[jjbrr]

I am willing to bet my life the memo does, in fact, contain inaccurate information and paints a false narrative.

[PassedOut]

F.B.I. Director Condemns Republicans’ Move to Release Secret Memo

Quote

WASHINGTON — Christopher A. Wray, the F.B.I. director, clashed publicly with the president for the first time on Wednesday, condemning a push by House Republicans to release a secret memo that purports to show how the bureau and the Justice Department abused their authorities to obtain a warrant to spy on a former Trump campaign adviser.

The “F.B.I. was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it,” the F.B.I. said in a statement. “As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”

[andrei]

jjbrr, on 2018-January-31, 12:25, said:

I am willing to bet my life the memo does, in fact, contain inaccurate information and paints a false narrative.

Of course you do.

An unnamed source familiar to the matter said so.
If the memo will be out, said source will have more other things to say regarding it.

[andrei]

PassedOut, on 2018-January-31, 12:38, said:

F.B.I. Director Condemns Republicans’ Move to Release Secret Memo

I am willing to bet my life this is the reason FBI does not want memo released:

Quote

F.B.I. officials say privately that Mr. Trump, who wants to see the memo released, is prioritizing politics over national security and is putting the bureau’s reputation at risk.

[kenberg]

Here is the problem I see with releasing the memo, assuming I correctly understand the issue.

It would release the Republicans view of what follows from classified information that the rest of us cannot see.

Here would be the conversation:

Rs: We have looked at the classified information. It shows the following. ...........

Skeptic: I would like to see the information that led you to draw these conclusions.

Rs: That's classified.




This doesn't work for me. I am willing to regard it as possible that someone in the FBI, or someone anywhere, might be a bad guy. I am fine with an unbiased investigation to see if that is so, at least if some information and this might be from classified information, leads unbiased experienced people to see that indeed there might be something rotten in the state of DC. Nobody gets to claim "I am with the FBI, you must give me your unqualifed trust".

Surely it must trouble anyone to have those with an obvious bias look at classified data and then release their one-sided interpretation of this classified data. Perhaps all the classified information could be released without causing harm, but I doubt it. If this should happen to be true then release it all and we will all form our opinions. But otherwise, releasing an interpretation of facts, by Rs in support of efforts to discredit an investigation of the Big R, when the rest of us cannot see and evaluate these facts, should not happen.

[RedSpawn]

andrei, on 2018-January-31, 10:25, said:

Bwaaaahaaaahaaaaa ...

You guys fall for this? Frightening.


Under Obama debt increased 68%, under GW Bush debt increased 101%.
Thus GW Bush added more trillions to the debt than Obama.

And Roosevelt added more than 1000% to the debt, OMG.

GW Bush increased public debt 101% but he had 09/11 and the Iraq War which allegedly makes his "fiscal conservatism" debacle more excusable.

I don't agree with the logic or the tribal cognitive dissonance for that matter, but it is what it is.

I have watched many a conservative try to rationalize President GW Bush's financial track record. And there's just no amount of mental gymnastics that makes this lack of financial discipline acceptable.

[kenberg]

I have been thinking of whether I want to tackle any of the actual items in the State of the Union address. But Trump called the Iranian leadership corrupt, and the Iranian leadership called Trump ignorant. I think I will just let them have at it, they don't need my help.

[y66]

Edward Luce at the Financial Times suggests his readers' time would be better spent re-reading the US constitution than poring over the contents of the president's address:

Quote

Spare a thought for Republican lawmakers. Trey Gowdy’s retirement on Wednesday now means that roughly one in seven House Republicans will not be standing in November.

Two or three of them – such as the arch-Trumpian Lou Barletta, who is running for Pennsylvania’s governorship – are seeking a grander stage. Another handful, including Pennsylvania’s Patrick Meehan, who has been felled by a sex scandal, deserve no sympathy. Meehan had the chutzpah to use taxpayer funds to pay off a former staffer who had accused him of sexual harassment. After “prayerful reflection”, the former member of the House Ethics committee took his name off the ballot this November.

The same applies to Tim Murphy, another Pennsylvania Republican (what is it with Pennsylvania?), who left Congress last October after he pressed a woman with whom he had had an affair to get an abortion. Needless to say, Murphy is both family man and a strident foe of abortion rights.

But these are the anomalies. The vast majority of departing Republicans, such as Mr Gowdy, are dodging the widely expected Democratic wave in November. Thirty seven are now retiring.

Democrats need to win just 24 seats to regain control of the House. The Senate is another matter – the odds are stacked heavily against Democrats in this cycle. But it would be a surprise – indeed a shock – were Republicans to retain control of the House.

Among other big name retirees with no announced plans are Jeb Hensarling, Bob Goodlatte, Joe Barton, Ed Royce, Darrell Issa and Rodney Frelinghuysen. Some of them are in safe seats. But Congress is only fun when you are in the majority.

There is a world of difference between being Devin Nunes, the bend-over-backwardly pro-Trump chairman of the House intelligence committee, and Adam Schiff, the ranking (minority) member of the same committee.

If Schiff takes the gavel next January, Mr Trump’s life will turn inside out. Subpoenas will start flying. The FBI will regain the spring in its step. And Robert Mueller will find a receptive audience for his investigative findings.

That said, I am making no predictions about November. Do not underestimate Trump’s ability to turn out older voters – who are traditionally reliable fodder in midterm elections. Never under-estimate the Democratic Party’s ability to shoot itself in the foot. A lot can happen in eight months. Which brings me to my column on the disconnect between Trump’s relatively temperate State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, and his demonising of the so-called Deep State. Nunes has been a very resourceful White House ally this week, as I explain in my column.

For those still poring over the contents of the president’s address, I would suggest your time is better spent re-reading the US constitution. We are going to be hearing even more about it than usual in the coming weeks and months.

To wit, my first recommended reading is a piece by Benjamin Wittes in the indispensable Lawfare blog on “Big Lies, Law Enforcement and the Defense of Rod Rosenstein”. I wish I could pick a cheerier topic. But this is where the action is.

My second is a searing cover story by Franklin Foer in the Atlantic Monthly’s latest issue on Paul Manafort, Trump’s former – now indicted – campaign manager. As we navigate the discrepancy between Trump’s election promise to drain the swamp and his sterling work on behalf of Swampians everywhere, the rise and fall of Manafort is an indispensable backdrop. Today’s DC is very much his co-creation.

Finally, Juleanna Glover – former adviser to the likes of George W Bush and Dick Cheney, now a robust anti-Trumper – argues in the New York Times that the time is ripe for a third party presidential candidate.

True, the third party dream scenario crops up every four years or so. But on this occasion, it feels different. Think of all those retiring Republicans. Glover’s op-ed trails names such as J.P. Morgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon, IBM’s Ginni Rometty, and even Carlyle’s David Rubinstein. The difference between this cycle and all its predecessors is Trump. All things are now possible.

[Winstonm]

This is rather incredible. From WaPo:

Quote

“Few things have frustrated Trump Fredo as much as the law enforcement agencies he cannot fully control,” Josh Dawsey, Devlin Barrett and Karoun Demirjian report. “Allies say he is upset that he can’t control ‘my guys’ at the ‘Trump Fredp Justice Department’ and that no one seems particularly loyal to him. He has also broken long-held protocols by directly calling Justice Department officials, and instructed his chief of staff to do the same, without the White House counsel on the phone.

It is difficult to imagine a more perfect description of the way the head of a criminal family enterprise views his world.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2018-February-01, 08:16, said:

Edward Luce at the Financial Times suggests his readers' time would be better spent re-reading the US constitution than poring over the contents of the president's address:

I will focus a moment on this part:

Quote

That said, I am making no predictions about November. Do not underestimate Trump's ability to turn out older voters – who are traditionally reliable fodder in midterm elections. Never under-estimate the Democratic Party's ability to shoot itself in the foot.

I was up at the gym yesterday and as I finished my time on the treadmill a guy, Bill I think, that I know casually from the gym came up. "Nancy Pelosi was determined not to smile". So we chatted a bit, he liked the speech, I didn't. a few words about it, then we went on to discuss another guy, John, that he knows better than I do. John's wife is in a nursing home, John is depressed, I said I would give him a call if I can get his number, Bill said he would send it. I am 79, Bill is in his 80s. John probably in his 80s. Bill has heart problems and goes easy on the exercise, I am still working on getting an attack so I went on to the weights.

Do I actually have a point, I hear you ask. I think so. I get tired of hearing about old guys, particularly old white guys, voting for Trump as if this were a simple fact of age, like arthritis. Bill is quite a decent guy. And not all that stubborn, we had a decent albeit short discussion. The D message often comes across as if having old people around is a horrible burden. Surely the Dems would win everything in a fair election but we old white people are out there screwing everything up. Or so they seem to think. The Democratic Party leaders might want to ask themselves how this message is working out.

Like many others, Bill, John and I have had reasonably satisfactory lives. We also realize we probably won't be around 20 years from now. We would like the future to go well, but our current satisfactory situation and our age means that we are mostly thinking of how it will go for the future generations. This includes kids and grandkids, but it's not limited to that. Those who want our votes might start by not writing us off. They could also go easy on the name calling. Calling us "reliable fodder" and then asking for our vote is an approach that might need some re-thinking. And "reliable fodder" is mild as these things go. But it is dismissive.

We do listen, we do vote, "reliable fodder" might not be quite the right way to put it.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2018-February-01, 10:35, said:

I will focus a moment on this part:


I was up at the gym yesterday and as I finished my time on the treadmill a guy, Bill I think, that I know casually from the gym came up. "Nancy Pelosi was determined not to smile". So we chatted a bit, he liked the speech, I didn't. a few words about it, then we went on to discuss another guy, John, that he knows better than I do. John's wife is in a nursing home, John is depressed, I said I would give him a call if I can get his number, Bill said he would send it. I am 79, Bill is in his 80s. John probably in his 80s. Bill has heart problems and goes easy on the exercise, I am still working on getting an attack so I went on to the weights.

Do I actually have a point, I hear you ask. I think so. I get tired of hearing about old guys, particularly old white guys, voting for Trump as if this were a simple fact of age, like arthritis. Bill is quite a decent guy. And not all that stubborn, we had a decent albeit short discussion. The D message often comes across as if having old people around is a horrible burden. Surely the Dems would win everything in a fair election but we old white people are out there screwing everything up. Or so they seem to think. The Democratic Party leaders might want to ask themselves how this message is working out.

Like many others, Bill, John and I have had reasonably satisfactory lives. We also realize we probably won't be around 20 years from now. We would like the future to go well, but our current satisfactory situation and our age means that we are mostly thinking of how it will go for the future generations. This includes kids and grandkids, but it's not limited to that. Those who want our votes might start by not writing us off. They could also go easy on the name calling. Calling us "reliable fodder" and then asking for our vote is an approach that might need some re-thinking. And "reliable fodder" is mild as these things go. But it is dismissive.

We do listen, we do vote, "reliable fodder" might not be quite the right way to put it.

I think you are right - the candidates who have pulled off upsets in special elections seem to have a unified message: to win, you have to campaign with a message that is about the concerns of the many different people and one that resonates across a wide spectrum of voters.

The Democratic party when I was young was the party of the working class, the unions, the teachers, and the poor. I feel strongly the Democrats need to again support those same voters and with more than token messages but with genuine policy initiatives. I applaud Bernie Sanders for offering specific messages as to what he wanted done and how he planned to do it. I think more than anything else, an aggressive campaign by Democrats based on specific policies can begin to recapture seats lost to the social conservative forces.

The oddity is that I think both Ta-Nahisi Coates and Ken Berg are both right: The white majority that put Fredo in office can be won over with a positive message built around specific policies. Many do not agree with the policies, but Fredo did enumerate specifics: build a wall, end NAFTA, etc.

No on will ever win 100% of the white votes that put Fredo in office, but there are enough reasonable people within that group who can and will respond to a reasonable alternative. It is up the the Democratic party to find that voice of reason.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2018-February-01, 10:35, said:

We do listen, we do vote, "reliable fodder" might not be quite the right way to put it.

I feel it's very safe to say you're not representative of the general class of "old white guys".

You bring up your anecdotes any time someone refers to any demographic category, as if such statements are meant to imply something absolute about every member of the category. We group people (and things) into categories to make it easier to reason about them, and statements are just about general trends, not 100% absolutes. Like saying "dogs have 4 legs" is true, even though we've all seen many dogs that have lost legs.

When they say something like old white guys are Trump supporters, they're probably just talking about a moderate majority, like 60-70%. If they mobilize enough of them, that could be enough to cancel out the wave of anti-Trump sentiment among other groups.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2018-February-01, 11:41, said:

I feel it's very safe to say you're not representative of the general class of "old white guys".

You bring up your anecdotes any time someone refers to any demographic category, as if such statements are meant to imply something absolute about every member of the category. We group people (and things) into categories to make it easier to reason about them, and statements are just about general trends, not 100% absolutes. Like saying "dogs have 4 legs" is true, even though we've all seen many dogs that have lost legs.

When they say something like old white guys are Trump supporters, they're probably just talking about a moderate majority, like 60-70%. If they mobilize enough of them, that could be enough to cancel out the wave of anti-Trump sentiment among other groups.

What seems to be missing is any thought that old white guys might be flexible enough to change their minds. Some of them.

Women are, I believe, more likely than than men to be supporters of Democrats. Republicans try to convince women to vote Republican, and they sometimes succeed in doing so. This is a more productive approach than writing women off as reliable fodder for Democrats. I don't really want to hang people for what is probably just casual phrasing, but it does also seem to represent a broad mindset. I am suggesting Democrats will, or at least might, get more votes if they re-think this. Many people sometimes vote D and sometimes vote R, and sometimes don't vote. Obviously this is so, or every election would just repeat the result of the previous one. I understand that those who organize a campaign will put a lot of effort into where they think the most votes are, but I think writing off any group is a mistake.

Everyone's favorite example from the last election. I might even agree with Hillary that some of the Trump supporters were deplorable, but speaking of a basket of deplorables revealed a mindset. This mindset goes further toward explaining her loss than does her deplorable phrasing. The phrasing was a consequence of the mindset, and the mindset no doubt showed through with or without the phrasing. That costs.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2018-February-01, 12:33, said:

I might even agree with Hillary that some of the Trump supporters were deplorable, but speaking of a basket of deplorables revealed a mindset. This mindset goes further toward explaining her loss than does her deplorable phrasing. The phrasing was a consequence of the mindset, and the mindset no doubt showed through with or without the phrasing. That costs.

I wonder about this. I know if I were called deplorable by someone whose opinion I valued I would not get defensive but would want to explore the cause. If the name-caller were someone whose opinion didn't matter to me, I would likewise not get defensive but simply would ignore them. For someone to get defensive about Clinton's comment, it would have taken someone who had already decided to vote Fredo, and they would have used the insult to double down on a position already firmly held.

If the comment hurt, it hurt because it energized those people to actually cast a ballot. I seriously doubt if it caused anyone to change sides or an undecided to abandon her.

[hrothgar]

rmnka447, on 2018-January-29, 14:41, said:

Isn't it something like 200+ companies and approximately 3 M+ plus people who are getting "bonuses"? But I guess from some people's filters of reality that qualifies as very few people. Most of these announcements are from fairly large companies. There may be smaller companies taking similar actions that aren't receiving any publicity at all.

Just remember that these payments are being made just as the new tax laws are kicking in. That doesn't preclude any of these companies from taking further actions to improve employees compensation and/or benefits as the full effect of the tax laws are felt.

Interesting little data point:

Many of these companies who announced those bonuses neglected to inform us about the fine print...

For example, Lowes, Home Deport and Walmart all announced that they were giving their employees thousand dollar bonuses
http://time.com/5098...s-a-1000-bonus/

However:

Quote

Lowe’s, Home Depot and Walmart are using roughly the same progressive bonus structure, which Walmart first announced earlier this month:

Less than two years: $200 ($150 for Lowe’s workers)
Two to four years: $250 ($200 for Lowe’s workers)
Five to nine years: $300
10 to 14 years: $400 ($500 for Lowe’s workers)
15 to 19 years: $750
20+ years: $1,000

<All three companies refuse to provide detailed breakdowns regarding how much oney actually got paid out or how this compares to normal annual bonuses.>

It's almost as if the companies are making these announcements to try to suck up to Trump and generate good will from their customers while in reality they're not doing jack *****.

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2018-February-01, 16:13, said:

Interesting little data point:

Many of these companies who announced those bonuses neglected to inform us about the fine print...

For example, Lowes, Home Deport and Walmart all announced that they were giving their employees thousand dollar bonuses
http://time.com/5098...s-a-1000-bonus/

However:



<All three companies refuse to provide detailed breakdowns regarding how much oney actually got paid out or how this compares to normal annual bonuses.>

It's almost as if the companies are making these announcements to try to suck up to Trump and generate good will from their customers while in reality they're not doing jack *****.

Just "crumbs", right?

[Al_U_Card]

Such negativity! Almost as much as Obama and Clinton opponents previously... Ken gets it when he implicitly states that generalizations and stereotypes are always errant but often used in an attempt to coerce or convince.
Address issues and debate alternatives.
If we embark on such a polarized polemic, we miss the proverbial boat and get on board a train that goes in circles...

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2018-February-01, 16:58, said:

Just "crumbs", right?

I don't dispute that there are plenty of people for whom an extra $20 a month makes a very important impact on their standard of living.

However, the point that I was making is that the companies that are touting those big Trump bonuses are dramatically misrepresenting how large they are...

They are lying to prop up and curry favor with the administration.

And, as usual, rather than addressing the issue at hand, you prefer to respond with a non sequitur.

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2018-February-01, 17:57, said:

I don't dispute that there are plenty of people for whom an extra $20 a month makes a very important impact on their standard of living.

However, the point that I was making is that the companies that are touting those big Trump bonuses are dramatically misrepresenting how large they are...

They are lying to prop up and curry favor with the administration.

And, as usual, rather than addressing the issue at hand, up prefer to respond with a non sequitur.

I understand. The point I would make that we are all surprised that there are any bonuses at all.

Do you think it would have been better if that company had not given any bonuses at all. Then they would not have been able to offend you with their self-inflation talk.

[Al_U_Card]

"Bread" and circuses.

The end of empire.