New York FBI office?
**“I do think that all of these revelations about Hillary Clinton finally are beginning to have an impact. He’s got a surprise or two that you’re going to hear about in the next two days.”
   670. Howie Menckel Posted: July 12, 2018 at 11:27 PM (#5709381)
Did Fair and Balanced Fox ever get around to asking Redass Rudy about his uncannily savvy October Surprise prediction?

I turned off the program in horror, but just spitballing - I will guess no.
   671. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 12, 2018 at 11:30 PM (#5709382)
So, our President gave an interview to Rupert Murdoch's Sun newspaper for publication upon his arrival in England.

Recalling a visit to one of his luxury golf resorts in Scotland two years ago, Mr Trump said: “I predicted Brexit. I was cutting a ribbon for the opening of Turnberry — you know they totally did a whole renovation, it is beautiful — the day before the Brexit vote. I said, ‘Brexit will happen’. The vote is going to go positive, because people don’t want to be faced with the horrible immigration problems that they are being faced with in other countries. You remember that Barack Obama said that there is no way it is going to happen, and the UK will get to the back of the line if it ever does, right? I said Brexit will happen, and I was right.”

The vote had already been taken and concluded before Trump visited his golf resort. You may recall the barrage of elaborately phrased insults on Twitter after Trump incorrectly praised Scottish voters for their Brexit vote (e.g. "weaselheaded fucknugget," "mangled apricot hellbeast," "ferret-wearing shitgibbon"); Scotland had voted to remain in the EU.

Mr Trump said: “They had a story in one of the major New York newspapers recently about your hospital. You know about that story? I’m sure you’ve seen it. What they say is, it is worse than any hospital they have ever seen in a war zone. It is right in the middle of London. I guess it used to be the ultimate and now there is, you know, there is blood all over the walls, all over the floors. It was a very major story and I have heard it from others, too, so I think it is very sad. Very sad.” It is the second time the US leader has attacked the hospital, which he has not named. It is believed to be the Royal London Hospital in Whitechapel, East London, where a record 702 stabbing victims were treated last year.

No American newspapers in New York or elsewhere have been covering the condition of a particular London hospital as a very major story. Trump has never identified the hospital, nor has he identified the article. No London hospitals are regularly awash in blood-soaked walls and floors.

Donald Trump has admitted he “feels unwelcome” in London as a major ­security operation was launched for his arrival in the UK yesterday. ...Mr Trump told The Sun he will be largely staying away from the capital to avoid huge street protests of up to 200,000 today. But he blamed them on politicians — singling out his nemesis, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan. ...He added: “Many people are delighted. I get thousands of notifications from people in the UK that they love the President of the United States.”

The most recent polling recorded 67% of the British public calling Trump a "poor" or "terrible" U.S. President. 11% say he is "great" or "good." 78% believe Trump has damaged America's world standing, compared with 6% who see improvement.

Mr Trump caused panic by implying he could pull the US out of NATO if other countries did not hike their contributions. He was asked at a Brussels press conference if he had threatened to withdraw and replied: “I told people I’d be very unhappy if they didn’t up their commitment. Yesterday I let them know I was extremely unhappy.” He insisted nations had finally agreed to increase expenditure, adding: “Everyone in the room thanked me.”

The NATO leaders did not thank Trump for his ridiculous performance. The agreement described by Trump does not exist, according to France's Emmanuel Macron stated that the NATO nations had not made the agreement described by Trump.

His trip is a lower key working visit rather than the full state visit that the Queen invited him on 18 months ago. Asked why he has failed to visit Britain as President until now, Mr Trump said: “Well, you know the United States has been very busy. We have been doing very well.”

It was widely reported that Trump cancelled the scheduled visit, telling Teresa May that he did not want to face large-scale protests. The itinerary of this trip has been arranged to do an end run around London for that reason. He blamed the original trip cancellation on Barack Obama for selling the previous embassy location, a sale that was instituted by President Bush.

Mr Trump added: “You know, a poll just came out that I am the most popular person in the history of the Republican Party — 92 per cent. Beating Lincoln. I beat our Honest Abe.

Abraham Lincoln died more than 60 years before the beginnings of scientific political polling.


The Sun calls Trump's interview "brutally honest."
   672. Howie Menckel Posted: July 12, 2018 at 11:56 PM (#5709386)

ok, I feel as if I got that hug I needed


I flipped on CNN last hour, and Don Lemon - who at times is unhinged - is doing an interview on the horrific Emmett Till murder from the 1950s. he is right on point, and I was glad to see the coverage.

A few minutes later, another guest is on Fox News talking about the same reopening of this case - shocking, I know. this is exactly the kind of thing that Trump admin should be doing - it sucks if it's all politics, and maybe this and boxer Jack Johnson and the African-American woman who was pardoned or granted clemency is just that - but it's something. if we address a vicious stain on our history, that's a good thing. far far far too late here, but it's all we have left in this tragedy.

By JAY REEVES
Associated Press

A 2017 book that revealed lies by a key figure in the Emmett Till case has prompted the U.S government to renew its investigation into the brutal 1955 slaying, a federal official said Thursday.

The reopening of the case had stayed quiet until the contents of a federal report came to light earlier in the day. Till relatives and social justice activists welcomed a fresh look at the killing that shocked the country and stoked the civil rights movement, but acknowledged that the passage of time could hamper justice.

Hours after news broke about the renewed investigation, a federal official familiar with the matter told The Associated Press that information in the 2017 book was what led federal investigators to re-examine the case. The official wasn't authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke to AP on condition of anonymity."
   673. Morty Causa Posted: July 13, 2018 at 12:06 AM (#5709388)
TIL that the FBI was having an extramarital affair with Lisa Page. See, Strzok was having an extramarital affair with her, and Strzok is part of the FBI.

Since they were both part of the FBI, it was really more like masturbation, and not an affair.

Incest! Isn't there a penumbra under the old constitutional apple tree for that? What does the Dersh say?
   674. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 13, 2018 at 12:34 AM (#5709391)
Interesting strategy - House GOP To Bring Democratic 'Abolish ICE' Bill Up For Floor Vote. Abolish ICE polls poorly, except among liberal Democrats. Might be a tough vote for some.

Apparently not that hard a vote - Democrats Will Vote Against Their Own 'Abolish Ice' Legislation:
A group of Democrats who introduced legislation to abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said they will vote against the measure if GOP leadership follows through with their vow to bring it to the House floor.

Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) released a statement Thursday accusing GOP leaders of exploiting the legislation for political gain after leadership confirmed it planned to hold a vote.

LOL. That's not what you do if you think your plan is popular. It's admitting that your own bill is political poison.
   675. Jess Franco Posted: July 13, 2018 at 01:07 AM (#5709397)
Hmm. Anybosy see Joe K lately?

Separating babies from their mothers and throwing them in cages isn't about popularity, you evil clown, nor is winning a vote the sole purpose of introducing a bill.

I sincerely hope your party takes a bloodbath come November.

   676. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 13, 2018 at 01:28 AM (#5709398)
From the article quoted by Yankee Clapper in #674:
Republicans are looking to force Democrats to take a difficult vote, placing Democrats in swing-districts that have been critical of the agency in a challenging situation.

Might be a tough vote for some. LOL.

Ouch. Brutal hardball tactics against vulnerable Democratic Congressmen who won their last elections with 69%, 68% and 68% of the vote (Pocan), or with 89%, 91% and unopposed (Espaillat).

However, Pramila Jayapal's percentage tumbled from 71% to 56%. She simply cannot afford to slip much more than that. Which makes it a good thing Jayapal actually defeated another Democrat in 2016's general election. (The top Republican candidate in the 2016 jungle primary finished 4th, with a big 8% of the vote.)

Anyway, this bluff-calling gambit could prove devastating to any House Democrat running for reelection in a swing-district rated either a tossup or just an iffy "Lean Democratic." Too bad there aren't any. LOL!
   677. tshipman Posted: July 13, 2018 at 01:33 AM (#5709399)
Imagine if Page and Strzok, similarly situated in 2008, had said this:

"Obama is not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”
“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

And then waves being made about an "insurance policy."

You folks on the left would have lost. your. bleeping. minds.

So who's trying to con who here, exactly, by saying that the texts in question are unremarkable? Again, it's not difficult to spot intellectual dishonesty.


This is a dumb, fake hypothetical hypocrisy.

However, we can disprove the fake hypothetical is because there is an actual example of Ray's hypothetical that happened in 2016.

James Comey sent a letter to Congress that he knew would leak saying that he was reopening the Clinton email case because he thought that if he did not, the NY FBI office would leak the existence of additional email. Unlike Ray's hypothetical outrage with Strzok, this is something that actually happened. The NY FBI actually leaked incessantly to the Trump campaign. They actually influenced the outcome of the election.

Not only have we managed to retain our minds, but no one even knows who the leakers at the NY FBI were, unlike the unfair smear campaign waged against Strzok by Fox News.
   678. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 13, 2018 at 01:38 AM (#5709400)
Brutal hardball tactics against vulnerable Democratic Congressmen who won their last elections with 69%, 68% and 68% of the vote (Pocan), or with 89%, 91% and unopposed (Espaillat). However, Pramila Jayapal's percentage tumbled from 71% to 56%. She simply cannot afford to slip much more than that.

Are you really that clueless? Of course only a Democrat in a super-safe district would sponsor Abolish Ice legislation, that's the point - it's an extreme stance. However, the sponsors of the legislation, apparently unlike Gonfalon, at least realize that their legislation is political poison, so they're going to vote against it, hoping to avoid tainting the party with the Abolish Ice brand. Quite a switch from what these folks were promoting just days ago.
   679. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 13, 2018 at 02:43 AM (#5709404)
LOL. That's not what you do if you think your plan is popular.

You're right. THIS is what you do if you think your bill is too popular.


Of course only a Democrat in a super-safe district would sponsor Abolish Ice legislation, that's the point

Needless to say, that wasn't the point one hour ago. The point of your #674 was giggling about Democrats' reelection bids being unexpectedly hoist on their own bill's (or party's) petard. "A tough vote for some." Sorry to be a spoilsport by documenting the number of genuinely vulnerable targets facing tough votes (zero).

As for your latest "apparently" throw-in about what you imagine some poster is thinking, I regret to say that I won't be voting for or against the bill. For me, the vote couldn't be easier.

Naturally, there's always a modicum of humor when politicians flip against their own bills, even for valid reasons. But if Senator-in-Waiting Mitt Romney could survive his opposition to Romneycare, and if Senator John McCain could get reelected on a platform of repealing McCain-Feingold, I can only pray that the iconic national reputation enjoyed by Rep. Adriano Espaillat will emerge dented, but intact.
   680. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 13, 2018 at 07:12 AM (#5709405)
You might be able to fool the rubes here that SBB refers to as your target demo, but you can't fool anyone who understands these issues.


Gosh, I sure hope you understand these issues better than the scientific ones you claim authority on. ”The global warming hoax is about controlling people through more government. Nothing more, and nothing less. ” . Why if I didn’t know better I’d assume you were a spittle-flecked hysterical ignoramous motivated by paranoia and a distaste for research. Actually, I’m not all that sure I do know any better.

Oh Little Lord, you’re not to be trusted.
   681. zenbitz Posted: July 13, 2018 at 07:51 AM (#5709407)
I find highly amusing that in the socialist distopia of Southern europe, the public toilets cost a euro, the big highways are all toll-based, and the beaches are mostly private.

   682. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 13, 2018 at 08:06 AM (#5709408)
James Comey sent a letter to Congress that he knew would leak saying that he was reopening the Clinton email case because he thought that if he did not, the NY FBI office would leak the existence of additional email. Unlike Ray's hypothetical outrage with Strzok, this is something that actually happened. The NY FBI actually leaked incessantly to the Trump campaign. They actually influenced the outcome of the election.

Not only have we managed to retain our minds, but no one even knows who the leakers at the NY FBI were, unlike the unfair smear campaign waged against Strzok by Fox News.


In the spirit of bipartisan unity, if the Democrats should retake either the House or the Senate, one of its first orders of business might be to subpoena all of the emails from that New York FBI office in the months leading up to the election, along with putting Rudy Giuliani under oath and subjecting him to the same treatment that Strzok was yesterday. I'm sure that Clapper would approve of this.
   683. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 13, 2018 at 08:38 AM (#5709410)
Sorry Andy, we're only interested in the insidious machinations of Hussein X's Deep State, not the the Trumpholsters in the Dope State.
   684. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 13, 2018 at 08:39 AM (#5709411)
Are you really that clueless? Of course only a Democrat in a super-safe district would sponsor Abolish Ice legislation, that's the point - it's an extreme stance. However, the sponsors of the legislation, apparently unlike Gonfalon, at least realize that their legislation is political poison, so they're going to vote against it, hoping to avoid tainting the party with the Abolish Ice brand. Quite a switch from what these folks were promoting just days ago.


Wonder what the political experts say about the Abolish ICE stunt?

THIS KIND OF BACKFIRED on Republicans. They said this vote would put Dems in a tough spot. Democrats are expected to almost uniformly vote no. Guess it didn’t put them in that tough a spot. The biggest pitfall in Democrats’ strategy is that the base gets upset with them. There was dissent in GOP leadership on this plan, because some people realized it could make Republicans look silly.


Link


Hey Clapper, that sort of dumb stunt won't influence voters. You know what will?

Thanks to Gasoline, Inflation Hits 2.8% in June


But hey I am sure inflation spikes, high gas prices, and the inevitable (and now GOP fault) rises in health care premiums will totally be forgiven, because Democrats voted no against a bill everyone (your claim) is against. Good one dude!
   685. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 13, 2018 at 08:46 AM (#5709413)
You might be able to fool the rubes here that SBB refers to as your target demo, but you can't fool anyone who understands these issues.
Uh, which of those categories do you mistakenly think you're in?

The IG's report says that there's no proof that Strzok's actions were motivated by bias; it does NOT say that Strzok undertook no actions that might have affected the election (i.e., had the effect of "stopping" Trump). One example is whether Strzok was dragging the FBI's feet in the Clinton investigation out of anti-Trump bias.
If that occurred, it would not, of course, be an example of "stopping Trump."

"Lisa, I'm going to stop Trump!"
"How, Peter?"
"I'm going to go slowly on Hillary's investigation!"
"Okay, and?"
"No 'and.' That's it."
Another is whether it was bias that motivated Strzok to prioritize the Russia investigation over the Clinton investigation.
That's not "another"; that's the same thing said another way. And once again: we know that they didn't do anything about the Russia investigation pre-election to "stop Trump." While they were repeatedly telling the press how they were investigating Hillary and the Clinton Foundation, they were very circumspect about the fact that they were even looking into the Trump campaign, let alone that there were alarming facts about that campaign. (Not to mention that their big investigative move was to get a warrant for a guy who wasn't even part of the campaign anymore.)
You're trying to pretend that because Strzok didn't, say, plant a dead hooker in Trump's bed that Strzok didn't act to "stop" Trump.
Yep. Whereas you're trying to pretend that not doing anything to or about Trump could somehow have been an attempt to stop him.

I again quote Turley quoting the IG:
But Turley is a hack, as evidenced by this statement, that you inexplicably failed to boldface: "While he may have harbored animus toward Comey or made disconcerting statements, the act of firing Comey can be justified on Comey’s own misconduct as opposed to assumptions about his motives." Nobody needs to "make assumptions" about Trump's motives because he told us his motives. Not in a general sense of telling us how he felt about Comey. He told us expressly why he fired Comey. To stop the Russia investigation.. (FLTB tries to explain that away by arguing that no rational person could've thought that firing Comey would have accomplished that goal, which is neither true nor relevant.)

This language you and Turley want to emphasize doesn't mean what you think it does, and is thus not the smoking gun you pretend it is: “[w]e concluded that we did not have confidence that this decision by Strzok was free from bias.” You know what it actually means? That they don't have any evidence.
   686. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 13, 2018 at 08:54 AM (#5709414)
Has anyone here mentioned the problems Scott Wagner (R - duh) is having for aligning himself with a Cult in Pennsylvania? Hey, at least he doesn't appear to be a Nazi, so progress!
   687. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 13, 2018 at 09:21 AM (#5709417)
Nobody needs to "make assumptions" about Trump's motives because he told us his motives.


But the Trumpholster defense to this is so obvious you can set it to music.
   688. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: July 13, 2018 at 09:33 AM (#5709418)
@jdawsey1:
Trump uses the phrase "fake news" at Chequers when asked about interview with The Sun on PM Theresa May.

Trump says he will talk to Putin about Ukraine, Syria, Middle East, nuclear proliferation and meddling. Says he doesn't expect Putin to admit meddling. "There won't be a Perry Mason here I don't think," he says.

Trump says immigration has been terrible for the UK and other European countries. Theresa May follows up. "Overall immigration has been good for the UK," she says.

Trump says the Russians are upset that he is president because he is so tough on them. "Oh gee, do we wish Trump was not the victor in that election!" Trump says, impersonating a Russian.

President Trump is dissecting Peter Strzok testimony at presser with Theresa May. "The rigged witch hunt," he says, bemoaning that he didn't get to see more of it because he was in a different time zone.

"This was an Obama disaster," Trump says at Chequers presser, when asked about Vladimir Putin annexing Crimea.

Imagine supporting or running interference for this man and believing you're a serious and reasoned person.
   689. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: July 13, 2018 at 10:22 AM (#5709431)
I have come to the conclusion that Trey Gowdy physically resembles a penis.
   690. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: July 13, 2018 at 10:33 AM (#5709434)
592

I'll hike at altitude against any of you pampered fancy lads,


Ever mid-day walked in Manhattan or tried to cross town on the subway in August? That's some hikin'...
   691. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: July 13, 2018 at 10:50 AM (#5709439)
629

And, once again: this is 2018, not 2016. If people knew about these texts in 2016 and raised an alarm to head off potential misconduct, that would be one thing. But it’s 2018, and we know that they didn’t try to “stop him.”


They know that. The only point of this hearing is to discredit the Mueller investigation for when he presents his findings.


Bingo.
   692. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: July 13, 2018 at 11:16 AM (#5709451)
671

Donald Trump has admitted he “feels unwelcome” in London


Awwwww... did big, nasty balloon hurt little snowflake's fee-fees? Need a safe space, pun'kin?
   693. Zonk did it for the children of Russia Posted: July 13, 2018 at 11:22 AM (#5709455)
Awwwww... did big, nasty balloon hurt little snowflake's fee-fees? Need a safe space, pun'kin?


Man, those Brits... There were Trump daleks, men in Trump wigs wearing diapers... I hope they can somehow sneak into the US illegally - we get stuck searching for clever signs, but those Brits know how to make a guy feel unwelcome.
   694. Jess Franco Posted: July 13, 2018 at 12:08 PM (#5709473)
I find highly amusing that in the socialist distopia of Southern europe, the public toilets cost a euro, the big highways are all toll-based, and the beaches are mostly private


Austerity was always about taking the commons from the commoners.
   695. Jess Franco Posted: July 13, 2018 at 12:09 PM (#5709474)

But the Trumpholster defense to this is so obvious you can set it to music.


They knew Trump was a snake when they took him in.
   696. Greg K Posted: July 13, 2018 at 12:12 PM (#5709475)
Austerity was always about taking the commons from the commoners.

Hey, this week's podcast episode is about that!

I can't wait to see what the 21st century equivalent of burning enclosure hedges is going to look like.
   697. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: July 13, 2018 at 12:16 PM (#5709479)
You guys want to talk about the Sun Interview, Jim Jeffries, the geometrical qualities of Trey Goydy's head or maybe:

Ken Dilanian

Verified account

@KenDilanianNBC
3m3 minutes ago
More
Mueller’s grand jury has indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers accused of hacking the Democrats—on the eve of a Trump Putin summit

11 replies 52 retweets 104 likes
Reply 11 Retweet 52 Like 104 Direct message


What a time to be the GOP.

edit: Perros -- so did you.
   698. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 13, 2018 at 12:18 PM (#5709480)
You guys want to talk about the Sun Interview, Jim Jeffries, the geometrical qualities of Trey Goydy's head or maybe:


I wanna talk about Jim Jeffries, heavyweight champion of the world from 1899-1905! Arguably the only time in history the heavyweight champion was also the world's greatest all-around athlete.
   699. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: July 13, 2018 at 12:20 PM (#5709483)
Gentleman Jim!
   700. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 13, 2018 at 12:21 PM (#5709484)
Flip
Page 7 of 11 pages ‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Ray (CTL)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 2018 July 16: Why Does President Trump Balk At Attending Baseball Games?
(919 - 3:23am, Jul 19)
Last: jmp

NewsblogAaron Judge — Huge Talent, Phenomenal Trade Bait
(2 - 12:58am, Jul 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogManny Machado blockbuster makes Dodgers the NL's team to beat
(8 - 12:48am, Jul 19)
Last: Walt Davis

Newsblog14 minutes of sound footage from the April 1931 Yankees-Red Sox season opener (YouTube)
(9 - 12:43am, Jul 19)
Last: QLE

NewsblogRob Manfred: Mike Trout limits his popularity because he won't market himself
(24 - 12:28am, Jul 19)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

Gonfalon CubsLooking Forward
(4 - 12:28am, Jul 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (World Cup)
(3225 - 12:27am, Jul 19)
Last: G. Bostock

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Summer Potpourri (finals, draft, free agency, Colangelo dragging)
(3408 - 12:16am, Jul 19)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogWilson Ramos Placed On DL, Expected To Be Sidelined Beyond Non-Waiver Trade Deadline
(1 - 11:08pm, Jul 18)
Last: Bote Man

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (let's call it July 2018)
(578 - 10:39pm, Jul 18)
Last: Zonk did it for the children of Russia

NewsblogASG All-Star Week Thread
(237 - 9:13pm, Jul 18)
Last: Bote Man

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-18-2018
(24 - 8:34pm, Jul 18)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Diamondbacks voting thread
(16 - 8:04pm, Jul 18)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogOrioles have deal in place for Manny Machado, working through trade specifics
(20 - 7:38pm, Jul 18)
Last: Crispix Attacksel Rios

Newsblog10 Years Ago, Two Trades Broke The Mold For MLB Deadline Deals
(14 - 6:34pm, Jul 18)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

Page rendered in 0.8349 seconds
46 querie(s) executed