192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 09:01 am
@Lash,
So, which militia's and where did they post the facts that they were going to incite violence?
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 09:11 am
@McGentrix,
Do you think, you will get the link to e.g. the The Base’s encrypted chat rooms here?
McGentrix
 
  0  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 09:15 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Do you think, you will get the link to e.g. the The Base’s encrypted chat rooms here?


I am not referring to "The Base". Those guys suck and they deserve whatever jail time they get.
I know you Germans have a hard time getting over white power, but I am referring to the "militias" that are vowing violence at Lobby Day in Virginia.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 09:23 am
@McGentrix,
I was referring to the "militias" that are vowing violence at Lobby Day in Virginia, named The Base just as an exempli gratia (abbreviation 'e.g.', "for eample").
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  2  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 09:31 am
I also saw ‘the Base’ prominently mentioned in a news segment. I’m not privy to the names of the militias alluded to have been found communicating on the dark web.

0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 09:33 am
Quote:
Trump’s new impeachment defense team has been on Fox News over 350 times in the past year
MM

Probably a mere coincidence.
revelette3
 
  2  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 09:46 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
The FBI has arrested three alleged members of The Base — which authorities describe as a "racially motivated violent extremist group" — on charges that range from illegal transport of a machine gun to harboring aliens, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Maryland.

A law enforcement official tells NPR that the three suspected members of The Base had discussed going to a controversial pro-gun rally in Virginia next week.

The three men are Brian Mark Lemley Jr., 33, of Elkton, Md.; William Garfield Bilbrough IV, 19, of Denton, Md.; and Canadian national Patrik Jordan Mathews, 27, who entered the U.S. illegally last summer. Mathews and Lemley had recently been living in Newark, Del.

The arrests come days before a pro-gun demonstration that's slated to take place in Richmond, Va., on Monday — and just after Gov. Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency and banned firearms on the Capitol grounds in Richmond in anticipation of the gun rights demonstration.

"We have received credible intelligence from our law enforcement agencies that there are groups with malicious plans for the rally that is planned for Monday," Northam said Wednesday afternoon.


https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/797041211/fbi-arrests-3-alleged-members-of-white-supremacist-group-ahead-of-richmond-rally

Quote:
4 more suspected white supremacists arrested ahead of Virginia gun rally

Authorities say the men are connected to a white supremacist group called “The Base,” the English translation of al Qaeda. The FBI had arrested three others from that same group on Thursday, saying they had obtained weapons and discussed attending a pro-gun rally in Virginia next week.
Jan. 17, 2020


https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/4-more-suspected-white-supremacists-arrested-ahead-of-virginia-gun-rally-76983877697

You can watch the news at the link above. As far as I know they haven't disclosed the exact words of the discussions, but they are from the "Base."

As the above quote says, they are white supremacist group called the Base which is an English translation of al-Qaeda.
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 09:49 am
@revelette3,
Quote:
"We have received credible intelligence from our law enforcement agencies that there are groups

Note that "groups" is plural.
0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  1  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 09:50 am
@revelette3,
Quote:
Ahead of tinder box Virginia gun rally, Trump says Constitution under attack

President Donald Trump took aim at Virginia Democrats and their push to stiffen the state's gun laws, saying that the U.S. Constitution was under attack just as thousands of armed militia members began arriving in Richmond for a Monday gun rally.

Trump doubled down with his support of gun enthusiasts in the state, which Hilary Clinton won in 2016 and where Democrats took full control of the state legislature for the first time in a generation in November, as candidates made passing stronger gun control laws a central campaign theme.

"Your 2nd Amendment is under very serious attack in the Great Commonwealth of Virginia," Trump wrote in a post on Twitter Friday night, referring to the amendment in the Bill of Rights that gives Americans the right to keep and bear firearms. "That's what happens when you vote for Democrats, they will take your guns away."

Supporters say more restrictive laws would help decrease the number of people killed by guns each year. Gun-rights activists assert that the constitution guarantees their right to possess any firearm.

Militias, neo-Nazis and other groups have vowed to swarm the capital and police are expecting several thousand people at the pro-gun rally on Monday.

On Thursday, the FBI arrested three members of a small neo-Nazi group who authorities said hoped to ignite a race war through violent acts at the rally, reminiscent of a 2017 white supremacist rally in nearby Charlottesville.

That rally proved a critical moment in the rise of the "alt-right," a loose alignment of fringe groups centered on white nationalism and emboldened by Trump's 2016 election. Trump was criticized from the left and right for initially saying there were "fine people on both sides" of the dispute between neo-Nazis and their opponents at the rally.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ahead-of-tinder-box-virginia-gun-rally-trump-says-constitution-under-attack/ar-BBZ5o5x?ocid=spartanntp

You can always count on Trump to pick the worst side, militias, white supremist, he ignores, instead he stirs up more hate in an already dangerous situation.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 09:52 am
@revelette3,
Mr. Trump is right. The freedom haters are out to destroy our civil liberties.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 09:53 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
It’s a pretty big deal.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1116646

Excerpt:

Fearing a repeat of the deadly march by white nationalists in Charlottesville in 2017, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam on Wednesday declared a state of emergency and temporarily banned people from carrying guns and other weapons on the grounds of the state Capitol, where thousands of gun rights activists are expected to rally next week against stricter gun control laws.

Northam said he made the call after hearing "credible intelligence" from law enforcement that armed militias and hate groups, some from outside Virginia, planned to disrupt the event. He said the threats of violence, picked up on the internet and on dark web channels by state intelligence analysts, included "conversations fueled by misinformation and conspiracy theories" similar to talk that preceded the "Unite the Right" march in August 2017, at which white nationalists clashed with counterprotesters, one of whom was killed when a man drove into a crowd.


Unless there is really no actual "militia threat" and the freedom haters are just arresting a few hapless people in order to justify suppressing a peaceful protest.

I won't be surprised if, after the peaceful protesters are suppressed, charges are quietly dropped against the alleged militiamen.

It's nice to see that a local Antifa chapter is joining the march however. Maybe not all leftists are bad people.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  1  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 10:35 am
@blatham,
Quote:
Trump’s new impeachment defense team has been on Fox News over 350 times in the past year

Avenatti was on CNN 256 times and he is now in jail. He was a Democratic presidential candidate for a while. Which one of Trump's defense team has served time? Or been charged with any crime?
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  0  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 10:52 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
Why Laws Against Hate Speech Are Dangerous

Quote:


There is a tendency, to censor certain viewpoints because they might "offend" others. The problem is, it is not the inoffensive things that need protecting; it is only the offensive things that do.... Freedom of speech exists precisely to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

"[T]he freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter." — US President George Washington, 1783.

How come it is all right to publish the original source, prescribing murder, but that it is "hate speech" to point out that quote?

"Sometimes, when one points out these rules, people will respond: 'Well, the Bible says such-and-such.' The point is not that these things are written in Islamic scripture, but that people still live by them." — Bruce Bawer, February 8, 2018.

Restrictions against "hate speech" often do not really ban hate speech; instead they may actually be protecting certain forms of hate speech against legitimate inquiry.

Read up Western Europe, you are watching your freedom disappear.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15256/hate-speech-laws
Quote:
People who claim to combat "hate" often seem to be quite full of hate themselves. Some Americans claim that US President Donald J. Trump is a racist, yet themselves express open hatred toward Trump, and those who vote for him. They do not object to hating. They just seem to believe that their hate is the only legitimate one.

0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  2  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 11:49 am
Quote:
Rod Rosenstein says he made call to release Strzok-Page texts

Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein authorized the release to the media of text messages between two highly placed FBI employees who exchanged criticism of then-candidate Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign, the Justice Department has revealed in a new court filing.

Rosenstein also said in the court filing submitted shortly before midnight Friday that he made the decision to share the messages with the press in part to protect FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page from the drip effect of incremental releases of the texts by lawmakers or others.

In the messages, Strzok and Page regularly disparaged Trump and appeared to seek to reassure each other he could not be elected. Both called Trump an “idiot” and said Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton deserved to win.
Story Continued Below

The texts also included murky discussions of an “insurance policy” to guard against Trump’s election. Trump backers have interpreted the reference as a plan to use the then-ongoing investigation into ties between Trump advisers and Russia as way to prevent him from taking office or undermine his presidency, but Strzok and Page have denied any such intent.

In the two years since the first disclosure of the politically charged texts between Strzok and Page, Trump has subjected the pair to frequent public attacks, excoriated the two for bias and asserted that their actions at the FBI amounted to “treason.”

Trump has also made crude salvos against them for engaging in an extramarital affair a staple of his campaign events. At a rally last month, he appeared to imitate Page having an orgasm. She responded by calling Trump’s attacks “sickening” and saying they have devastated her life.

Strzok and Page filed separate lawsuits against the Justice Department last year, alleging that the release of their text messages violated the Privacy Act — an almost half-century-old statute that safeguards information federal agencies hold about private individuals.

Despite the litigation, until Friday it remained unclear just who at Justice gave the final OK to give about 375 Strzok-Page texts to journalists — including a POLITICO reporter — on the evening of December 12, 2017.

In a formal declaration submitted as part of the government’s defense to Strzok’s suit, Rosenstein owned up to being the one who made the call. He said he did so in part because the texts' public release by members of Congress was inevitable in connection with testimony he was set to give to the House Judiciary Committee the following day.

“With the express understanding that it would not violate the Privacy Act and that the text messages would become public by the next day in any event, I authorized [Justice’s Office of Public Affairs] to disclose to the news media the text messages that were being disclosed to Congressional committees,” Rosenstein wrote in a five-page statement signed Friday.

In November, the Justice Department asked U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson to throw out Strzok’s suit, which challenges both his firing from the FBI and the release of the texts. However, Strzok’s attorneys countered in a court filing last month that one reason to allow the suit to proceed was that Justice Department was being vague about just who made the final call to give the messages.

Arguing that an air of mystery continued to surround the disclosure, Strzok lawyer Aitan Goelman called “revealing” Justice’s decision to seek dismissal of the suit without identifying the responsible official.

“An agency cannot avoid Privacy Act liability for a disclosure actually made for an improper purpose by eliciting a sanitized after-the-fact rationale from an official who does not have all of the facts,” Goelman wrote.

Rosenstein, who stepped down from his position as Justice’s No. 2 official last May, said in his new submission that his aides initially suggested he might want to delay sending the texts to Congress until after his House testimony. But the veteran prosecutor said he concluded it would be “inappropriate” to hold them back, even briefly, for that reason.

Rosenstein also said he decided to give the messages to the media before his testimony because of concerns that they would be cherrypicked in a manner that could be detrimental to the Justice Department, as well as Strzok and Page.

“The Department’s Office of Public Affairs … recommended providing the text messages to the media because otherwise, some congressional members and staff were expected to release them intermittently before, during and after the hearing, exacerbating the adverse publicity for Mr. Strzok, Ms. Page and the Department,” Rosenstein wrote. “Providing the most egregious messages in one package would avoid the additional harm of prolonged selective disclosures and minimize the appearance of the Department concealing information that was embarrassing to the FBI.”

While Rosenstein said the disclosure to the media was aimed at putting the messages in context, Strzok and Page have noted that the set of fewer than 400 texts sent to the Hill and shared with reporters that night was just a tiny fraction of the tens of thousands of messages the pair exchanged on work topics as well as personal matters.

Justice officials say that selection was done by the Office of Inspector General, which tracked down the messages after FBI officials initially said they had been deleted. Some of the messages released in December 2017 showed Strzok and Page taking verbal shots at politicians and public figures of various stripes including Attorney General Eric Holder, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Gov. Martin O’Malley (D-Md.)

Rosenstein’s statement does not indicate whether he consulted with Page, Strzok or their attorneys to seek their views on the planned release, but he had them informed that night that the disclosure was forthcoming. The former DOJ No. 2 official said he did have one of his top aides confirm with Justice’s top privacy official that the disclosure would not run afoul of the Privacy Act.

That official, Civil Liberties and Privacy Officer Peter Winn, has said in a prior court filing that he opined that the release of the texts would be legal.
Justice Department lawyers argue that Rosenstein’s consultation with Winn — a career official — effectively nullifies the Privacy Act portion of Strzok’s suit. Under the law, officials can only be liable for monetary damages for a Privacy Act violation if they broke the law intentionally or willfully.

Rosenstein’s filing does not discuss why journalists were initially told they could not identify the Justice Department in their stories as the source of the messages. Justice officials later lifted that condition.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller removed Strzok from his senior role on the Trump-Russia probe after learning of the texts in the summer of 2017. Page, who worked on the earlier stages of the investigation, had already moved on to another assignment.

The FBI fired Strzok in 2018, while Page ultimately resigned from the agency.

In a statement published last month by the Daily Beast, Rosenstein argued the Justice Department was not responsible for the criticism Page has endured. However, without getting into detail or directly challenging Trump, the former DOJ official said some of the attacks on her had gone too far.

“Ms. Page received more opprobrium than she deserved for her mistakes … but the Department of Justice is not to blame,” Rosenstein said.
Strzok’s suit filed last April also challenges the circumstances of his firing.

His attorneys contend that the Justice Department violated established FBI procedures when he was dismissed in 2018, dismissing him in a legally improper effort to kowtow to Trump.

A top FBI official who handles internal discipline initially proposed demoting Strzok and suspending him for 60 days, but Deputy Director David Bowdich decided to fire Strzok instead.

Page’s suit, which is before U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, was only filed last month and is still in its early stages.

The suits also argue that the hasty disclosure of the messages was made at the behest of the White House, while Justice Department officials were scrambling to improve their rapport with Trump.

Goelman did not immediately comment on Rosenstein’s submission. Page’s lawyer, Amy Jeffress, declined to comment.



https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/18/rosenstein-strzok-page-texts-100776
revelette3
 
  2  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 11:52 am
Quote:
President Donald Trump lashed out at HHS Secretary Alex Azar on Thursday after senior aides presented him with polling data showing that voters prefer Democrats on health care, according to six people with knowledge of the conversation.

Trump, who phoned Azar from a meeting with his political affairs team, expressed frustration that voters haven’t rewarded him for taking actions to lower drug prices, the sources said.

Trump’s outburst sent White House staff scrambling to convene a meeting on drug pricing this morning with potentially more to come. Some predicted Trump could look to push harder on stalled drug pricing proposals, including one opposed by many in his party.


More at https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/17/trump-berates-azar-over-bad-health-care-polling-100650
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 01:20 pm
@revelette3,
This is coincidental and being used to describe everyone that might attend.

In other words, bullshit scare tactics.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 02:59 pm
@revelette3,
I guess if you are an FBI agent you forgo your 1 St amendment rights if a republican is president?
oralloy
 
  1  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 03:05 pm
@RABEL222,
How were the First Amendment rights of any FBI agent violated?

The only First Amendment violations that I'm currently aware of are the ones that are being directed at peaceful gun rights demonstrators in Virginia.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 04:28 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
Trump has basically juiced the economy by repealing regulations and, in general, giving banks and corporations a green light to do pretty much anything they want. So what happens when he leaves office and his successor, whether it's Sanders, Biden, or any other Democrat, begins the process of reviving the regulatory process? The howls coming out of Wall Street will be heard around the world. Corporate CEO's will be sound the alarm bells on every talk show. The markets will tank. A financial crisis will ensue and talk of "recession" will be everywhere. And in the next congressional election cycle the Democrats will be thrown out. Probably forever.

Interesting observations. I do believe your comments about " juicing the economy" and " in general giving banks and corporations a green light to do pretty much anything they want" constitute gross hyperbole: The relative fraction of regulation and law limiting the actions of corporations that was eliminated is but a miniscule part of the still-existing total.

Moreover the regulations he rescinded were for the most part a result of bureaucratic overreach by the Departments involved, most involving little net public benefit and action beyond the original intent of the legislation on which they were based. However I do believe any unwinding Trump's regulatory reforms would indeed have very adverse consequences for our economy, and possibly the political fortunes of the political party enacting them, just as you indicated.
hightor
 
  2  
Sat 18 Jan, 2020 05:12 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
The relative fraction of regulation and law limiting the actions of corporations that was eliminated is but a miniscule part of the still-existing total.

It has more to do with the general air of encouragement and permissiveness; the psychological impact shouldn't be discounted.
Quote:
However I do believe any unwinding Trump's regulatory reforms would indeed have very adverse consequences for our economy, and possibly the political fortunes of the political party enacting them...

This is why I've always hated to see a political party adopting a tax cutting platform as a vote-getting mechanism; it's basically a bribe.

We see the growth of the deficit. We see the need for massive public works spending (even before climate concerns emerged). We know that medical expenses will be rising as our society ages and Medicare will need supplementary funding. And god only knows what wars we'll be starting or get dragged into. But we've cut income tax rates, eliminated some taxes altogether, and generally given people the idea that taxes are evil.

I think it would have made more sense to simply employ a mechanism to lower tax rates during times of low economic growth and dial the same taxes back up when the economy is booming. Making tax cuts "permanent" is basically leaving the government helpless in the face of increasing levels of public debt because no political party will be able to increase tax rates or levy new taxes in the future unless they are sold as being "revenue neutral".

"Tax and spend" isn't evil — it's how our system is supposed to work. "Borrow and spend" is the problem, and the politicians who promote unfunded programs and increase spending while cutting revenue are totally, and shamefully, irresponsible.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 07:52:47