The Many Faces of US Politics...

[Milltown Row2]

Is this not all deflection news?

I think you could go all the way back to George Washington and have dirty dealings going on

[glens73]

If I were Donald Trump's speechwriter, this is the team talk I would suggest
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/may/12/kareem-abdul-jabbar-covid-19-donald-trump

[sid waddell]

Manafort has been let out of prison now. Trump sure is taking care of his criminal buddies - in a Julie Andrews sense, not Al Capone. He inflicts the Al Capone stuff on everybody else.

No fear of an actual American patriot like Reality Winner being let out of prison.

[whitey]

Let's see how many media outlets invite Shifty Schiff back on and hold him to account for  his bald faced lying



WSJ

REVIEW & OUTLOOK
All the Adam Schiff Transcripts
Newly released documents show he knew all along that there was no proof of Russia-Trump collusion.
By  The Editorial Board
May 12, 2020 7:29 pm ET
SAVE
SHARE
TEXT
1,139

Rep. Adam Schiff on Jan. 28.
PHOTO: JACQUELYN MARTIN/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Americans expect that politicians will lie, but sometimes the examples are so brazen that they deserve special notice. Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own committee gathered contrary evidence.

The House Intelligence Committee last week released 57 transcripts of interviews it conducted in its investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election. The committee probe started in January 2017 under then-Chair Devin Nunes and concluded in March 2018 with a report finding no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin. Most of the transcripts were ready for release long ago, but Mr. Schiff oddly refused to release them after he became chairman in 2019. He only released them last week when the White House threatened to do it first.

Are Trump's Bank Records the House's Business?

00:00 / 23:30
SUBSCRIBE
Now we know why. From the earliest days of the collusion narrative, Mr. Schiff insisted that he had evidence proving the plot. In March 2017 on MSNBC, Mr. Schiff teased that he couldn't "go into particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now."


In December 2017 he told CNN that collusion was a fact: "The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help." In April 2018, Mr. Schiff released his response to Mr. Nunes's report, stating that its finding of no collusion "was unsupported by the facts and the investigative record."

None of this was true, and Mr. Schiff knew it. In July 2017, here's what former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Mr. Schiff and his colleagues: "I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election." Three months later, former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch agreed that while she'd seen "concerning" information, "I don't recall anything being briefed up to me." Former Deputy AG Sally Yates concurred several weeks later: "We were at the fact-gathering stage here, not the conclusion stage."

The same goes for the FBI agents who started the collusion probe in 2016. Most remarkable, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted the bureau's reason for opening the case was nonsense. Asked in December 2017 why the FBI obtained a secret surveillance warrant on former Trump aide Carter Page, rather than on George Papadopoulos (whose casual conversation with a foreign diplomat was the catalyst for the probe), Mr. McCabe responded: "Papadopoulos' comment didn't particularly indicate that he was the person that had had—that was interacting with the Russians." No one else was either.

On it went, a parade of former Obama officials who declared under oath they'd seen no evidence of collusion or conspiracy—Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power. Interviews with Trump campaign or Administration officials also yielded no collusion evidence. Mr. Schiff had access to these transcripts even as he claimed he had "ample" proof of collusion and wrote his false report.


He's still making it up. Last week he said the transcripts contain "evidence of the Trump campaign's efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia's help in the 2016 presidential election."

The question we'd ask our friends in the media is when are they going to stop playing the fool by putting him on the air? Mr. Schiff is a powerful figure with access to secrets that the rest of us don't have and can't check. He misled the country repeatedly on an issue that consumed American politics.

President Trump often spreads falsehoods and invents facts, but at least he's paid a price for it in media criticism and public mistrust. An industry of media fact checkers is dedicated to parsing his every word. As for Mr. Schiff, no one should ever believe another word he says.

[sid waddell]

"Shifty Schiff". That's a mean line in vaguely deniable anti-Semitism.

[Gmac]

Schiff should resign .

[whitey]

"Shifty Schiff". That's a mean line in vaguely deniable anti-Semitism.

I think it's a pretty accurate description

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shifty

: given to deception, evasion, or fraud

[sid waddell]

If the US had a few more like Schiff it wouldn't be in the situation it's in, where rampant corruption and kleptocracy rule and ordinary people are left to die by Trump.

But of course if you live on Earth 2, as a couple of posters here do, you believe what ever you want to believe.

Germans did that during the Nazi regime too.

[omochain]

Let's see how many media outlets invite Shifty Schiff back on and hold him to account for  his bald faced lying



WSJ

REVIEW & OUTLOOK
All the Adam Schiff Transcripts
Newly released documents show he knew all along that there was no proof of Russia-Trump collusion.
By  The Editorial Board
May 12, 2020 7:29 pm ET
SAVE
SHARE
TEXT
1,139

Rep. Adam Schiff on Jan. 28.
PHOTO: JACQUELYN MARTIN/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Americans expect that politicians will lie, but sometimes the examples are so brazen that they deserve special notice. Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own committee gathered contrary evidence.

The House Intelligence Committee last week released 57 transcripts of interviews it conducted in its investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election. The committee probe started in January 2017 under then-Chair Devin Nunes and concluded in March 2018 with a report finding no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin. Most of the transcripts were ready for release long ago, but Mr. Schiff oddly refused to release them after he became chairman in 2019. He only released them last week when the White House threatened to do it first.

Are Trump's Bank Records the House's Business?

00:00 / 23:30
SUBSCRIBE
Now we know why. From the earliest days of the collusion narrative, Mr. Schiff insisted that he had evidence proving the plot. In March 2017 on MSNBC, Mr. Schiff teased that he couldn't "go into particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now."


In December 2017 he told CNN that collusion was a fact: "The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help." In April 2018, Mr. Schiff released his response to Mr. Nunes's report, stating that its finding of no collusion "was unsupported by the facts and the investigative record."

None of this was true, and Mr. Schiff knew it. In July 2017, here's what former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Mr. Schiff and his colleagues: "I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election." Three months later, former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch agreed that while she'd seen "concerning" information, "I don't recall anything being briefed up to me." Former Deputy AG Sally Yates concurred several weeks later: "We were at the fact-gathering stage here, not the conclusion stage."

The same goes for the FBI agents who started the collusion probe in 2016. Most remarkable, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted the bureau's reason for opening the case was nonsense. Asked in December 2017 why the FBI obtained a secret surveillance warrant on former Trump aide Carter Page, rather than on George Papadopoulos (whose casual conversation with a foreign diplomat was the catalyst for the probe), Mr. McCabe responded: "Papadopoulos' comment didn't particularly indicate that he was the person that had had—that was interacting with the Russians." No one else was either.

On it went, a parade of former Obama officials who declared under oath they'd seen no evidence of collusion or conspiracy—Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power. Interviews with Trump campaign or Administration officials also yielded no collusion evidence. Mr. Schiff had access to these transcripts even as he claimed he had "ample" proof of collusion and wrote his false report.


He's still making it up. Last week he said the transcripts contain "evidence of the Trump campaign's efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia's help in the 2016 presidential election."

The question we'd ask our friends in the media is when are they going to stop playing the fool by putting him on the air? Mr. Schiff is a powerful figure with access to secrets that the rest of us don't have and can't check. He misled the country repeatedly on an issue that consumed American politics.

President Trump often spreads falsehoods and invents facts, but at least he's paid a price for it in media criticism and public mistrust. An industry of media fact checkers is dedicated to parsing his every word. As for Mr. Schiff, no one should ever believe another word he says.

Two words for you Whitey .. News Corporation

[omochain]

In the city of San Francisco where I am right now the tenderloin is a no go zone with hundreds of extra homeless gathering there ignoring all instructions about masks and social distancing while the city officials implement strict guidelines for everyone else .  For the few that do listen they are put up in hotels and have alcohol and weed brought to the hotel for them so they don't leave , not sure if heroine is on the menu or not at the moment.  The policy of years coming back to haunt us .

What policies are you referring to. I would be interested to hear what specific things we got wrong and who enacted them.

[Gmac]

cnn is not a serious news network , Greta thunberg featured on an expert panel on covid 19 .
Go back to the trump is a Russian plant narrative more credible .

[Gmac]

In the city of San Francisco where I am right now the tenderloin is a no go zone with hundreds of extra homeless gathering there ignoring all instructions about masks and social distancing while the city officials implement strict guidelines for everyone else .  For the few that do listen they are put up in hotels and have alcohol and weed brought to the hotel for them so they don't leave , not sure if heroine is on the menu or not at the moment.  The policy of years coming back to haunt us .

What policies are you referring to. I would be interested to hear what specific things we got wrong and who enacted them.

before we get into this have you walked the streets of San Francisco lately?

[sid waddell]

The argument of Trump's lawyer is that he should literally be allowed to stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot people dead, and that nobody should even be allowed stop him doing so.

Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow at the Supreme Court: "We're asking for temporary presidential immunity"

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1260403656073109505?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1260403656073109505&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html%231260403656073109505

[Eamonnca1]

"Shifty Schiff". That's a mean line in vaguely deniable anti-Semitism.

I think it's a pretty accurate description

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shifty

: given to deception, evasion, or fraud

Yup. Everything Adolf accused the Jews of being up to.

[Eamonnca1]

In the city of San Francisco where I am right now the tenderloin is a no go zone with hundreds of extra homeless gathering there ignoring all instructions about masks and social distancing while the city officials implement strict guidelines for everyone else .  For the few that do listen they are put up in hotels and have alcohol and weed brought to the hotel for them so they don't leave , not sure if heroine is on the menu or not at the moment.  The policy of years coming back to haunt us .

What policies are you referring to. I would be interested to hear what specific things we got wrong and who enacted them.

Well the taxophobic Proposition 13 has reverberated down through the years in all Californian cities. Plummeting revenue from homeowners that gets less and less every year means that cities have incentives to approve more commercial development (which generates more revenue and uses less services) than residential development (which generates less revenue and uses more services). The result is politicians who have a huge incentive to listen to the NIMBY lobby who object to the construction of any residential development taller than a gas station. Office developments get approved, housing does not, the jobs/housing imbalance keeps ratcheting up, and the city's transport infrastructure creaks under the weight of so many long-distance commuters. Lower level service industries struggle to recruit people who have to live so far away. Why wait tables in San Francisco and live in Concord when you could just live and wait tables in Concord?

San Francisco's problems are compounded by a convoluted planning system that makes developers jump through all manner of hoops only to have the goalposts moved again every time they meet the requirements put on them by NIMBY-minded supervisors. The lack of new housing stock doesn't have any effect on demand for housing, the higher wage earners who want to move into town will move into upscale condos if they're available, but if they're not then they'll move into areas that were previously dominated by lower income earners. So anti-gentrification protestors end up making gentrification and displacement worse by strangling the supply of housing.

Rent control is another factor. That's another disincentive for developers to develop rental properties, and it separates haves from have-nots based on the randomness of when they happened to move in. Someone who just moved into the Marina could be paying twice as much as their neighbor in an identical apartment who has held onto their lease since the 1980s.

Affordable housing is a requirement that's put on developers who have to have a specific proportion of their developments available below market rate. This effectively outsources the housing problem to the private sector, and in my opinion it has failed. If I had my way the restrictions on developers would be eased, the affordable housing requirement would be lifted, the planning process would be streamlined, the obstacles would be removed, but the developer fees would be higher, and that plus the property tax revenue from all the extra development would be used to fund higher quality public housing that would be available to more than just the absolute lowest income earners.