Trump Leading Witness Revenge Acts

[37L1]

The house has passed a number of popular reform bills that are being subjected to what is called the speaker’s “scheduling veto” where McConnell refuses to schedule them for debate or vote. I’m not sure how much they’ve done since impeachment started but through last summer that’s basically all they did.

Some of those bills, like caps on prescription drug prices, made it into the state of the union as part of Trump’s agenda.

I don’t agree with the substance of many/most of the bills, including parts of this one, but there is a process for that.

Until the House Ranking Committee members actually engage in working on passing bi-partisan bills out their committees, they aren't going anywhere further in the "process."

If they want to try to really address these problems, why on Earth are they denying any minority party commitee members participation in creating bills that will make it out of committee with bipartisan support, that will in turn make it out of the House with bipartisan support and then get passed in the Senate to become law?

 

[RockyTop85]

Until the House Ranking Committee members actually engage in working on passing bi-partisan bills out their committees, they aren't going anywhere further in the "process."

If they want to try to really address these problems, why on Earth are they denying any minority party commitee members participation in creating bills that will make it out of committee with bipartisan support, that will in turn make it out of the House with bipartisan support and then get passed in the Senate to become law?

As far as prudential questions concerning the contents of the bill, it’s really egregious that our framers didn’t think of a solution for that. It seems like they could have easily created a system that allowed the house and the senate a process of amendments to allow them to reach compromise on the solution to a particular issue when that issue has broad support among the public... It’s really amazing that we’ve made it as far as we have given that we were founded by a bunch of dolts who didn’t understand compromise. /s

 

[Weezer]

The house has passed a number of popular reform bills that are being subjected to what is called the speaker’s “scheduling veto” where McConnell refuses to schedule them for debate or vote. I’m not sure how much they’ve done since impeachment started but through last summer that’s basically all they did.

Some of those bills, like caps on prescription drug prices, made it into the state of the union as part of Trump’s agenda.

I don’t agree with the substance of many/most of the bills, including parts of this one, but there is a process for that.

The problem I have with the bill you posted about is it was passed along party lines. It wasn't bipartisan. There was no working together. The ruling party put something together and passed it by force of numbers. I'd have the same problem with the GOP doing that in the Senate. I understand it's bound to happen, but are they legitimately trying to solve the problem if they refuse to work together? I don't think they are. It's more or less optics, just to say "look, we did something". Unless both sides work together, I just don't think either side can call it an honest attempt.

 

[Mick]

Not a response. Like others using that excerpt, you don't understand the role of IGs or what the statement implies.

IGs are powerless. They have no legal power to compel testimony. They can only work within and interview their silo. They cannot compel former employees of the silo. They are retroactive chronologists who do not surmise guilt, innocence, or intent; they must refer any suspect to DOJ.

The statement is: "No one said I hate Trump and therefore I and others set out to prevent his election, then remove him from office." Gee, small wonder no one copped to that, eh?

Horowitz was asked directly if he could definitively say the errors were not the result of political bias.
"I do not know," Horowitz replied.
---------------------------------------------------
Hawley: Was it your conclusion that there was — that political bias did not affect any part of the [former FBI lawyer Lisa] Page investigation, any part of Crossfire Hurricane? Is that what you concluded?

Horowitz: We did not reach that conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------
“Isn’t the lack of evidence on bias, evidence that we really should take as bias? But it’s … in any event, it’s certainly not itself indicative that no bias occurred, isn’t that correct?” Lee asked him.

“As to the opening [of the probe], which is in a different place than the FISA issues that you have identified and I talked about earlier, I think it is two different situations. On the FISA side, we found, as you noted, a lack of documentary and testimonial evidence about intentionality, but we noted the lack of satisfactory explanations, and in fact, leave open the possibility, for the reasons you indicated, it is unclear what the motivations were. On the one hand, gross incompetence, negligence; on the other hand intentionality, and we’re in between—we weren’t in a position with the evidence we had, to make that conclusion, but we are not ruling it out,” Horowitz replied.
--------------------------------------------------
"We are deeply concerned that so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, hand-picked investigative teams on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations after the matter had been briefed to the highest levels within the FBI," Horowitz said.

"Can you say it wasn’t because of political bias?" Graham asked.

"I do not know," Horowitz replied.

Graham asked Horowitz about an op-ed by former FBI James Comey, who proclaimed that the IG report vindicated him.

"You know, I think the activities we found here don't vindicate anybody who touched this," Horowitz replied.

“We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced” the decision to open the FBI investigation, called ‘Crossfire Hurricane,’ the report says. “We found that Crossfire Hurricane was opened for an authorized investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication.”


Which part are you having trouble with.

 

[37L1]

So you guys disagree and think election security is not a bipartisan issue and we shouldn’t be worried about it? Because that was the conversation we were having: whether or not the parties can stop blaming each other long enough to address what ought to be a bipartisan issue.

As far as prudential questions concerning the contents of the bill, it’s really egregious that our framers didn’t think of a solution for that. It seems like they could have easily created a system that allowed the house and the senate a process of amendments to allow them to reach compromise on the solution to a particular issue when that issue has broad support among the public... It’s really amazing that we’ve made it as far as we have given that we were founded by a bunch of dolts who didn’t understand compromise. /s

First you have to allow amendments in committee. When they are ramrodded without miniority votes of support, what do think will happen? Exactly what is happening now. The buy in comes from committee members, they then go to the floor and lobby their case. These are one sided out of committee and deserve to go nowhere. They are not bipartisan from the jump.

 

[37L1]

“We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced” the decision to open the FBI investigation, called ‘Crossfire Hurricane,’ the report says. “We found that Crossfire Hurricane was opened for an authorized investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication.”


Which part are you having trouble with.

All of the rest that you haven't addressed. Why not?

Rhetorical question because we already know.

 

[hog88]

So you guys disagree and think election security is not a bipartisan issue and we shouldn’t be worried about it? Because that was the conversation we were having: whether or not the parties can stop blaming each other long enough to address what ought to be a bipartisan issue.

As far as prudential questions concerning the contents of the bill, it’s really egregious that our framers didn’t think of a solution for that. It seems like they could have easily created a system that allowed the house and the senate a process of amendments to allow them to reach compromise on the solution to a particular issue when that issue has broad support among the public... It’s really amazing that we’ve made it as far as we have given that we were founded by a bunch of dolts who didn’t understand compromise. /s

It is a bipartisan issue but the Dems are not treating it as such.

 

[NCFisher]

"More flexibility after the election". Cool story Bro. Meanwhile Trump does nothing and encourages it. But Obama, right?

He was president, right? And the conversation is about what he could have done as president, right?
Oh, yeah...riiiiight.

"Trump does nothing?"
You mean aside from the sanctions on government and private individuals, and attacking Russia's power grid? Or aside from actually preparing to respond to a repeat of 2016 unlike President Flexible twisting himself into a pretzel to avoid angering Putin? Or the January 2017 response of DHS declaring our voting infrastructure part of the critical national infrastructure, exponentially increasing the role of the fed in secure elections? Perhaps you mean the 2018 creation of EI-ISAC, a prevention cyber-group weaving together federal, state, local entities to thwart foreign interference? Or the $425M for states to harden their systems? Or FBI expansion of their program to alert state-level officials when local level intrusion occurs? Or perhaps - at last count - the 46 states participating in having their systems scanned by federal cyber-security personnel for vulnerabilities? Or the summits with big tech to shore up their lines?

If that's nothing, Obama might as well appointed his dog as Director of Cyber-Security.

 

[Mick]

He was president, right? And the conversation is about what he could have done as president, right?
Oh, yeah...riiiiight.

"Trump does nothing?"
You mean aside from the sanctions on government and private individuals, and attacking Russia's power grid? Or aside from actually preparing to respond to a repeat of 2016 unlike President Flexible twisting himself into a pretzel to avoid angering Putin? Or the January 2017 response of DHS declaring our voting infrastructure part of the critical national infrastructure, exponentially increasing the role of the fed in secure elections? Perhaps you mean the 2018 creation of EI-ISAC, a prevention cyber-group weaving together federal, state, local entities to thwart foreign interference? Or the $425M for states to harden their systems? Or FBI expansion of their program to alert state-level officials when local level intrusion occurs? Or perhaps - at last count - the 46 states participating in having their systems scanned by federal cyber-security personnel for vulnerabilities? Or the summits with big tech to shore up their lines?

If that's nothing, Obama might as well appointed his dog as Director of Cyber-Security.

Are you trying to break the record of most questions asked? I guess that is what you have to do when you're trying to deflect from Trump's Ukraine work.

 

[NCFisher]

“We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced” the decision to open the FBI investigation, called ‘Crossfire Hurricane,’ the report says. “We found that Crossfire Hurricane was opened for an authorized investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication.”


Which part are you having trouble with.

I contend it was not and that IGs have no power to make such a determination, reasons already painstakingly detailed. Foremost among them that IGs only work within their silo, and active employees of the silo. They have no subpoena or grand jury powers to compel testimony. The active DOJ criminal investigations suffer no such deficits, so you've a bit more time to whistle passing the graveyard.

Tell me, what was the origin - the raison d'etre - of Crossfire Hurricane? Then I'll get to your bolded comment.

 

[NCFisher]

Are you trying to break the record of most questions asked? I guess that is what you have to do when you're trying to deflect from Trump's Ukraine work.

They were factual statements of what the Trump WH is doing to prepare for election meddling. Which means they're rhetorical, not actual questions.

Deflect? I'm responding to your comment that he's doing nothing in preparation for 2020, and in contrast to what Obama didn't do in 2016. Are you losing track of the exchange?

 

[RockyTop85]

The problem I have with the bill you posted about is it was passed along party lines. It wasn't bipartisan. There was no working together. The ruling party put something together and passed it by force of numbers. I'd have the same problem with the GOP doing that in the Senate. I understand it's bound to happen, but are they legitimately trying to solve the problem if they refuse to work together? I don't think they are. It's more or less optics, just to say "look, we did something". Unless both sides work together, I just don't think either side can call it an honest attempt.

First you have to allow amendments in committee. When they are ramrodded without miniority votes of support, what do think will happen? Exactly what is happening now. The buy in comes from committee members, they then go to the floor and lobby their case. These are one sided out of committee and deserve to go nowhere. They are not bipartisan from the jump.

It is a bipartisan issue but the Dems are not treating it as such.

This is impressive. You guys have not only all moved the goalposts, but are now doing the exact thing Weezer was complaining about originally: relying on the partisan blame game to excuse not actually addressing what should be a bipartisan issue.

So the answer is we need to find a way to protect ourselves. Or we can just continue to pass the buck on blame. It should really be a bipartisan issue, but instead, we get each side trying to blame the other.

Of course it would be ideal for both parties to act like grownups and for the democrats to put forward a bill with some bipartisan input. However, the GOP’s issues with how the bill came out of the house are all remedied by the same legislative process that has been in place since the founding.

The GOP, under our current split government, will not only have an equal say in the wording of any bill that ultimately becomes law, but they have the capacity to propose their own bill.

If the issue were significant to them, these complaints are no barrier to them doing their jobs.

 

[Weezer]

This is impressive. You guys have not only all moved the goalposts, but are now doing the exact thing Weezer was complaining about originally: relying on the partisan blame game to excuse not actually addressing what should be a bipartisan issue.



Of course it would be ideal for both parties to act like grownups and for the democrats to put forward a bill with some bipartisan input. However, the GOP’s issues with how the bill came out of the house are all remedied by the same legislative process that has been in place since the founding.

The GOP, under our current split government, will not only have an equal say in the wording of any bill that ultimately becomes law, but they have the capacity to propose their own bill.

If the issue were significant to them, these complaints are no barrier to them doing their jobs.

My question is why didn't the House Dems attempt to work with the House Pubs and actually come to a bipartisan agreement? I'm not sure how that's moving goalposts, but okay. I'm of the opinion the majority party, whether it be the Dems or the Pubs, has an obligation to take the lead in working together, rather than simply pushing their own agenda through. Our nation was built through compromise.

 

[lawgator1]

He was president, right? And the conversation is about what he could have done as president, right?
Oh, yeah...riiiiight.

"Trump does nothing?"
You mean aside from the sanctions on government and private individuals, and attacking Russia's power grid? Or aside from actually preparing to respond to a repeat of 2016 unlike President Flexible twisting himself into a pretzel to avoid angering Putin? Or the January 2017 response of DHS declaring our voting infrastructure part of the critical national infrastructure, exponentially increasing the role of the fed in secure elections? Perhaps you mean the 2018 creation of EI-ISAC, a prevention cyber-group weaving together federal, state, local entities to thwart foreign interference? Or the $425M for states to harden their systems? Or FBI expansion of their program to alert state-level officials when local level intrusion occurs? Or perhaps - at last count - the 46 states participating in having their systems scanned by federal cyber-security personnel for vulnerabilities? Or the summits with big tech to shore up their lines?

If that's nothing, Obama might as well appointed his dog as Director of Cyber-Security.

Why did the GOP fight so hard against helping the states prevent Russian tinkering with voting apparatus? McConnell in particular fought it tooth and nail, until he finally caved in late last year.

Why does Trump absolutely refuse, to this day, to admit what literally everyone else says is true -- Russia interfered in 2016 to help him win. I get that whether they made the difference is unknowable. Fine. But to not even admit it happened? That, sir, is not leadership. Its shame.

 

[RockyTop85]

My question is why didn't the House Dems attempt to work with the House Pubs and actually come to a bipartisan agreement? I'm not sure how that's moving goalposts, but okay. I'm of the opinion the majority party, whether it be the Dems or the Pubs, has an obligation to take the lead in working together, rather than simply pushing their own agenda through. Our nation was built through compromise.

Well, it’s moving the goalposts because initially you were saying that both parties were blaming the other instead of addressing what should be a bipartisan issue.

Now you’re saying that the GOP’s failure to do anything to address the issue is justified by some perceived procedural tomfoolery, even though that tomfoolery is remedied by the established procedures for making law.

Why wouldn’t they just work with them? The fact that they’re partisan hack democrats is probably the most likely explanation. However, the flimsy excuses of the GOP indicate that they don’t actually want to do anything about it. Which makes sense because Trump sees election security as an affront to his “historical” victory and would likely just veto it. They would be criticized by him, the cult wouldn’t support them as much, and they would risk losing power in November. So, bad faith negotiations on their part can’t be ruled out.

I agree there should be more compromise and I think sending people to DC with a mandate of not working with each other is a mess. Either take a chainsaw to the bloated USCA and CFR and let the states do their own thing... or suck it up and work together. But when the system is set up to force them to eventually work together, the fact that they didn’t work together before they had to does not justify never working together.

 

[Mick]

They were factual statements of what the Trump WH is doing to prepare for election meddling. Which means they're rhetorical, not actual questions.

Deflect? I'm responding to your comment that he's doing nothing in preparation for 2020, and in contrast to what Obama didn't do in 2016. Are you losing track of the exchange?

You act like he has done something, He hasn't. The IC has taken some measures on the preventive side which were highlighted by the investigation which are mainly awareness initiatives. I see Obama's failure as one of ignorance. Not much he could have done about the DNC and RNC hacks or Russian meme trolls and there is definitely nothing he could have done about the Trump campaign seeking political help from Russia.

 

[Weezer]

Well, it’s moving the goalposts because initially you were saying that both parties were blaming the other instead of addressing what should be a bipartisan issue.

Now you’re saying that the GOP’s failure to do anything to address the issue is justified by some perceived procedural tomfoolery, even though that tomfoolery is remedied by the established procedures for making law.

Why wouldn’t they just work with them? The fact that they’re partisan hack democrats is probably the most likely explanation. However, the flimsy excuses of the GOP indicate that they don’t actually want to do anything about it. Which makes sense because Trump sees election security as an affront to his “historical” victory and would likely just veto it. They would be criticized by him, the cult wouldn’t support them as much, and they would risk losing power in November. So, bad faith negotiations on their part can’t be ruled out.

That's fine. I indicated that I blame both sides. You mentioned the House bill, so looking at it, I saw it wasn't a bipartisan solution. Doesn't mean that I've changed my view that both sides are in the wrong. They refuse to work together on almost everything.

 

[RockyTop85]

That's fine. I indicated that I blame both sides. You mentioned the House bill, so looking at it, I saw it wasn't a bipartisan solution. Doesn't mean that I've changed my view that both sides are in the wrong. They refuse to work together on almost everything.

I added an edit to say we agree on that.

 

[NCFisher]

Why did the GOP fight so hard against helping the states prevent Russian tinkering with voting apparatus? McConnell in particular fought it tooth and nail, until he finally caved in late last year.

Why does Trump absolutely refuse, to this day, to admit what literally everyone else says is true -- Russia interfered in 2016 to help him win. I get that whether they made the difference is unknowable. Fine. But to not even admit it happened? That, sir, is not leadership. Its shame.

I think the objection - well-founded - was that states can partner with the Fed if they like, but more than that and it'll be seen as too much federal intervention into state election boards. I think the caving you refer to is called reaching an agreement.

Because it's two different things. First, Trump stated Russia meddled before he was even inaugurated. His primary objection is over the DNC server hack. Secondly, there's no evidence the practical smattering of Russian media-trolling had any effect on the election. Thus, it is a false choice you insist on; that Trump must both state Russia meddled (he has) and that he must say it helped him win (baseless conjecture).

That sir, is either you being purposely dishonest, not very discerning, or both.

 

[Mick]

I think the objection - well-founded - was that states can partner with the Fed if they like, but more than that and it'll be seen as too much federal intervention into state election boards. I think the caving you refer to is called reaching an agreement.

Because it's two different things. First, Trump stated Russia meddled before he was even inaugurated. His primary objection is over the DNC server hack. Secondly, there's no evidence the practical smattering of Russian media-trolling had any effect on the election. Thus, it is a false choice you insist on; that Trump must both state Russia meddled (he has) and that he must say it helped him win (baseless conjecture).

That sir, is either you being purposely dishonest, not very discerning, or both.

"The server, they say Ukraine has.it". was just pillow talk.

 

[NCFisher]

You act like he has done something, He hasn't. The IC has taken some measures on the preventive side which were highlighted by the investigation which are mainly awareness initiatives. I see Obama's failure as one of ignorance. Not much he could have done about the DNC and RNC hacks or Russian meme trolls and there is definitely nothing he could have done about the Trump campaign seeking political help from Russia.

Participation in cyber-security measures with the Fed is entirely elective, as it should be, since state electoral boards are - and must be - autonomous.

As I posted, Obama's failure was not of ignorance but fear of escalating cyber-attack. While actually under cyber-attack. It was a weakling's posture and was his foreign policy, generally. Brennan has stated they brought a list of counter measures to him, which HE declined.

If voting systems are internet-connected, you can harden all you want but there will be intrusion. Firewalling, then detection and response efficiencies are about the best that can be expected. When it happens, if Trump doesn't respond any better than Obama, you can complain.

Yeah, but no; Trump campaign did not seek help from Russia or need it. Drop the gender and seniority check-boxes, and run a better candidate next time.

 

[Mick]

Participation in cyber-security measures with the Fed is entirely elective, as it should be, since state electoral boards are - and must be - autonomous.

As I posted, Obama's failure was not of ignorance but fear of escalating cyber-attack. While actually under cyber-attack. It was a weakling's posture and was his foreign policy, generally. Brennan has stated they brought a list of counter measures to him, which HE declined.

If voting systems are internet-connected, you can harden all you want but there will be intrusion. Firewalling, then detection and response efficiencies are about the best that can be expected. When it happens, if Trump doesn't respond any better than Obama, you can complain.

Yeah, but no; Trump campaign did not seek help from Russia or need it. Drop the gender and seniority check-boxes, and run a better candidate next time.

You mean retaliation and not counter measures.

 

[NCFisher]

"The server, they say Ukraine has.it". was just pillow talk.

That the FBI permitted DNC to deny them access to the servers is just another item on Comey's laundry list of failures; a subpoena and we'd never have been talking about this.

 

[lawgator1]

I think the objection - well-founded - was that states can partner with the Fed if they like, but more than that and it'll be seen as too much federal intervention into state election boards. I think the caving you refer to is called reaching an agreement.

Because it's two different things. First, Trump stated Russia meddled before he was even inaugurated. His primary objection is over the DNC server hack. Secondly, there's no evidence the practical smattering of Russian media-trolling had any effect on the election. Thus, it is a false choice you insist on; that Trump must both state Russia meddled (he has) and that he must say it helped him win (baseless conjecture).

That sir, is either you being purposely dishonest, not very discerning, or both.

First, the notion that Trump was against, concerned about, or in any way caring about the DNC server hack is ABSOLUTELY LAUGHABLE !!!! Trump openly encouraged the hacking of DNC servers. Russia, if you're listening ....

Second, Trump has admitted the Russian effort one or two times, strained, at the point of a gun, hating it, and within hours denounced it. To this day he will not admit it.

Third, you claim its a "false choice" to blur the distinction between them trying to help him win, and actually achieving it. Fact is, we KNOW, for a CERTAINTY, that they tried to help Trump win. That alone is grounds to take action. That alone is grounds to admit it happened.

That it cannot be known whether they were successful is immaterial to the point above. But, I understand why the Fox numbskulls keep pointing that out. If it cannot be proven that it worked, no harm no foul.

 

[NCFisher]

You mean retaliation and not counter measures.

I've already listed the counter measures I'm aware of. There is no such thing as a completely secure network. If they are determined and skilled, other countries will continue breaching government networks just as we intrude on theirs.

So, yes; in the end, retaliation and trying to stay one step ahead is all you've got.