America - The Official Thread

[ryzno]

Right. So at least we're at a point where you seem to accept that somebody's personal opinion doesn't necessarily stop them from doing their professional job. Which often boils down to 'following orders'.



He probably, like a lot of people, expected Trump to come up on a criminal charge somewhere at some point. In any case I'm not sure that there's anything unusual in extreme banter between very good friends or lovers.



The last time you checked you clearly didn't check the full definition. It's in the recent posts on this thread, if that helps.



Is this going to be another of your chase-the-definition exercises? The (usually) three classifications vary from state to state, as you'll most likely know. Chasing that down is moot though - the point was about the procedure for jailing people, something that can happen for a speeding offense (or development of non-paid speeding fines) in the US.

EDIT:



Why should they be punished if they didn't do anything? Isn't that starting to go down the path of Thought Police?

I didn't say punished I said removed from their position. It's not a personal thought any more. It's been released for the world to see.

 

[Scaff]

I didn't say punished I said removed from their position. It's not a personal thought any more. It's been released for the world to see.

Bring removed from your position isn't a punishment?

I do note private correspondence being fair game, that may come back in the future given a certain investigation.

 

[TexRex]

There's the quote above.

Not only is it not a complete quote, the lack of ending punctuation--nevermind the omission of words that present it as the question it was--indicates it's not even a complete sentence.

Interesting that you would continue to condemn an individual for practices in which you repeatedly engage.

Were these doctors refusing also calling the medical-seeking patients infidels and making snide remarks about what they eat.

Could be, but that's indicative poor bedside manners and says nothing about the medical care they provide.

My last orthopedist accused me of being a drug seeker and said he didn't want to have to visit me in rehab upon my request for an oxy prescription refill, despite the fact that it took me four months to deplete a 28-count blister pack intended for daily dosing--for what it's worth, I don't like what the stuff does to me. I didn't care for the accusation, but the guy also signed off on cortisone knee injections that were fan-freaking-tastic.

I sure do see a lot of “may be considered” requirements when the first line is “an
orphan generally is a person without living parents to care for them“, the same thing that pops up multiple times when you search for the term.

Yeah, that would be the legal definition--it's necessary to be thorough in drafting laws because ambiguity in law is to the benefit of those that did not draft it.

If a law stated that tall people are to be beheaded so that they conform to standards of height, wouldn't you want them to specify the meaning of "tall"? Lots of people would skate by, head still on their shoulders, because of the ambiguous nature of the word. That's the kind of pedantry you're projecting on the definition of "orphan."

 

[ryzno]

Bring removed from your position isn't a punishment?

No, cause as I said the other day it was on an employer/government device.

 

[Scaff]

No, cause as I said the other day it was on an employer/government device.

The device has nothing to do with it, you're saying that being removed from position isn't a punishment.

I disagree.

 

[ryzno]

The device has nothing to do with it, you're saying that being removed from position isn't a punishment.

I disagree.

The device has everything to do with it. If they did it on their private phone we'd never have known.

 

[huskeR32]

Should they be punished no. Should they be removed from their position yes.

How does "removed from their position" not constitute punishment?

Even though they didn't do anything I believe they are a hindrance to the administration since it's been exposed.

A hindrance to the administration? The FBI's purpose isn't to help an administration accomplish political goals. They exist to investigate things, and in this case, we already know that Strzok's person feelings did not hinder any investigation.

And to be frank, any sentence at this point that begins with "I believe" should be ignored. Your beliefs are irrelevant when we have facts and evidence to the contrary.

 

[McLaren]

Not only is it not a complete quote, the lack of ending punctuation--nevermind the omission of words that present it as the question it was--indicates it's not even a complete sentence.

Interesting that you would continue to condemn an individual for practices in which you repeatedly engage.

You’re right. Allow me to present the whole quote followed by where even as a hypothetial, you still would hope it happens so Trump dies.

If only a Muslim doctor is available when that dense column of McDonald's, KFC and Taco Bell stretching from anus to amygdala finally acts to end the "infidel" Donald J. Trump's life, would inaction on said Muslim doctor's part be protected?

Yeah, it's yet another hypothetical, but one can hope...

 

[BobK]

A whole one page ago, it was pointed out that the US INS legal definition of orphan doesn't require that the parent was killed.

There ya go. Fixed that for you.

 

[Scaff]

The device has everything to do with it. If they did it on their private phone we'd never have known.

It's an irrelevance to your claim the being removed from position isn't a punishment.

'Because phone' doesn't stop being removed from position being a punishment.

 

[ryzno]

How does "removed from their position" not constitute punishment?



A hindrance to the administration? The FBI's purpose isn't to help an administration accomplish political goals. They exist to investigate things, and in this case, we already know that Strzok's person feelings did not hinder any investigation.

And to be frank, any sentence at this point that begins with "I believe" should be ignored. Your beliefs are irrelevant when we have facts and evidence to the contrary.

Feel free to ignore me all you want. I'll stop posting when told to by a mod.

 

[huskeR32]

No, cause as I said the other day it was on an employer/government device.

The device has everything to do with it. If they did it on their private phone we'd never have known.

If using a government device to send a personal text, regardless of the content of the text, is a fireable offense, then sure, the device has everything to do with it.

But removing them from their job because of the content of the text is an entirely different question. It definitely amounts to punishment, and it amounts to policing thoughts, because for the thousandth time, he never acted on his thoughts.

Feel free to ignore me all you want. I'll stop posting when told to by a mod.

No response at all to the rest of the post? No attempt, whatsoever, to reconcile your beliefs with factual evidence that counters them?

 

[ryzno]

It's an irrelevance to your claim the being removed from position isn't a punishment.

'Because phone' doesn't stop being removed from position being a punishment.

I look at punishment as jail time. Down here you can literally be fired for no reason.

 

[TexRex]

You’re right. Allow me to present the whole quote followed by where even as a hypothetial, you still would hope it happens so Trump dies.

Thank you, but you're also reading into it more than what was expressed.

My hope was that the situation--which at that point was indeed merely hypothetical--would arise so that the presumed bigotry of the policy to the test. That is to say: "Would religious beliefs that he has a propensity to scrutinize (despite constitutional protections) be subject to the same support?"

Inb4 "Spin it how you like."

 

[Scaff]

I look at punishment as jail time. Down here you can literally be fired for no reason.

Being fired would certainly be a punishment, with or without a reason.

 

[ryzno]

Being fired would certainly be a punishment, with or without a reason.

Fine... It is. Happy? They still need to be let go. He got escorted out for some reason...

 

[Northstar]

Thank you, but you're also reading into it more than what was expressed.

My hope was that the situation--which at that point was indeed merely hypothetical--would arise so that the presumed bigotry of the policy to the test. That is to say: "Would religious beliefs that he has a propensity to scrutinize (despite constitutional protections) be subject to the same support?"

Inb4 "Spin it how you like."

Hypothetical or not it’s still 🤬 disgusting.

The fact you than try to defend it makes it worse.

 

[McLaren]

Thank you, but you're also reading into it more than what was expressed.

My hope was that the situation--which at that point was indeed merely hypothetical--would arise so that the presumed bigotry of the policy to the test. That is to say: "Would religious beliefs that he has a propensity to scrutinize (despite constitutional protections) be subject to the same support?"

Inb4 "Spin it how you like."

I’m reading too much into someone presenting a hypothetical about someone dying that ended on, “but one can hope”?

“Hey guys, I wasn’t serious about a situation involving Trump dying. Just that one can hopes happen.”

 

[Scaff]

Fine... It is. Happy? They still need to be let go. He got escorted out for some reason...

I didn't pass comment on or argue against that.

 

[ryzno]

I didn't pass comment on or argue against that.

It gets confusing talking to 3 people at the same time, sorry.

 

[TexRex]

Hypothetical or not it’s still 🤬 disgusting.

As a passing phrase, perhaps; it was subsequently noted that GTP as a whole is better than that, though, and I conceded to that notion because it is. I'm still livid over the policy, even though "the media" is no longer sensationalizing it, and had cooler heads prevailed at the time, I suspect I wouldn't have said it. Also subject to the cooler heads paradigm is the idea that Mike Pence would be waiting in the wings to take the mantle, and that terrifies me.

Still, it seems to me a litmus is needed for all the questionable policy decisions coming from the current administration, because a great deal of them strike me as being heavily influenced by bigotry.

The fact you than try to defend it makes it worse.

Does it, though?

What of all the pedantic beleaguering over the legal definition of the word "orphan" and the despicable notion of killing the detained children to reunite them with their parents, who don't need to be dead for the word to be applicable, to dig at the legitimate use of the word?

Curious that you're quick to condemn one and not the other.

*Edit for spelling.

 

[TexRex]

I’m reading too much into someone presenting a hypothetical about someone dying that ended on, “but one can hope”

They'd only die if treatment for fatal conditions was withheld on the basis of religious beliefs. Should those beliefs and neglected treatment be protected?

 

[UKMikey]

A whole one page ago, it was pointed out that the US INS legal definition of orphan doesn't require that the parent was killed.

There ya go. Fixed that for you.

Too bad the context had nothing to do with immigration... oh wait, it did.

 

[huskeR32]

They still need to be let go.

So, for the third time, you're okay with punishing people for their thoughts?

 

[Dotini]

An in-depth look into the IG report on FBI counterspy failings by very experienced reporter Bill Gertz.

IG Report Highlights FBI Counterspy Failings
Counterintelligence division under fire for mishandling Clinton email probe



Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz / Getty Images

BY: Bill Gertz
June 21, 2018 5:00 am

Disclosures by the Justice Department inspector general of political bias among FBI agents is focusing new attention on problems within the FBI's once-storied counterintelligence division.

The report by Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz reveals evidence of politicization among senior FBI officials, notably the text message by Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok suggesting Strzok was willing to use official counterintelligence powers to "stop" Donald Trump from becoming president in the 2016 election campaign.

FBI counterintelligence, the mission of identifying and countering foreign spies, for decades operated as a distinct specialty for FBI agents trained to deal with spies rather than fighting criminals and terrorists.

As a senior FBI counterspy, Strzok wields significant power through access to intelligence information held in secret FBI databases and through court-ordered surveillance.

Another sign of counterintelligence problems at the FBI was the disclosure in the IG report that the FBI did not take any action against Russian meddling in the 2016 election until late September 2016 – despite the fact that Moscow's operations had been underway since 2015.

The report said then-FBI Director James Comey directed the Counterintelligence Division to conduct a "multi-faceted effort" to protect the election from foreign interference.

"This tasking included the implementation of ‘a national supply chain risk management effort to identify vulnerabilities in voting infrastructure,' engaging state election officials about potential threats, the investigation of ‘whether foreign adversaries were attempting to interfere with or improperly influence the' 2016 election, and the investigation of certain U.S. persons’ contacts with foreign adversaries," the report said.

FBI officials said the late September counter-interference operation was one reason the FBI delayed re-opening the email probe after several hundred thousand new emails were discovered on the laptop of Anthony Wiener, husband of Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

The IG report made public last week reveals that several FBI counterintelligence officials, not only Strzok, showed clear signs of political bias in their communications.

Most of focus of the IG, however, was on Strzok who was escorted out of FBI headquarters on Tuesday amid an internal investigation into his conduct during the Clinton email investigation.

The IG report described Mr. Strzok as one of the most experienced FBI counterspies, who was promoted during the email investigation of Hillary Clinton's private computer server from a Washington field officer supervisor to deputy assistant director.

Mr. Strzok led the email probe that began as a criminal investigation by the counterintelligence division but with an unusual twist – without a specific target. The lack of a target was unusual considering that all the emails found containing classified information were Ms. Clinton's. The probe known by the code name Midyear Exam listed "UNSUB," for unknown subject as the target.

The email probe began in July 2015 and a year later Mr. Strzok would be assigned to lead the FBI's investigation into collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

The Russia investigation was given a higher priority than the email probe raising further questions about politicization considering Strzok's criticisms of Trump in texts exchanged with Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer.

Mr. Strzok would eventually be assigned to the special counsel probe led by former FBI director Robert Mueller until his emails threatening the Trump campaign were uncovered. He was removed from the Mueller probe in July 2017.

Former FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Randall Coleman, told the IG that not making Ms. Clinton the target of the email probe was unusual. "I don’t know [why] that was the case, why it was UNSUB. I’m really shocked that it would have stayed that way because certainly the investigation started really kind of getting more focused," he is quoted in the IG report as saying.

Mr. Coleman said Mr. Strzok was picked to lead the email probe because he was "one of the most experienced and highly-regarded counterintelligence investigators within the FBI."

The email probe included an undisclosed number of FBI counterintelligence agents and intelligence analysts, and during the email probe Mr. Coleman was replaced by E.W. "Bill" Priestap as head of counterintelligence.

Further evidence of politicization of the email took place after Andrew McCabe became deputy FBI director in early 2016. Mr. McCabe assigned Page, an FBI lawyer who was having an affair with Strzok, to be the deputy director's personal liaison to the email probe.

Mr. McCabe was fired by President Trump earlier this year, and the IG report raised questions about his impartiality in the Clinton email probe based on his wife receiving $675,288 from Clinton associate Terry McAuliffe in 2015 to run for office in Virginia.

The IG said the arrangement with Page was unusual and upset FBI agents on the case.

"Several witnesses told the OIG that Page circumvented the official chain of command, and that Strzok communicated important Midyear case information to her, and thus to McCabe, without Priestap’s or [FBI executive Michael] Steinbach’s knowledge," the IG report said.

The IG also said in internal FBI report criticized the Midyear probe and stated that FBI's Criminal Division should have conducted the probe as criminal rather than let the counterintelligence section handle it.

On Capitol Hill Tuesday, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, questioned the FBI's counterspy competence in the case.

"The FBI's top counterintelligence official was unaware of possible evidence indicating Mrs. Clinton's private email server had been penetrated by a foreign adversary and unaware of relevant legal process obtained during the investigation," Goodlatte said.

Weakened U.S. counterintelligence
Critics have said U.S. counterintelligence was weakened during the Obama administration. One example was the mishandling of the arrest of 10 Russian illegal spies in New York in 2010.

Instead of charging the deep cover "illegal" spies with espionage – they did not enjoy the usual diplomatic immunity afforded to legal spies – the 10 Russians posing as Americans were sent back to Moscow without being fully interrogated.

As a result, valuable intelligence on Russian spying operations was lost.

The Obama administration at the time was seeking to curry favor with Russia as part of the failed reset policy toward Moscow.

The administration also failed to take action against Russian intelligence during its operations to interfere with the 2016 election. After the election, a group of Russian intelligence officers was expelled.

In contrast, during the Cold War, FBI counterspies achieved a major intelligence coup by recruiting as an informant the No. 2 official in the Communist Party USA, Morris Childs, who provided Kremlin and other valuable secrets between 1958 and 1982.

Michael Waller, an intelligence expert with the Center for Security Policy, said the IG report lays bare what some have been saying for decades: "The United States is the No. 1 target of every hostile intelligence service on earth."

"With few exceptions, the FBI has very little to show that it has the strategy and leadership to cut off much more than the low-hanging fruit," Waller said.

"It’s time to reorganize the whole FBI, retire a lot of the upper dead wood and fast-track the aggressive and capable younger field agents who think strategically and put the nation ahead of their careers," he added. "That will help give the FBI the new leadership the country so desperately needs it to have."

The IG report quoted Comey as concluding well before the email probe was ended that Ms. Clinton used the private email to discuss Top Secret information eight times and Secret data dozens of times. However Mr. Comey asserted that "there was no indication" Ms. Clinton knew sending the information was illegal, or that she intended to do so. He described it as a "fairly typical spill" of information.

Comey also told the IG that the same counterspies assigned to the email probe were working on the Russia probe and as a result were "overwhelmed."

"It was Russia, Russia, Russia all the time," Comey was quoted as saying, noting that he should have assigned "another Strzok" to the two investigations or even two separate teams of counterspies.

The IG questioned the assignment of Midyear probe members to the Russia investigation.

"We were surprised to learn that FBI leadership decided to assign many of the key members of the Midyear team, immediately after determining that no charges should be brought against then candidate Clinton, to the Russia investigation, which touched upon the campaign of then candidate Trump," the IG said in a footnote.

"This is particularly so given the questions being raised by candidate Trump and his supporters regarding the declination decision in the Midyear investigation. While we recognize that staffing decisions are for management to make, we question the judgment of assigning agents who had just determined that one candidate running in an election should not be prosecuted to an investigation that relates to the campaign of the other candidate in the election."

Strzok's text message "exacerbated" the concerns, the report said.

"Surely, the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division had talented agents who were not involved in the Midyear investigation who could have fully staffed the Russia investigation," the report said.

"Such a decision also would have eliminated the excuse we were given here about the Russia investigation impacting the ability of agents to address the Weiner laptop issue."

The report noted Strzok's "hostility for then candidate Trump and preference for a Clinton victory" in the text messages to Page.

Of particular concern was the Aug. 8, 2016 text from Strzok who told Page "we'll stop" Trump from being elected.

Communications from two other FBI counterintelligence agents, described in the report as Agent 1 and Agent 5, also raise concerns.

At one point after Comey sent the Oct. 28, 2016 letter to Congress reopening the Clinton email probe, Agent 1 told Agent 5 "Not sure if Trump or fifth floor is worse." The agent said the fifth floor was a reference to the Washington field office counterintelligence leaders.

Agent 1 was described as one of two agents who conducted the questioning of Clinton on July 2 that the IG said was tainted by the inclusion of two Clinton aides who were also witnesses in the email probe.

Agent 5 was described as an experienced counterintelligence agent who worked on a "filter team" to identify privileged communications among seized FBI documents to make sure the material was not reviewed by investigators.

An FBI spokeswoman referred questions to the IG report's section containing the FBI response.

The FBI response included a single reference to counterintelligence. An FBI working group has been set up to examine whether in the future "it would be beneficial to team agents from different components and backgrounds to leverage respective skill sets and experiences, e.g., drawing on the experience of public corruption agents when conducting counterintelligence investigations."

Strzok's lawyer, Aitan Goelman, defended Strzok in a statement Tuesday.

"Just as he has been for the last 20 years, Pete Strzok remains a proud FBI agent who wants to continue working to keep the American people safe," Goelman said.

"Pete has steadfastly played by the rules and respected the process, and yet he continues to be the target of unfounded personal attacks, political games and inappropriate information leaks," he added.

"All of this seriously calls into question the impartiality of the disciplinary process, which now appears tainted by political influence. Instead of publicly calling for a long-serving FBI agent to be summarily fired, politicians should allow the disciplinary process to play out free from political pressure."

http://freebeacon.com/issues/ig-report-highlights-fbi-counterspy-failings/

 

[MikeTheHockeyFan]

An in-depth look into the IG report

Here's the thing, Dotini. Peter Strzok's lawyer says he is openly offering to testify before the House Judiciary Committee and put himself on the spot to answer for his actions.

That is what honourable people do, they own up it when they are called out.

Remember that as we continue down the rabbit hole of the Constitutional crisis that is slowly unfolding regarding POTUS and his associates' ties to the Kremlin. They are not honourable, nor will they escape punishment.

You've gotta love how "blue lives matter" unless the law enforcement in question is investigating Republicans.

 

[ryzno]

So, for the third time, you're okay with punishing people for their thoughts?

It isn't a freaking thought. It was a recorded documented conversation...

 

[McLaren]

They'd only die if treatment for fatal conditions was withheld on the basis of religious beliefs. Should those beliefs and neglected treatment be protected?

You seem oblivious to a key phrase. You ended this hypothetical with a “one can hope” that Trump is subject to denied treatment based on religious beliefs and dies as a result.

Why would one hope that hypothetical happens? Is it a “That’s what you get” sense of joy for you to hope for that?

 

[TexRex]

It isn't a freaking thought. It was a recorded documented conversation...

With no evidence that it was acted upon. Thoughts aren't limited to what occur between one's ears, though, and it's in those instances where, say, during a conversation, an individual who has just been interrupted might respond with: "Let me finish my thought." "Idea" and "notion" serve a similar purpose and are subject to the same paradigm.

That said, expressing thoughts may very well be deemed inappropriate and therefor result in some sort of punishment, though that punishment wouldn't be as severe as in the case those thoughts are proven to have been acted upon.

You seem oblivious to a key phrase. You ended this hypothetical with a “one can hope” that Trump is subject to denied treatment based on religious beliefs and dies as a result.

Why would one hope that hypothetical happens? Is it a “That’s what you get” sense of joy for you to hope for that?

From the earlier discussion:

Honestly, wishing death on other people is pretty poor taste. I'm far from the world's biggest Trump fan, but I don't wish life-threatening conditions on him, nor would I hope that he wouldn't receive treatment if he were to be in that situation.

It's one thing to disagree with a guy. It's another to hope for his death.

I couldn't agree more. Though it isn't so much wishing for death as it is for a very specific set of circumstances that tests his comments and actions. But I'll take that blow.

And a little later:

I think the man's comments and actions are utterly despicable, and warrant utterly despicable comments in return.

Then keep them to yourself. Hopefully the staff doesn't allow your comment as an opening to make more of the same.

This forum is better than that.

Fair enough.

And that's where it was left for two days shy of five months. I genuinely believe I wasn't really hoping for death because I'm not now, but anger can be disruptive to rational thought.

 

[Northstar]

Does it, though?

Yes! The fact that after all this time you are still defending such a stupid comment means you never really regretted saying it in the first place. Everyone makes an ass out of themselves from time to time, but usually when that happens you fess up and if someone brings it up later you admit that it was stupid and you regret it.

What of all the pedantic beleaguering over the legal definition of the word "orphan" and the despicable notion of killing the detained children to reunite them with their parents, who don't need to be dead for the word to be applicable, to dig at the legitimate use of the word?

Curious that you're quick to condemn one and not the other.

*Edit for spelling.

It seems as though they've been able to debate something without fantasy killing someone they don't like. There really is nothing to call out other than them making a big deal out of something insanely trivial.