Trust... do we really not trust the FBI ..

[Dick Hosmer]

Togor - a point-by-point response to your largely BS post will follow later today. You won't like it.

[togor]

Togor - a point-by-point response to your largely BS post will follow later today. You won't like it.

I probably won't respond to it either, if you've already decided what I had to say is BS. I treat you with respect, and will continue to do so, but don't assume that I don't have better things to do with my time if all you're going to do is channel an inner old-codger with a limited and shrinking view of the world. Lord knows there are plenty of those here. Try and be better than that, Dick. You may yet have it in you, and you won't know until you try!

[leftyo]

I probably won't respond to it either, if you've already decided what I had to say is BS. I treat you with respect, and will continue to do so, but don't assume that I don't have better things to do with my time if all you're going to do is channel an inner old-codger with a limited and shrinking view of the world. Lord knows there are plenty of those here. Try and be better than that, Dick. You may yet have it in you, and you won't know until you try!

seems like you also have a limited and shrinking view, as you are always unwilling to listen to what others have to say. pot meet kettle!

[Dick Hosmer]

First, not dodging the issue. My point was that the memo was a political message put out by one side. A side you identify with strongly, as it happens, so you are very much inclined to take the message at face value. The lady was your analogy, and I gave an answer building off of it with an economy of words. But nonetheless, the memo is exactly what it claims the DOJ was doing--moving the chains of justice (onto football analogies now) for political motivations.

And of course this (chains) was NEVER done by Holder, Lynch, Lerner, Koskinen, et al. One man's BS is another's man's truth.

As for the present leadership of the DOJ? Rosenstein has a tough job to do, but I doubt I could do it better. Sessions is a man of questionable motives in my view, like the mirror image of Holder, but he appears to have the tiniest shred of integrity still intact. I doubt that survives long service under Trump. FBI? Comey made the mistake of getting larger than life. I disliked his glib assurances on 60 Minutes years ago that the government needed a back door into everyone's cell phones. Beyond that I didn't know too much about him. Mueller? I haven't seen anything but feeble partisan attacks on Mueller by people (including some here) who don't bring as much as 1/100th the juice to anything in life as Mueller has. So I consider the source. Wray? I don't know anything about him, can't say.

Not paying you to do the job so the comparison is pointless. Sessions is an enigma - there must be some really nasty photos out there. No particular argument as to the rest.

You won't like it when I say this, but if you're an honest man, you'll admit truth to it. One of the good things about Obama is that he didn't bring all of this legal baggage with him to the office (and don't waste my time with Birther sh*t anyone). The number of times he spoke 1-on-1 with an FBI director was down to a handful of occasions, and for only obviously appropriate reasons. He tried to keep the White House mostly away from the FBI, which is as it should be in my opinion. By contrast, Clinton had the baggage that comes with the Clintonian need to take liberties with the rules. And Trump has his total need for secrecy in Trump Inc operations, including laying heavy NDAs on his people, keeping his taxes concealed, hiding his past business practices. Add to that his obvious attraction to Slavic culture and this unexplained pro-Russian bias.

I call BS; Obama brought a TON of baggage, not the least of which was his refusal to disclose HIS background - you think TRUMP is secretive, what about your buddy? Trump's taxes are between him and the IRS - no one else. And, are we anti-Slavic? Isn't that racist, or at least not very inclusive?

Clintonian rule-bending, versus Trumpian secrecy, both throwing up a fog, trying to make it hard for the law enforcement (the "referees" in our system) to do their job. As a rule, if someone is leaning hard on the ref, it means they're trying to cheat. I respect the fact that Obama didn't feel the need to do that.

I call double-dog-dare BS - your last sentence is at once ludicrous AND illuminating as to YOUR biases.

So to wrap it up, given a choice between trusting the professionals in the DOJ and FBI or the politicians who are constantly bombarded with cash in exchange for the hope of services rendered, and who have only a finite period to "strike-it-rich" when the political opportunity is there, to whom would you think I give the nod?

To the "professionals" of course, since your honesty and judgement is above reproach, though I hope you are referring only to the lower echelons. Since Trump is rich, and is donating his salary to boot, you can hardly be speaking of him. Gowdy's leaving, along with a number of other GOP leaders - spin that for us.

[S.A. Boggs]

First, not dodging the issue. My point was that the memo was a political message put out by one side. A side you identify with strongly, as it happens, so you are very much inclined to take the message at face value. The lady was your analogy, and I gave an answer building off of it with an economy of words. But nonetheless, the memo is exactly what it claims the DOJ was doing--moving the chains of justice (onto football analogies now) for political motivations.

And of course this (chains) was NEVER done by Holder, Lynch, Lerner, Koskinen, et al. One man's BS is another's man's truth.

As for the present leadership of the DOJ? Rosenstein has a tough job to do, but I doubt I could do it better. Sessions is a man of questionable motives in my view, like the mirror image of Holder, but he appears to have the tiniest shred of integrity still intact. I doubt that survives long service under Trump. FBI? Comey made the mistake of getting larger than life. I disliked his glib assurances on 60 Minutes years ago that the government needed a back door into everyone's cell phones. Beyond that I didn't know too much about him. Mueller? I haven't seen anything but feeble partisan attacks on Mueller by people (including some here) who don't bring as much as 1/100th the juice to anything in life as Mueller has. So I consider the source. Wray? I don't know anything about him, can't say.

Not paying you to do the job so the comparison is pointless. Sessions is an enigma - there must be some really nasty photos out there. No particular argument as to the rest.

You won't like it when I say this, but if you're an honest man, you'll admit truth to it. One of the good things about Obama is that he didn't bring all of this legal baggage with him to the office (and don't waste my time with Birther sh*t anyone). The number of times he spoke 1-on-1 with an FBI director was down to a handful of occasions, and for only obviously appropriate reasons. He tried to keep the White House mostly away from the FBI, which is as it should be in my opinion. By contrast, Clinton had the baggage that comes with the Clintonian need to take liberties with the rules. And Trump has his total need for secrecy in Trump Inc operations, including laying heavy NDAs on his people, keeping his taxes concealed, hiding his past business practices. Add to that his obvious attraction to Slavic culture and this unexplained pro-Russian bias.

I call BS; Obama brought a TON of baggage, not the least of which was his refusal to disclose HIS background - you think TRUMP is secretive, what about your buddy? Trump's taxes are between him and the IRS - no one else. And, are we anti-Slavic? Isn't that racist, or at least not very inclusive?

Clintonian rule-bending, versus Trumpian secrecy, both throwing up a fog, trying to make it hard for the law enforcement (the "referees" in our system) to do their job. As a rule, if someone is leaning hard on the ref, it means they're trying to cheat. I respect the fact that Obama didn't feel the need to do that.

I call double-dog-dare BS - your last sentence is at once ludicrous AND illuminating as to YOUR biases.

So to wrap it up, given a choice between trusting the professionals in the DOJ and FBI or the politicians who are constantly bombarded with cash in exchange for the hope of services rendered, and who have only a finite period to "strike-it-rich" when the political opportunity is there, to whom would you think I give the nod?

To the "professionals" of course, since your honesty and judgement is above reproach, though I hope you are referring only to the lower echelons. Since Trump is rich, and is donating his salary to boot, you can hardly be speaking of him. Gowdy's leaving, along with a number of other GOP leaders - spin that for us.

Dick you have done an admirable job of point-counterpoint to no avail. Togor and the "others" are blind to any truth except what the NSAWP tells them. President Trump has many problems, the greatest is the lies and semi-lies that the administration has to contend with. For the first time in years the State of the Union is going into a positive direction notwithstanding the "drag" of the NSAWP. Barry and Hillary will continue to evacuate the air around anyone else who wants to lead their party producing a vacuum. Hillary wants to try again regardless of her many defeats, Barry want to continue to stand with their shield and flag. Their followers realize that these two cannot replicate what was done for 8 years and are looking for others to follow. These followers realize that no longer is a "Mom and Pop" pseudo parentage taking care of them so they are in shock. They are followers, a need to be led, to be told what to think. The threat of the demise of big government is a looming obstruction to their daily life of protection. Professor Freud would have a field day psychoanalyzing them and I find their antics most amusing. In a way it reminds me of a client who had Obsessive Compulsive Disorder compounded with Intermediate Explosive Disorder...most interesting.
Sam

[Vern Humphrey]

Togor - a point-by-point response to your largely BS post will follow later today. You won't like it.

Dick, don't feed the trolls.

[S.A. Boggs]

Dick, don't feed the trolls.

Vern it is so much fun watching them jump for the bait, reminds you of circus animals responding to their trainer, running around in the ring and living in their pseudo cages.
Sam

[togor]

That's your problem in a nutshell, you're locked into us vs. them view of the world.

[togor]

Sandpebble...

To bring it back to your original post

Trust... do we really not trust the FBI ..or the CIA ?

The answer is, yes, some people here are astonished to discover they hate the FBI and CIA now. Any institution that stands up to Trump gets in his crosshairs, and the faithful dutifully fall in line, if at times bewildered.

Eventually Trump may pick a fight with the generals, autocrats usually do, and then people will discover they hate the military too.

The tell on Trump is that he prizes loyalty above other virtues, such as integrity or competence.

[leftyo]

Sandpebble...

To bring it back to your original post



The answer is, yes, some people here are astonished to discover they hate the FBI and CIA now. Any institution that stands up to Trump gets in his crosshairs, and the faithful dutifully fall in line, if at times bewildered.

Eventually Trump may pick a fight with the generals, autocrats usually do, and then people will discover they hate the military too.

The tell on Trump is that he prizes loyalty above other virtues, such as integrity or competence.

so narrow minded. its all beyond you that people may not trust the fbi or other gvmnt organizations, because history has proven them not trust worthy. so sad you attack others for behaving exactly like you yourself do!

[S.A. Boggs]

so narrow minded. its all beyond you that people may not trust the fbi or other gvmnt organizations, because history has proven them not trust worthy. so sad you attack others for behaving exactly like you yourself do!

Togor can't help himself, Mom and Dad are not here to help him in his "thinking"...so sad, so sad.
Sam

[togor]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...gtype=Homepage

Chart tells a story. Trump voters used to like the NFL until he told them not to. When he shuts up about it, they start to like it again until he tells them not to, again. Remember Dittoheads?

[clintonhater]

That's your problem in a nutshell, you're locked into us vs. them view of the world.

Believe you once said you watched little TV. Admirable in its way, but leaves you ignorant of the fact that "us vs. them" is the only correct view of mainstream culture, as reflected in popular shows & commercials, in this country. Every news, political discussion, talk-show program, except Fox, is virulently anti-Trump, soap-operas build their story lines around left-wing causes like promotion of homo-culture, and more recently even the commercials include left-wing political statements about the supposed value of "diversity." (What's the new one that shows a good-looking young white guy taking his mulatto daughter to the ice-cream parlor?) Where in popular culture do "us" have our views reflected?

[Dick Hosmer]

Even in the commercials, it is an absolute MUST to have intimate friends of color and or questionable sexual orientation. I AM NOT PREJUDICED, but I DO resent having my intelligence insulted.

[bostonbound]

Sandpebble...

To bring it back to your original post



The answer is, yes, some people here are astonished to discover they hate the FBI and CIA now. Any institution that stands up to Trump gets in his crosshairs, and the faithful dutifully fall in line, if at times bewildered.

Eventually Trump may pick a fight with the generals, autocrats usually do, and then people will discover they hate the military too.

The tell on Trump is that he prizes loyalty above other virtues, such as integrity or competence.

Togor,

You say "To bring it back to your [Sandpebble's] original post" and then significantly change the question. The question was not "Do you hate the FBI and CIA?" but "do we really not trust the FBI ..or the CIA ?" There is a world of difference. I address the original question.

Over the sixteen years of the Clinton and Obama administrations we saw instance after instance of corrupt government appointees and their minions subvert the Constitution, with interpretations of laws and regulations that discriminate against select classes of Americans, and willful refusal to enforce laws with which they do not agree. This happened withing both the Justice Department with the IRS and the FBI, and within the Intelligence community, and was in many cases directed by the President.

Then, during the last election, we saw elected and appointed officials, in conjunction with the Democratic Party, subvert the law to attempt to influence the election - with what we now know was foreign government assistance. Not only our elections either, but the elections of other countries (as an example, Israel).

These far past and recent past actions were brought into the light during the Clinton and Obama administrations, and after those Presidents left office. Yet, we are told by the vast majority of the so-called neutral news organizations that these actions did not matter, or (worse) were appropriate.

Do people now distrust the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, the IRS, and other organizations of the US Government? Do people now distrust the national nes organizations? I am afraid that the answer is that many people do not and may never again trust the upper echelons - the entrenched and unfireable management personnel - the so called deep state - that Clinton and Obama political appointees put into positions of authority, and their cheerleaders outside the government.

While the rank and file personnel of these agencies are still trusted to do their sworn duty, if not interfered with, there have been too many instances of directives from management personnel to pervert the rules and apply selective enforcement of the laws. There are too many instances of a lack of integrity, a lack of competence, and most unfortunately a spirit of hypocrisy on the part of political appointees, senior managers promoted by those political appointees, and office personnel following the orders of those managers and political appointees to allow the American people to have a blind and unwavering trust in their Government organizations.

It is not hate, but sadness, disappointment, and a lack of trust in formerly respected American institutions, both in Government and the media, that now fill the hearts of Americans.

The legacy of Barack Obama, that Donald Trump will never be able to undo, is the polarization of American Society and the creation of a vast distrust of Americans in their Government and their other institutions. Given that both sides see profit in maintaining these divides, it is heartbreakingly unlikely that any future President will be able to unify this country for years, perhaps decades, and perhaps forever.