President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

LOL. Folks who are planning to do us harm can easily avoid this.

And, still, Trump is asking more of them in regards to financial disclosures than he is willing to do.

 

And if the USA starts doing it to incoming visitors, you know other nations will do the same to us. When I go to Europe for trade shows, I really don't want them downloading my SJ password.

(Of course, given Trump legalized ISPs selling browsing data it will already be out there.)

 

...we are told that they were only distributed to a select group of recipients—conveniently including Ms. Rice.

If she didn't specifically ask for them. it's only because it was standard procedure for her to receive them, which is an issue in itself:

Ms. Rice received summaries of U.S. eavesdropping either when foreign officials were discussing the Trump team, or when foreign officials were conversing with a Trump transition member.
...
While we don't know if Ms. Rice requested these dozens of reports, we are told that they were only distributed to a select group of recipients—conveniently including Ms. Rice.

Then there's the question of who else these reports were distributed to once they got in Ms. Rice's hands.

In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html?_r=0

Was everyone to whom this information was spread to -- in a scramble -- authorized to receive it?

And, finally we know that whomever leaked to the Post's David Ignatius committed a crime, so let's not pretend there's no criminality involved in the Obama Surveillance Scandal.

That “senior U.S. government official” committed a serious felony by leaking to Ignatius the communication activities of Flynn. Similar and even more extreme crimes were committed by what the Washington Post called “nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls,” who told the paper for its February 9 article that “Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials.” The New York Times, also citing anonymous U.S. officials, provided even more details about the contents of Flynn’s telephone calls.

That all of these officials committed major crimes can hardly be disputed. In January, CNN reported that Flynn’s calls with the Russians “were captured by routine U.S. eavesdropping targeting the Russian diplomats.” That means that the contents of those calls were “obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of [a] foreign government,” which in turn means that anyone who discloses them — or reports them to the public — is guilty of a felony under the statute.

The Leakers Who Exposed Gen. Flynn’s Lie Committed Serious — and Wholly Justified — Felonies

It's funny how the media was determined to learn who Devin Nunes' sources were, but there's been no curiosity to learn who Ignatius' source(s) was/were.

 

Am I supposed to be upset that Big Education might have fewer full rate international students? Cry me a river.

If folks are not a threat, the process might take a little longer, but they'll still get in.

 

This is a sophisticated take.

 

LOL

Yes, the leakers are the problem - not Team Trump meeting with Russian spies.

 

"I assume when I pick up my telephone, people are listening to my conversations anyway, you want to know the truth. It’s pretty sad commentary. But I err on the side of security."

 

Since you cited NYT as a source, let's look at the most recent offering ...

Former national security officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, described the requests as normal and said they were justified by the need for the president’s top security adviser to understand the context of reports sent to her by the nation’s intelligence agencies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/us/politics/twitter-trump-clinton-obama.html

 

European countries have no more resources, time, or interest in implementing such procedures on Americans traveling to trade shows.

Even as a retaliatory measure, it would be dumb, and would dampen tourism and business.

There's also no history of Americans traveling to Europe in a quest to commit acts of terror.

 

Former republican or democratic national security officials? (And why did they need, and why were they granted, anonymity to simply declare a practice as routine? Probably because their name would give away their political leanings.)

This assertation is also contradicted by the take on the WSJ.

Finally, there's no reason for her to know the names of it didn't involve national security. If the information contained in the reports weren't related to Russia or an FBI investigation, but rather had value only of a political nature, then the names should have been properly masked, and remained that way.

 

The 9/11 hijackers weren't attending Harvard or studying to become a physician.

The only value many of these students bring to anyone in America is to the 2nd and 3rd tier schools that charge them full rate.

 

Huge if true: