Politics 100 Days

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
-ee49059ee3c4619f.jpg
 
Trump is blaming his 1st 100 days in office on the constitution, calling it archaic. Says it's a bad thing for our country.

Compared his 1st 100 days in office to Andrew Jackson's. Says if Jackson had president a little later, there would have been no civil war. Why was there a civil war? It was unneccessary.
 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-bolton-unmasking-files-1493589727

The Bolton Unmasking Files
Democrats give Susan Rice a pass they didn’t give to John Bolton.

Democrats and their press allies are going all in to squelch the Susan Rice “unmasking” story, insisting that the decision by Barack Obama’s national security adviser to seek the name of at least one Trump campaign official was routine and no big deal. Tell that to former Bush Administration official John Bolton, whom Democrats pilloried for doing the same with far more justification.

The U.S. routinely eavesdrops on foreign officials, and sometimes U.S. citizens are caught on tape. Intelligence agencies strip the names of those U.S. citizens for privacy. A source confirms that Ms. Rice nonetheless requested the name of a Trump transition official in at least one intelligence summary, and Ms. Rice has all but confirmed that she did.

Democrats and the media have been at pains to call this business as usual. House Intelligence Committee Democrat Adam Schiff released a tutorial on why unmasking is “lawful.” “Susan Rice Did Nothing Wrong,” said an NBC headline, quoting no one on the record.

That’s not what liberals said in 2005 as they opposed Mr. Bolton’s nominate to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Then Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd kicked up a fuss that, as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Mr. Bolton had 10 times over four years asked for the names of American officials who were swept up in National Security Agency monitoring.

Mr. Bolton and the State Department were clear that he followed procedure and provided intelligence officials with sound national-security reasons for requesting the names. Interpreting intelligence was central to Mr. Bolton’s duties, so unmasking names on rare occasions wouldn’t be unusual.

Critics nonetheless assailed Mr. Bolton for behavior for which they now absolve Mrs. Rice. Mr. Dodd claimed unmasking was “rarely requested” and “infrequently” by “non-career political appointees such as Mr. Bolton.” The New York Times reported that the identifies of Americans are released “only in response to special requests, and these are not common, particularly from policy makers.”
 
Denny Crane said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-bolton-unmasking-files-1493589727

The Bolton Unmasking Files
Democrats give Susan Rice a pass they didn’t give to John Bolton.

Democrats and their press allies are going all in to squelch the Susan Rice “unmasking” story, insisting that the decision by Barack Obama’s national security adviser to seek the name of at least one Trump campaign official was routine and no big deal. Tell that to former Bush Administration official John Bolton, whom Democrats pilloried for doing the same with far more justification.

The U.S. routinely eavesdrops on foreign officials, and sometimes U.S. citizens are caught on tape. Intelligence agencies strip the names of those U.S. citizens for privacy. A source confirms that Ms. Rice nonetheless requested the name of a Trump transition official in at least one intelligence summary, and Ms. Rice has all but confirmed that she did.

Democrats and the media have been at pains to call this business as usual. House Intelligence Committee Democrat Adam Schiff released a tutorial on why unmasking is “lawful.” “Susan Rice Did Nothing Wrong,” said an NBC headline, quoting no one on the record.

That’s not what liberals said in 2005 as they opposed Mr. Bolton’s nominate to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Then Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd kicked up a fuss that, as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Mr. Bolton had 10 times over four years asked for the names of American officials who were swept up in National Security Agency monitoring.

Mr. Bolton and the State Department were clear that he followed procedure and provided intelligence officials with sound national-security reasons for requesting the names. Interpreting intelligence was central to Mr. Bolton’s duties, so unmasking names on rare occasions wouldn’t be unusual.

Critics nonetheless assailed Mr. Bolton for behavior for which they now absolve Mrs. Rice. Mr. Dodd claimed unmasking was “rarely requested” and “infrequently” by “non-career political appointees such as Mr. Bolton.” The New York Times reported that the identifies of Americans are released “only in response to special requests, and these are not common, particularly from policy makers.”
Click to expand...

If you liked that WSJ article you're going to love this one.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-adviser-jared-kushner-didnt-disclose-startup-stake-1493717405
 
3RA1N1AC said:
Republicans gave John Bolton a pass they didn't give to Susan Rice.
Click to expand...

If Bolton is wrong, so is Rice.

Bolton is the precedent and was given no pass at all, so what Republicans did back then is meaningless.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
If you liked that WSJ article you're going to love this one.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-adviser-jared-kushner-didnt-disclose-startup-stake-1493717405
Click to expand...

Interesting. Google "Jamie Gorelick" (Kushner's lawyer) or see the bolded bit below.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features...red-kushner-didnt-disclose-startup-stake.html

The Cadre stake is one of many interests -- and ties to large financial institutions -- that Mr. Kushner didn't identify on his disclosure form, according to a Wall Street Journal review of securities and other filings. Others include loans totaling at least $1 billion, from more than 20 lenders, to properties and companies part-owned by Mr. Kushner, the Journal found. He has also provided personal guarantees on more than $300 million of the debt, according to the analysis.

Jamie Gorelick, a lawyer representing Mr. Kushner, said in a statement that his stake in Cadre is housed in a company he owns called BFPS Ventures LLC. His ownership of BFPS is reported in his financial-disclosure form, although it doesn't mention Cadre.

Ms. Gorelick said the Cadre stake is described in a revised version of his financial-disclosure form that will be made public after it has been certified by ethics officials. She said Mr. Kushner has previously discussed his Cadre ownership with the Office of Government Ethics and that Mr. Kushner has "resigned from Cadre's board, assigned his voting rights, and reduced his ownership share." A spokesman for the Office of Government Ethics didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Ms. Gorelick added that it is "very normal" for a financial disclosure form to be revised and that the form was prepared by Mr. Kushner's lawyers on his behalf.

Trevor Potter, a Republican former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, and other ethics experts said investments such as Mr. Kushner's ownership of Cadre typically need to be disclosed.

They said Mr. Kushner didn't appear to violate disclosure rules by not publicly reporting his business-related debts and guarantees. But they said such arrangements ideally should be disclosed, in part because they could force Mr. Kushner to recuse himself from certain issues involving the lenders.

"Anything that presents a potential for the conflict of interest should be disclosed so that the public and the press can monitor this," Mr. Potter said.

Ethics experts' concern is that Mr. Kushner's business connections could jeopardize his impartiality in certain areas and that, absent disclosures, the public is in the dark about potential conflicts. His rapidly expanding responsibilities range from working on a Middle East peace deal to making federal bureaucracy operate more efficiently. As a senior federal official, Mr. Kushner is bound by ethics laws that require him to recuse himself from matters that would directly affect his financial interests.

Ms. Gorelick, who was deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, said Mr. Kushner will "recuse consistent with government ethics rules."
 
Denny Crane said:
If Bolton is wrong, so is Rice.

Bolton is the precedent and was given no pass at all, so what Republicans did back then is meaningless.
Click to expand...

If Rice is wrong, so was Bolton.

Rice is being given no pass at all, so what Democrats are doing now is meaningless.
 
3RA1N1AC said:
If Rice is wrong, so is Bolton

Rice is being given no pass at all, so what Democrats are doing now is meaningless.
Click to expand...


Precedent is still precedent, though. Rice is absolutely being given a pass. She appeared on TV recently and lied her ass off, to softball questions by the complicit media.
 
Denny Crane said:
Precedent is still precedent, though. Rice is absolutely being given a pass. She appeared on TV recently and lied her ass off, to softball questions by the complicit media.
Click to expand...

Bolton was absolutely given a pass. He appeared on TV and lied his ass off about iraq, to softball questions by the complicit media.

and if susan rice is wrong, so was bolton. and bolton was considered by your boy for secretary of state. what a buffoon!
 
3RA1N1AC said:
Bolton was absolutely given a pass. He appeared on TV and lied his ass off about iraq, to softball questions by the complicit media.

and if susan rice is wrong, so was bolton. and bolton was considered by your boy for secretary of state. what a buffoon!
Click to expand...
Bolton isn't involved in much of anything.

Rice is being investigated by the republicans. They like to investigate, but not much else.

I don't give a rat's ass who Trump picks for whatever jobs. I didn't oppose Obama's picks either - even for the Supreme Court. They won their elections, they have the right to govern with the help of persons of their choosing.

Bolton never got softball questions. What rock were you hiding under?
 
Denny Crane said:
Interesting. Google "Jamie Gorelick" (Kushner's lawyer) or see the bolded bit below.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features...red-kushner-didnt-disclose-startup-stake.html

The Cadre stake is one of many interests -- and ties to large financial institutions -- that Mr. Kushner didn't identify on his disclosure form, according to a Wall Street Journal review of securities and other filings. Others include loans totaling at least $1 billion, from more than 20 lenders, to properties and companies part-owned by Mr. Kushner, the Journal found. He has also provided personal guarantees on more than $300 million of the debt, according to the analysis.

Jamie Gorelick, a lawyer representing Mr. Kushner, said in a statement that his stake in Cadre is housed in a company he owns called BFPS Ventures LLC. His ownership of BFPS is reported in his financial-disclosure form, although it doesn't mention Cadre.

Ms. Gorelick said the Cadre stake is described in a revised version of his financial-disclosure form that will be made public after it has been certified by ethics officials. She said Mr. Kushner has previously discussed his Cadre ownership with the Office of Government Ethics and that Mr. Kushner has "resigned from Cadre's board, assigned his voting rights, and reduced his ownership share." A spokesman for the Office of Government Ethics didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Ms. Gorelick added that it is "very normal" for a financial disclosure form to be revised and that the form was prepared by Mr. Kushner's lawyers on his behalf.

Trevor Potter, a Republican former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, and other ethics experts said investments such as Mr. Kushner's ownership of Cadre typically need to be disclosed.

They said Mr. Kushner didn't appear to violate disclosure rules by not publicly reporting his business-related debts and guarantees. But they said such arrangements ideally should be disclosed, in part because they could force Mr. Kushner to recuse himself from certain issues involving the lenders.

"Anything that presents a potential for the conflict of interest should be disclosed so that the public and the press can monitor this," Mr. Potter said.

Ethics experts' concern is that Mr. Kushner's business connections could jeopardize his impartiality in certain areas and that, absent disclosures, the public is in the dark about potential conflicts. His rapidly expanding responsibilities range from working on a Middle East peace deal to making federal bureaucracy operate more efficiently. As a senior federal official, Mr. Kushner is bound by ethics laws that require him to recuse himself from matters that would directly affect his financial interests.

Ms. Gorelick, who was deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, said Mr. Kushner will "recuse consistent with government ethics rules."
Click to expand...

Lol. Fox...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top