The Constitutional Crisis is Here!

[SunsetBengal]

At least Eugene Robinson thinks so. This story reads like a SNL cold opening. I really can't believe that WaPo actually publishes this drivel. At least MSN has the decency to add an editor's note to disclaim it as opinion.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-constitutional-crisis-is-here/ar-AAxBHHM?ocid=spartandhp

Quote:Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.
Stop waiting for the constitutional crisis that President Trump is sure to provoke. It’s here.
On Sunday, via Twitter, Trump demanded that the Justice Department concoct a transparently political investigation, with the aim of smearing veteran professionals at Justice and the FBI and also throwing mud at the previous administration. Trump’s only rational goal is casting doubt on the probe by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, which appears to be closing in.
Trump’s power play is a gross misuse of his presidential authority and a dangerous departure from long-standing norms. Strongmen such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin use their justice systems to punish enemies and deflect attention from their own crimes. Presidents of the United States do not — or did not, until Sunday’s tweet:
“I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes — and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!”
Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post
Rather than push back and defend the rule of law, Justice tried to mollify the president by at least appearing to give him what he wants. The Republican leadership in Congress has been silent as a mouse. This is how uncrossable lines are crossed.
The pretext Trump seized on is the revelation that a longtime FBI and CIA informant, described as a retired college professor , made contact with three Trump campaign associates before the election as part of the FBI’s initial investigation into Russian meddling.
With the full-throated backing of right-wing media, Trump has described this person as a “spy” who was “implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president.” This claim is completely unsupported by the facts as we know them. Trump wants you to believe a lie.
The informant was not embedded or implanted or otherwise inserted into the campaign. He was asked to contact several campaign figures whose names had already surfaced in the FBI’s counterintelligence probe. It would have been an appalling dereliction of duty not to take a look at Trump advisers with Russia ties, such as Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, when the outlines of a Russian campaign to influence the election were emerging.
Trump claims this is the nation’s “all time biggest political scandal” because, he alleges, Justice Department officials and the FBI used a “spy” to try to “frame” him and his campaign, in an effort to boost his opponent Hillary Clinton’s chance of winning the election. This conspiracy theory has so many holes in it that it’s hard to know where to begin. But let’s start with the glaringly obvious: If the aim was to make Trump lose, why wasn’t all the known information about the Trump campaign’s Russia connections leaked before the election, when it might have had some impact?
The truth appears to be precisely the opposite of what Trump says, which is not uncommon. The record suggests that Justice and the FBI were so uncomfortable investigating a presidential campaign in the weeks and months before an election that they tiptoed around promising lines of inquiry rather than appear to be taking a side. The FBI director at the time was James B. Comey, and while we heard plenty about Clinton’s emails before the vote, we had no idea that such a mature investigation of the Trump campaign was underway.
Now that the Mueller probe has bored into Trump’s inner circle — and federal authorities have raided the homes and office of his personal attorney, Michael Cohen — the president appears to be in a panic. The question is whether he sees this “spy” nonsense as a way to discredit Mueller’s eventual findings, or as a pretext for trying to end the investigation with a bloody purge akin to Richard Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre.”
The Justice Department answered Trump’s tweeted demand by announcing that an existing investigation by its inspector general will now “include determining whether there was any impropriety or political motivation” by the FBI. Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein may hope that is enough to avoid a showdown. I fear he is wrong.
None of this is normal or acceptable. One of the bedrock principles of our system of government is that no one is above the law, not even the president. But a gutless Congress has refused, so far, to protect this sacred inheritance.
Trump is determined to use the Justice Department and the FBI to punish those he sees as political enemies. This is a crisis, and it will get worse.
Read more from Eugene Robinson’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook. You can also join him Tuesdays at 1 p.m. for a live Q&A.

[fredtoast]

Not that big of a deal.

DOJ will investigate and find nothing.

Fox viewers will continue to believe Trumps claims are 100% true.

[hollodero]

What parts of that piece in particular are you taking issue with?

[SunsetBengal]

(05-22-2018, 06:09 PM)hollodero Wrote: What parts of that piece in particular are you taking issue with?

Pretty much all of it.  It is written from a completely one sided point of view.  Never mind that many Americans feel like the entire Special Counsel's Investigation is a farce, based upon plots and lies by jaded intelligence departments.

Stories like this, are completely why affiliates like Fox News and other Conservative media outlets ever came to be.  I'm not saying that both the traditional and Conservative based outlets aren't guilty of bias.  I'm just pointing out that as a Profession, Journalism is supposed to be Party neutral and unbiased.

Even though it is an opinion piece, for the primary news agency in our Nation's Capitol to print this clearly shows just how biased they really are. 

[fredtoast]

(05-22-2018, 06:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Even though it is an opinion piece, for the primary news agency in our Nation's Capitol to print this clearly shows just how biased they really are. 

Pretty much every "opinion piece" is going to be biased one way or the other.  Every newspaper prints them.  

[fredtoast]

(05-22-2018, 06:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Never mind that many Americans feel like the entire Special Counsel's Investigation is a farce, based upon plots and lies by jaded intelligence departments.

Actually this is a perfect example of what happens when a propaganda machine like FoxNews touts opinion as fact.

Every single intelligence department agrees that Russia tried to influence our last Presidential election and there is proof of lots of contact between Trumps campaign and Russian spies.  Mueller was not appointed until Trump fired Comey for trying to investigate the Russian interference. 

What part of that do "many Americans" consider a "farce based on lies"?

[hollodero]

(05-22-2018, 06:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Pretty much all of it.  It is written from a completely one sided point of view.  Never mind that many Americans feel like the entire Special Counsel's Investigation is a farce, based upon plots and lies by jaded intelligence departments.

Stories like this, are completely why affiliates like Fox News and other Conservative media outlets ever came to be.  I'm not saying that both the traditional and Conservative based outlets aren't guilty of bias.  I'm just pointing out that as a Profession, Journalism is supposed to be Party neutral and unbiased.

Even though it is an opinion piece, for the primary news agency in our Nation's Capitol to print this clearly shows just how biased they really are. 

I think opinion pieces are not journalism and can be one sided. Also, what "many Americans feel" about the investigation really doesn't matter.

I also think journalism doesn't have to be neutral at all costs. If someone in politics behaves problematic, a journalist can say that, as long as he's factual and not making up stuff. He doesn't have to keep quiet or tamper his tone or use equal time to point to the other side as to not appear biased.

And lastly, I can not avoid to point out how the opinion pieces of Sean Hannity et al. are way worse and way more biased than this was. Also, way more partisan. I don't know the author of the piece you quoted, but to me he doesn't have to be a democrat at all and still could have those concerns.

[HarleyDog]

(05-22-2018, 06:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Pretty much all of it.  It is written from a completely one sided point of view.  Never mind that many Americans feel like the entire Special Counsel's Investigation is a farce, based upon plots and lies by jaded intelligence departments.

Stories like this, are completely why affiliates like Fox News and other Conservative media outlets ever came to be.  I'm not saying that both the traditional and Conservative based outlets aren't guilty of bias.  I'm just pointing out that as a Profession, Journalism is supposed to be Party neutral and unbiased.

Even though it is an opinion piece, for the primary news agency in our Nation's Capitol to print this clearly shows just how biased they really are. 

Very well said. The press used to be informative, until their became too many. Then it became a competition for readers/viewers. People born in the 90's and after probably have never experienced turning channels from one affiliate to another and hearing the same story. Now you turn it and you hear two stories simply based on party affiliation, or so it seams. 

I tried to read this article today and then after 1.5 paragraphs, I was tuned out because it was totally biased. It stood out like a bull trying to hide in a heard of sheep. Ridiculous. Would be nice to hear non-biased news. It's no surprise that article written didn't have a comment section from readers. They would have been slammed. Although, the very friendly paper was nice enough to put out a full statement saying the opinion was that of the writer and not necessarily of the paper. Yeah right. Doughe bags!

[HarleyDog]

(05-22-2018, 06:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually this is a perfect example of what happens when a propaganda machine like FoxNews touts opinion as fact.

Every single intelligence department agrees that Russia tried to influence our last Presidential election and there is proof of lots of contact between Trumps campaign and Russian spies.  Mueller was not appointed until Trump fired Comey for trying to investigate the Russian interference. 

What part of that do "many Americans" consider a "farce based on lies"?

I would guess more people think its more BS than you think. I sure do.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-22-2018, 06:58 PM)hollodero Wrote: I think opinion pieces are not journalism and can be one sided. Also, what "many Americans feel" about the investigation really doesn't matter.

I also think journalism doesn't have to be neutral at all costs. If someone in politics behaves problematic, a journalist can say that, as long as he's factual and not making up stuff. He doesn't have to keep quiet or tamper his tone or use equal time to point to the other side as to not appear biased.

And lastly, I can not avoid to point out how the opinion pieces of Sean Hannity et al. are way worse and way more biased than this was. Also, way more partisan. I don't know the author of the piece you quoted, but to me he doesn't have to be a democrat at all and still could have those concerns.

Here's a similar piece presented from a Right leaning source.

https://nypost.com/2018/05/19/cambridge-professor-outed-as-fbi-informant-inside-trump-campaign/

Quote:A Cambridge professor with deep ties to American and British intelligence has been outed as an agent who snooped on the Trump presidential campaign for the FBI.

Multiple media outlets have named Stefan Halper, 73, as the secret informant who met with Trump campaign advisers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos starting in the summer of 2016. The American-born academic previously served in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations.

see also
[/url]    
Trump accuses feds of planting ‘spy’ in his campaign



The revelation, stemming from recent reports in which FBI sources admitted sending an agent to snoop on the Trump camp, heightens suspicions that the FBI was seeking to entrap Trump campaign aides. Papodopoulous has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, while Page was the subject of a federal surveillance warrant.

“If the FBI or DOJ was infiltrating a campaign for the benefit of another campaign, that is a really big deal,” [url=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/997951982467014656]President Trump tweeted Saturday, calling for the FBI to release additional documents to Congress.
The Halper revelation also shows the Obama administration’s FBI began prying into the opposing party’s presidential nominee earlier than it previously admitted.
Halper’s sit-downs with Page reportedly started in early July 2016, undermining fired FBI Director James Comey’s previous claim that the bureau’s investigation into the Trump campaign began at the end of that month.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

Halper made his first overture when he met with Page at a British symposium. The two remained in regular contact for more than a year, meeting at Halper’s Virginia farm and in Washington, DC, as well as exchanging emails.
The professor met with Trump campaign co-chair Sam Clovis in late August, offering his services as a foreign policy adviser, the Washington Post reported Friday, without naming the academic.
Clovis did not see the conversation as suspicious, his attorney told the paper — but is now “unsettled” that “the professor” never mentioned he’d struck up a relationship with Page.
Days later, Halper contacted Papadopoulos by email. The professor offered the young and inexperienced campaign aide $3,000 and an all-expenses-paid trip to London, ostensibly to write a paper about energy in the eastern Mediterranean region.
More On:
donald trump
Trump and the GOP are asking tough questions like reporters once did

Michael Cohen's business partner may flip under plea deal

Trump: 'Spies' in my campaign would be biggest political scandal ever

Republicans call for counsel to probe FBI's handling of 2016 election
“George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?” the professor pressed Papadopoulos when they met, according to reports — a reference to Trump’s campaign-trail riffs about Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
Sources close to Papadopoulos told NBC News that he now believes Halper was working for an intelligence agency.
Highly detailed descriptions of the FBI informant in Friday reports in the New York Times and Washington Post pegged Halper in all but name. Outlets including NBC and Fox News subsequently connected the dots. The revelation confirms a March report in the Daily Caller that outlined Halper’s repeated meetings with Papadopoulos and Page.
It is not clear if the professor was paid to speak with Trump campaign figures, but public records show that he has received large payments from the federal government in the last two years.
The Department of Defense’s Office of Net Assessment — a shadowy think tank that reports directly to the secretary of defense — paid Halper $282,000 in 2016 and $129,000 in 2017.
Halper has close personal and professional ties to the CIA reaching back decades. He is the son-in-law of a former deputy director of the agency and worked on the 1980 presidential campaign of George H.W. Bush, who had served as CIA director.
When Bush became Ronald Reagan’s running mate, Halper was implicated in a spying scandal in which CIA officials gave inside information on the Carter administration to the GOP campaign.
Meanwhile, reports emerged Saturday that Donald Trump Jr. met in August 2016 with a representative of Saudi crown princes, who offered pre-election help to his father’s campaign.
An Israeli political strategist who attended the meeting told the New York Times that their plan to carry out a pro-Trump social media campaign did not go forward.

[Belsnickel]

(05-22-2018, 06:05 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: At least Eugene Robinson thinks so. This story reads like a SNL cold opening. I really can't believe that WaPo actually publishes this drivel. At least MSN has the decency to add an editor's note to disclaim it as opinion.

Well, Washington Post has the same sort of note, because it's in the opinion section...

(05-22-2018, 06:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Pretty much all of it.  It is written from a completely one sided point of view.  Never mind that many Americans feel like the entire Special Counsel's Investigation is a farce, based upon plots and lies by jaded intelligence departments.

Stories like this, are completely why affiliates like Fox News and other Conservative media outlets ever came to be.  I'm not saying that both the traditional and Conservative based outlets aren't guilty of bias.  I'm just pointing out that as a Profession, Journalism is supposed to be Party neutral and unbiased.

Even though it is an opinion piece, for the primary news agency in our Nation's Capitol to print this clearly shows just how biased they really are. 

Opinion pieces aren't news, they are opinion. Unless styled as being from the editorial board, they are the views of an individual. Every newspaper has this section, and the major newspapers usually provide column inches for people of different viewpoints. WaPo and NYT both do this. But bias is going to occur in opinion sections because opinions are just expressions of one's point of view, which is what people tend to call bias.

The actual news parts of these publications, though, are not opinion pieces. People mixing these things up is the reason we are in the situation we are in. People are not informed consumers of the news and far too often mistake news for opinion and opinion for news.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-22-2018, 08:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, Washington Post has the same sort of note, because it's in the opinion section...


Opinion pieces aren't news, they are opinion. Unless styled as being from the editorial board, they are the views of an individual. Every newspaper has this section, and the major newspapers usually provide column inches for people of different viewpoints. WaPo and NYT both do this. But bias is going to occur in opinion sections because opinions are just expressions of one's point of view, which is what people tend to call bias.

The actual news parts of these publications, though, are not opinion pieces. People mixing these things up is the reason we are in the situation we are in. People are not informed consumers of the news and far too often mistake news for opinion and opinion for news.

Normally I would agree with you, but in this instance I'm going to call bullshit.  Eugene Robinson is co-editor of the WaPo. It's not like he's someone from "Joe Public" writing in to express his disgust.

[Belsnickel]

(05-22-2018, 09:10 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Normally I would agree with you, but in this instance I'm going to call bullshit.  Eugene Robinson is co-editor of the WaPo. It's not like he's someone from "Joe Public" writing in to express his disgust.

Eugene is an opinion writer. That's his title. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-constitutional-crisis-is-here/2018/05/21/deaf19b2-5d27-11e8-a4a4-c070ef53f315_story.html?utm_term=.4155209b3411

Look at the byline.

[Belsnickel]

Just another fun opinion piece on the investigation. Figured I'd shove it in here: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/russia-investigation-robert-mueller-reach-natural-conclusion/

[SunsetBengal]

(05-22-2018, 09:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eugene is an opinion writer. That's his title. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-constitutional-crisis-is-here/2018/05/21/deaf19b2-5d27-11e8-a4a4-c070ef53f315_story.html?utm_term=.4155209b3411

Look at the byline.

Odd, his Wiki says Co-Editor.

[Belsnickel]

(05-22-2018, 09:36 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Odd, his Wiki says Co-Editor.

Yeah, his page at WaPo indicates he is just a contributor at this point in his career.

[*Nately120*]

(05-22-2018, 09:36 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Odd, his Wiki says Co-Editor.

My diver's license says I'm 6'.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-22-2018, 09:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, his page at WaPo indicates he is just a contributor at this point in his career.

I'm not making shit up.  Hell, it even lists him as "Journalist"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Robinson_(journalist)

[*bfine32*]

Is this one of those address the source not the content deals?

[SunsetBengal]

(05-22-2018, 10:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is this one of those address the source not the content deals?

Shhh.. nobody wants to hear that.