I feel sorry for them. They are reaping what was sown by others over many years. The only thing that will make Labour relevant again in Scotland is independence.
If SLab was to back independence then, it is fairly self evident to me, that Independence would happen and they would be in prime position to take over from the disintegration of the SNP post independence.
Their Unionism is an amazingly principled stand which is a rarity in this modern, politically cynical world.
That is a thought provoking post.Does SLAB have many voices asking to change this stance ?
YES. The MP for Edinburgh South. The very talented Ian Murray
Do you agree with him ? I supported Scottish Independence in 2014 and said so on here many times .Was dismayed that the full might of Labour at the time including Gordon Brown was so against.
Labour was and is a British political party. Its constitution makes that very clear. If you support independence, then holding an official position inside it is going to be tricky, to say the least. That said, I was very anti-independence in 2014. Now, I can see how it makes sense. Faced with Corbyn guaranteeing permanent Tory rule in Westminster and Brexit, I can see how breaking away looks attractive. Scotland and England are moving further apart. That's not sustainable.
But as you have been reminding us , Corbyn is on his way out anyway.He is ,therefore, not going to be in a position to 'guarantee permanent Tory rule in Westminster'.
Labour won't win an election under any leader until 2025 at the earliest.
That represents a modification of your previous comment. However, given that Labour's current polling range appears to be 25% - 30% I believe that it is entirely feasible that under a new leader Labour could poll circa 35% in 2020 . That could well be enough to ensure a Hung Parliament.
If there's one thing that European politics is telling us right now, it's that there can be dramatic changes as a result of charismatic leaders. The SPD is getting close to 50% more votes in polls now than it was getting six months ago (when some posters were forecasting that AfD would eclipse it to be the second party in Germany). And in France Macron - a man without a party and touting unfashionably pro-EU views - seems likely to be the next President.
Yes, it does bother me. If it happened clearly the reasons why should be made public. Trump can make that happen.
The FBI went very publiccon Hillary before the election. Why did it not do the same for Trump?
That particular investigation originally started with a public complaint that Clinton wasn't complying with the Federal Records Act, and then an email leak fanned the flames. So knowledge of the ensuing investigations was in the public domain, and the FBI didn't have much choice but to keep Congress in the loop when they found tens of thousands more relevant emails.
What Trump is saying is that Obama — probably the FBI in reality — was secretlty tapping calls amongst his circle at more or less the same time as the Weiner emails were discovered. Could the FBI have announced that? Well maybe, but you obviously can't announce you are secretly tapping calls during an investigation.
The FBI boss had no reason to write the letter he did. And he could just as easily have stated Trump was under investigation.
What Trump is saying is that Obama personally ordered his phones to be tapped. As President he knows whether that is true or not.
I feel sorry for them. They are reaping what was sown by others over many years. The only thing that will make Labour relevant again in Scotland is independence.
If SLab was to back independence then, it is fairly self evident to me, that Independence would happen and they would be in prime position to take over from the disintegration of the SNP post independence.
Their Unionism is an amazingly principled stand which is a rarity in this modern, politically cynical world.
That is a thought provoking post.Does SLAB have many voices asking to change this stance ?
YES. The MP for Edinburgh South. The very talented Ian Murray
Do you agree with him ? I supported Scottish Independence in 2014 and said so on here many times .Was dismayed that the full might of Labour at the time including Gordon Brown was so against.
Labour was and is a British political party. Its constitution makes that very clear. If you support independence, then holding an official position inside it is going to be tricky, to say the least. That said, I was very anti-independence in 2014. Now, I can see how it makes sense. Faced with Corbyn guaranteeing permanent Tory rule in Westminster and Brexit, I can see how breaking away looks attractive. Scotland and England are moving further apart. That's not sustainable.
But as you have been reminding us , Corbyn is on his way out anyway.He is ,therefore, not going to be in a position to 'guarantee permanent Tory rule in Westminster'.
Labour won't win an election under any leader until 2025 at the earliest.
That represents a modification of your previous comment. However, given that Labour's current polling range appears to be 25% - 30% I believe that it is entirely feasible that under a new leader Labour could poll circa 35% in 2020 . That could well be enough to ensure a Hung Parliament.
Labour are very resilient. With the Unions backing them, I agree their vote will come back if they get a sensible leader. Libs will take some share from them, but some from UKIP will come back. Their actual share in 2020? ANyone's guess. I'm going for minimum 25%
Good grief, a chart where the y axis begins at 0%? That'll never catch on here....
Five parties between 10 and 14%! And another two only just outside that range.
I admire the Dutch for their electoral system. My theory is that the founders realised that there's no government better than no government. And by ensuring that almost all the time between elections is taken up by coalition building discussions, they ensure that government interference in citizens' lives is kept to a minimum.
Yes, it does bother me. If it happened clearly the reasons why should be made public. Trump can make that happen.
The FBI went very publiccon Hillary before the election. Why did it not do the same for Trump?
That particular investigation originally started with a public complaint that Clinton wasn't complying with the Federal Records Act, and then an email leak fanned the flames. So knowledge of the ensuing investigations was in the public domain, and the FBI didn't have much choice but to keep Congress in the loop when they found tens of thousands more relevant emails.
What Trump is saying is that Obama — probably the FBI in reality — was secretlty tapping calls amongst his circle at more or less the same time as the Weiner emails were discovered. Could the FBI have announced that? Well maybe, but you obviously can't announce you are secretly tapping calls during an investigation.
The reason Flynn had to go was due to his phone calls being tapped during the Obama lame duck period, the contents of which oddly got leaked
Good grief, a chart where the y axis begins at 0%? That'll never catch on here....
Five parties between 10 and 14%! And another two only just outside that range.
I admire the Dutch for their electoral system. My theory is that the founders realised that there's no government better than no government. And by ensuring that almost all the time between elections is taken up by coalition building discussions, they ensure that government interference in citizens' lives is kept to a minimum.
Yes, it does bother me. If it happened clearly the reasons why should be made public. Trump can make that happen.
The FBI went very publiccon Hillary before the election. Why did it not do the same for Trump?
That particular investigation originally started with a public complaint that Clinton wasn't complying with the Federal Records Act, and then an email leak fanned the flames. So knowledge of the ensuing investigations was in the public domain, and the FBI didn't have much choice but to keep Congress in the loop when they found tens of thousands more relevant emails.
What Trump is saying is that Obama — probably the FBI in reality — was secretlty tapping calls amongst his circle at more or less the same time as the Weiner emails were discovered. Could the FBI have announced that? Well maybe, but you obviously can't announce you are secretly tapping calls during an investigation.
The FBI boss had no reason to write the letter he did. And he could just as easily have stated Trump was under investigation.
What Trump is saying is that Obama personally ordered his phones to be tapped. As President he knows whether that is true or not.
And now we're all talking about this, rather than about anything Trump is actually doing. Look! A dead cat!
I feel sorry for them. They are reaping what was sown by others over many years. The only thing that will make Labour relevant again in Scotland is independence.
If SLab was to back independence then, it is fairly self evident to me, that Independence would happen and they would be in prime position to take over from the disintegration of the SNP post independence.
Their Unionism is an amazingly principled stand which is a rarity in this modern, politically cynical world.
That is a thought provoking post.Does SLAB have many voices asking to change this stance ?
YES. The MP for Edinburgh South. The very talented Ian Murray
Do you agree with him ? I supported Scottish Independence in 2014 and said so on here many times .Was dismayed that the full might of Labour at the time including Gordon Brown was so against.
Labour was and is a British political party. Its constitution makes that very clear. If you support independence, then holding an official position inside it is going to be tricky, to say the least. That said, I was very anti-independence in 2014. Now, I can see how it makes sense. Faced with Corbyn guaranteeing permanent Tory rule in Westminster and Brexit, I can see how breaking away looks attractive. Scotland and England are moving further apart. That's not sustainable.
But as you have been reminding us , Corbyn is on his way out anyway.He is ,therefore, not going to be in a position to 'guarantee permanent Tory rule in Westminster'.
Labour won't win an election under any leader until 2025 at the earliest.
That represents a modification of your previous comment. However, given that Labour's current polling range appears to be 25% - 30% I believe that it is entirely feasible that under a new leader Labour could poll circa 35% in 2020 . That could well be enough to ensure a Hung Parliament.
Labour are very resilient. With the Unions backing them, I agree their vote will come back if they get a sensible leader. Libs will take some share from them, but some from UKIP will come back. Their actual share in 2020? ANyone's guess. I'm going for minimum 25%
Under a new leader, I would expect Labour to win back any votes lost to the LibDems in recent months.
Yes, it does bother me. If it happened clearly the reasons why should be made public. Trump can make that happen.
The FBI went very publiccon Hillary before the election. Why did it not do the same for Trump?
That particular investigation originally started with a public complaint that Clinton wasn't complying with the Federal Records Act, and then an email leak fanned the flames. So knowledge of the ensuing investigations was in the public domain, and the FBI didn't have much choice but to keep Congress in the loop when they found tens of thousands more relevant emails.
What Trump is saying is that Obama — probably the FBI in reality — was secretlty tapping calls amongst his circle at more or less the same time as the Weiner emails were discovered. Could the FBI have announced that? Well maybe, but you obviously can't announce you are secretly tapping calls during an investigation.
The FBI boss had no reason to write the letter he did. And he could just as easily have stated Trump was under investigation.
What Trump is saying is that Obama personally ordered his phones to be tapped. As President he knows whether that is true or not.
And now we're all talking about this, rather than about anything Trump is actually doing. Look! A dead cat!
Not sure that works given why the FBI or DoJ might have had Trump under surveillance.
There are three or four posters who worship Trump with a fervour unseen since the break up of the Beatles. There's history with young girls and pop bands but I'd love to know what's going on here. TimB? Moniker? GLW?
I can’t think of a single PBer who worships Trump, there are many who do not fall into the category of Trump haters, but that’s something quite different.
Are you serious! Perhaps you haven't been on that much. There are some who talk about nothing else for perhaps 20 hours a day. It isn't chat about a politician it is akin to the Branch Davidians. This is a cult and I haven't ever seen anything like it before. Fortunately we've missed Hale Bopp
You can't be talking about me because I haven't been on the site for several days, and when I am here, it's rarely for long.
Great result from Liverpool. Why oh why can they raise their game so much for the big matches like this, yet screwed up against some lowly managerless opposition less than a week ago?
There are three or four posters who worship Trump with a fervour unseen since the break up of the Beatles. There's history with young girls and pop bands but I'd love to know what's going on here. TimB? Moniker? GLW?
Tim_B is a Republican I think, so it shouldn't be surprising that a Republican would support Donald Trump. Most polls show Trump getting very high approvals from Republicans.
I consider myself a moderate Republican - I am pro-choice for example. I voted for Trump. I did so because after 8 years of a rigid big government left wing ideologue we needed something different that wasn't Hillary. On the good side he isn't a politician, says what he thinks and does what he said he'd do on the campaign.
He picks dumb fights he shouldn't that he can't win, can't let anything go without response, and has trodden on his own message far too many times. Couple that with a totally cocked up implementation of the immigration executive order and frequent mis-steps and that's what we have.
While still in office, Obama was asked about Carrier's relocation to Mexico with the loss of 1400 jobs. His reply was the he didn't have a magic wand. Trump makes some phone calls and the deal is done. Ditto with Ford and a couple of others. Was there more to it than Trump's calls? Very probably, but Trump made it happen - at least partially.
Yes, I want to see the country succeed and I'd like to see Trump do so too.
Hardly worshipping Trump with a fervour unseen since the break up of the Beatles.
Wasn't that the group Paul was in before Wings?
I think Trump's biggest issue at times is that he says what he thinks. Sometimes in life you really have to think about what you say. I have definitely learned that lesson on this for sure!
I think even American liberals and Democrats want the country to succeed but have different views of what that actually means. For example, they'd view overturning Roe v Wade as a step backwards.
Yes, it does bother me. If it happened clearly the reasons why should be made public. Trump can make that happen.
The FBI went very publiccon Hillary before the election. Why did it not do the same for Trump?
That particular investigation originally started with a public complaint that Clinton wasn't complying with the Federal Records Act, and then an email leak fanned the flames. So knowledge of the ensuing investigations was in the public domain, and the FBI didn't have much choice but to keep Congress in the loop when they found tens of thousands more relevant emails.
What Trump is saying is that Obama — probably the FBI in reality — was secretlty tapping calls amongst his circle at more or less the same time as the Weiner emails were discovered. Could the FBI have announced that? Well maybe, but you obviously can't announce you are secretly tapping calls during an investigation.
The FBI boss had no reason to write the letter he did. And he could just as easily have stated Trump was under investigation.
What Trump is saying is that Obama personally ordered his phones to be tapped. As President he knows whether that is true or not.
And now we're all talking about this, rather than about anything Trump is actually doing. Look! A dead cat!
Indeed.
Trump as cover for a quiet Conservative revolution (think Newt's 'Contract for America) is going smoothly
The odd feint and dummy to normality (i.e. his speech to Congress last week) and a house full of dead cats will probably baffle the haters for another few years. Hook, line and sinker comes to mind.
Yes, it does bother me. If it happened clearly the reasons why should be made public. Trump can make that happen.
The FBI went very publiccon Hillary before the election. Why did it not do the same for Trump?
That particular investigation originally started with a public complaint that Clinton wasn't complying with the Federal Records Act, and then an email leak fanned the flames. So knowledge of the ensuing investigations was in the public domain, and the FBI didn't have much choice but to keep Congress in the loop when they found tens of thousands more relevant emails.
What Trump is saying is that Obama — probably the FBI in reality — was secretlty tapping calls amongst his circle at more or less the same time as the Weiner emails were discovered. Could the FBI have announced that? Well maybe, but you obviously can't announce you are secretly tapping calls during an investigation.
The FBI boss had no reason to write the letter he did. And he could just as easily have stated Trump was under investigation.
What Trump is saying is that Obama personally ordered his phones to be tapped. As President he knows whether that is true or not.
And now we're all talking about this, rather than about anything Trump is actually doing. Look! A dead cat!
It was poisoned by someone with an umbrella on Waterloo Bridge.
I expect Scot Conservatives to take seats from the SNP and labour in May. The obsession with another referendum by Nicola will be her downfall as it will be lost
But surely a second referendum won't happen because 'voters across Scotland will have the chance to send a clear message to the SNP that they do not want a second independence referendum, by voting Scottish Conservative and Unionist on 4 May'?
Indeed I suspect that in this year's election there will be a relative swing from SNP to the Tories compared to last time. £10 if you want a bet?
Ruth Davidson, along with presiding over the Conservatives worst ever vote share at a general election, is also the only Tory leader in 22 years to have lost seats at Scottish council elections.
Are you predicting net losses for Scot conservatives in May
No given their low,low base to work with. I find the hagiography of Ruth Davidson rather strange given the series of electoral disaster she presided over before (and during) SLab completely imploded and she picked up the scraps.
A scant 400 votes different in 2015 and there would be no Tory MPs in Scotland.
A scant 400 votes different in 2015 and there would have been two Tory MPs in Scotland.
Personally I'd have liked those 400 votes to have been swapped between the constituencies as I backed the wrong horse in each. There is no way the SNP MP in the borders survives even if the Tories don't surge.
The FBI boss had no reason to write the letter he did. And he could just as easily have stated Trump was under investigation.
What Trump is saying is that Obama personally ordered his phones to be tapped. As President he knows whether that is true or not.
If the FBI had kept quiet about the emails and Clinton had won we'd now be hearing stories about how "the FBI colluded with Clinton" to help her win. There's no good choice for the FBI there, either choice can end up looking bad.
Should the FBI have announced that Trump's circle were under investigation? I don't think so, that was an investigation of current activity, the email investigation was of historic activity. So there is a practical difference that makes it much harder to disclose what they were doing.
Yes, it does bother me. If it happened clearly the reasons why should be made public. Trump can make that happen.
The FBI went very publiccon Hillary before the election. Why did it not do the same for Trump?
That particular investigation originally started with a public complaint that Clinton wasn't complying with the Federal Records Act, and then an email leak fanned the flames. So knowledge of the ensuing investigations was in the public domain, and the FBI didn't have much choice but to keep Congress in the loop when they found tens of thousands more relevant emails.
What Trump is saying is that Obama — probably the FBI in reality — was secretlty tapping calls amongst his circle at more or less the same time as the Weiner emails were discovered. Could the FBI have announced that? Well maybe, but you obviously can't announce you are secretly tapping calls during an investigation.
The FBI boss had no reason to write the letter he did. And he could just as easily have stated Trump was under investigation.
What Trump is saying is that Obama personally ordered his phones to be tapped. As President he knows whether that is true or not.
And now we're all talking about this, rather than about anything Trump is actually doing. Look! A dead cat!
Indeed.
Trump as cover for a quiet Conservative revolution (think Newt's 'Contract for America) is going smoothly
The odd feint and dummy to normality (i.e. his speech to Congress last week) and a house full of dead cats will probably baffle the haters for another few years. Hook, line and sinker comes to mind.
'The haters' really? If we look at Trump's approval, it looks like the majority of Americans are indeed 'haters' then.
With the fiasco regarding the travel ban, Trump having to fire his National Security Advisor, and the trouble with Sessions Trump's first months in office are certainly not going smoothly. Indeed the EO has had to be adjusted in light of the court rulings and has been delayed several times now. On top of that you'd had the paranoia within the administration over leaks. The Trump administration actually really liked the response to the Congress speech and were hoping that it would be the major turn around in terms of the narrative that has surrounded what they've been doing so far. The Sessions story has totally shifted that narrative away.
And that's not forgetting the trouble they are having in regards to Obamacare either!
I feel sorry for them. They are reaping what was sown by others over many years. The only thing that will make Labour relevant again in Scotland is independence.
If SLab was to back independence then, it is fairly self evident to me, that Independence would happen and they would be in prime position to take over from the disintegration of the SNP post independence.
Their Unionism is an amazingly principled stand which is a rarity in this modern, politically cynical world.
That is a thought provoking post.Does SLAB have many voices asking to change this stance ?
YES. The MP for Edinburgh South. The very talented Ian Murray
Has he really? Thought he was a Union man forever and a day.
I feel sorry for them. They are reaping what was sown by others over many years. The only thing that will make Labour relevant again in Scotland is independence.
If SLab was to back independence then, it is fairly self evident to me, that Independence would happen and they would be in prime position to take over from the disintegration of the SNP post independence.
Their Unionism is an amazingly principled stand which is a rarity in this modern, politically cynical world.
2014 Labour may have been in prime position to replace the SNP in an independent Scotland but not anymore.
Any independent nation needs a party of the left and a party of the right that power oscillates between. When the left runs out of money then the right has to come in to take the tough choices needed. 2014 Scotland may have seen power switch between Labour on the left and the SNP filling a vacuum by moving right. Not anymore. An independent Scotland now would see power move between the SNP on the left and the Scottish Conservatives on the right.
SLAB are dead. No flowers.
The SNP holds socialists, social democrats, fiscally very dry right wingers and deep Eurosceptics together in a big, big tent. It cannot possibly continue once independence is achieved, the SNP would explode/implode as party discipline vanishes.
Oh dear - the networks now have photos of Schumer and Pelosi meeting with a Russian ambassador they claim not to have met.
This nonsense is getting out of hand.
Amy Schumer???
If only :-) Chuck probably weighs less.
Isn't she his daughter? Or am I talking crap?
They are second cousins once removed.
That's pretty close.
There's a brilliant line in Scott about someone "riding up to the castle with all the arrogance of a second cousin". Captures the importance of family in the clan structure.
Yes, it does bother me. If it happened clearly the reasons why should be made public. Trump can make that happen.
The FBI went very publiccon Hillary before the election. Why did it not do the same for Trump?
That particular investigation originally started with a public ...
What Trump is saying is that Obama — probably the FBI in reality — was secretlty tapping calls amongst his circle at more or less the same time as the Weiner emails were discovered. Could the FBI have announced that? Well maybe, but you obviously can't announce you are secretly tapping calls during an investigation.
The FBI boss had no reason to write the letter he did. And he could just as easily have stated Trump was under investigation.
What Trump is saying is that Obama personally ordered his phones to be tapped. As President he knows whether that is true or not.
And now we're all talking about this, rather than about anything Trump is actually doing. Look! A dead cat!
Indeed.
Trump as cover for a quiet Conservative revolution (think Newt's 'Contract for America) is going smoothly
The odd feint and dummy to normality (i.e. his speech to Congress last week) and a house full of dead cats will probably baffle the haters for another few years. Hook, line and sinker comes to mind.
'The haters' really? If we look at Trump's approval, it looks like the majority of Americans are indeed 'haters' then.
With the fiasco regarding the travel ban, Trump having to fire his National Security Advisor, and the trouble with Sessions Trump's first months in office are certainly not going smoothly. Indeed the EO has had to be adjusted in light of the court rulings and has been delayed several times now. On top of that you'd had the paranoia within the administration over leaks. The Trump administration actually really liked the response to the Congress speech and were hoping that it would be the major turn around in terms of the narrative that has surrounded what they've been doing so far. The Sessions story has totally shifted that narrative away.
And that's not forgetting the trouble they are having in regards to Obamacare either!
Yes - the haters. Some are opposed to his policies, others are so enraged that they rail against the bluster and opposition to Conservative issues is muffled.
It isn't exactly difficult to understand. Infrastructure spending, tax cuts and conservative justices are the real aim. Immigration changes are not exactly priority number one for the conservatives
I feel sorry for them. They are reaping what was sown by others over many years. The only thing that will make Labour relevant again in Scotland is independence.
If SLab was to back independence then, it is fairly self evident to me, that Independence would happen and they would be in prime position to take over from the disintegration of the SNP post independence.
Their Unionism is an amazingly principled stand which is a rarity in this modern, politically cynical world.
That is a thought provoking post.Does SLAB have many voices asking to change this stance ?
YES. The MP for Edinburgh South. The very talented Ian Murray
Do you agree with him ? I supported Scottish Independence in 2014 and said so on here many times .Was dismayed that the full might of Labour at the time including Gordon Brown was so against.
Labour was and is a British political party. Its constitution makes that very clear. If you support independence, then holding an official position inside it is going to be tricky, to say the least. That said, I was very anti-independence in 2014. Now, I can see how it makes sense. Faced with Corbyn guaranteeing permanent Tory rule in Westminster and Brexit, I can see how breaking away looks attractive. Scotland and England are moving further apart. That's not sustainable.
But as you have been reminding us , Corbyn is on his way out anyway.He is ,therefore, not going to be in a position to 'guarantee permanent Tory rule in Westminster'.
Labour won't win an election under any leader until 2025 at the earliest.
That represents a modification of your previous comment. However, given that Labour's current polling range appears to be 25% - 30% I believe that it is entirely feasible that under a new leader Labour could poll circa 35% in 2020 . That could well be enough to ensure a Hung Parliament.
Labour are very resilient. With the Unions backing them, I agree their vote will come back if they get a sensible leader. Libs will take some share from them, but some from UKIP will come back. Their actual share in 2020? ANyone's guess. I'm going for minimum 25%
Hardly a vote of confidence in your party's "resilience", given that all but a handful of their recent poll ratings have been higher than that? And a 'floor' two points below Labour's worst GE result in living memory.
Oh dear - the networks now have photos of Schumer and Pelosi meeting with a Russian ambassador they claim not to have met.
This nonsense is getting out of hand.
Amy Schumer???
If only :-) Chuck probably weighs less.
Isn't she his daughter? Or am I talking crap?
They are second cousins once removed.
That's pretty close.
There's a brilliant line in Scott about someone "riding up to the castle with all the arrogance of a second cousin". Captures the importance of family in the clan structure.
Scott knowledge worthy of an antiquarian book collector, David!
I'm just sorting through my Scottish stock at present for the Edinburgh book fair at the end of March: http://www.rarebooksedinburgh.com/
I feel sorry for them. They are reaping what was sown by others over many years. The only thing that will make Labour relevant again in Scotland is independence.
If SLab was to back independence then, it is fairly self evident to me, that Independence would happen and they would be in prime position to take over from the disintegration of the SNP post independence.
Their Unionism is an amazingly principled stand which is a rarity in this modern, politically cynical world.
That is a thought provoking post.Does SLAB have many voices asking to change this stance ?
YES. The MP for Edinburgh South. The very talented Ian Murray
Do you agree with him ? I supported Scottish Independence in 2014 and said so on here many times .Was dismayed that the full might of Labour at the time including Gordon Brown was so against.
I didn't support it first time round because in principle I don't like nationalism. (It's the main reason I'm so anti Brexit) but now if I had a vote I'd vote in favour. When the Scots voted in the independence referendum they didn't know they were voting for English (and Welsh) nationalism. Staying in Europe is way more prefereable to being attached to Farage's little Englanders
That's BS for starters. Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen, was definitely under surveillance.
What Obama has given is a very lawyerly answer, and I suspect it means that no US-resident US citizen was ever specifically named in an application for a warrant at the FISA court.
Non-resident US citizens and US citizens through the various loop holes that are used are surveilled. One loop hole is that there only has to be a 51% chance of a target being foreign to allow blanket surveillance, that picks up a lot of US citizens as false positives. There's also a lot of third party surveillance, and collection of data of US citizens who are not the target but have communications with foreign persons who are.
And bear in mind that scooping up meta-data isn't even considered communications interception under US law, so they can happily record the details of every call made without warrant.
One other interpretation is the White House never ordered it, but there are loads of intelligence agencies who potentially could.
It may be a strictly true statement but it is utterly misleading. US citizens do quite routinely have their communications intercepted.
Awlaki was a person of interest long before Obama was elected - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki - so it's pretty likely that Obama never needed to order surveillance (& that's probably true of most subjects of surveillance). He did, of course, order his extra judicial killing, which is a major stain on his presidency, IMO.
Yes, it does bother me. If it happened clearly the reasons why should be made public. Trump can make that happen.
The FBI went very publiccon Hillary before the election. Why did it not do the same for Trump?
That particular investigation originally started with a public complaint that Clinton wasn't complying with the Federal Records Act, and then an email leak fanned the flames. So knowledge of the ensuing investigations was in the public domain, and the FBI didn't have much choice but to keep Congress in the loop when they found tens of thousands more relevant emails.
What Trump is saying is that Obama — probably the FBI in reality — was secretlty tapping calls amongst his circle at more or less the same time as the Weiner emails were discovered. Could the FBI have announced that? Well maybe, but you obviously can't announce you are secretly tapping calls during an investigation.
The FBI boss had no reason to write the letter he did. And he could just as easily have stated Trump was under investigation.
What Trump is saying is that Obama personally ordered his phones to be tapped. As President he knows whether that is true or not.
And now we're all talking about this, rather than about anything Trump is actually doing. Look! A dead cat!
Indeed.
Trump as cover for a quiet Conservative revolution (think Newt's 'Contract for America) is going smoothly
The odd feint and dummy to normality (i.e. his speech to Congress last week) and a house full of dead cats will probably baffle the haters for another few years. Hook, line and sinker comes to mind.
Trump is just such a master. On hearing of the death of a Turkish ambassador, Talleyrand is supposed to have said: "I wonder what he meant by that?"
I feel sorry for them. They are reaping what was sown by others over many years. The only thing that will make Labour relevant again in Scotland is independence.
If SLab was to back independence then, it is fairly self evident to me, that Independence would happen and they would be in prime position to take over from the disintegration of the SNP post independence.
Their Unionism is an amazingly principled stand which is a rarity in this modern, politically cynical world.
That is a thought provoking post.Does SLAB have many voices asking to change this stance ?
YES. The MP for Edinburgh South. The very talented Ian Murray
Has he really? Thought he was a Union man forever and a day.
Let's hope Fillon does toddle off. Still hope Baroin gets it, but Juppe's also green (and Le Pen, to a lesser degree, due to laying Macron/Baroin/Juppe).
Yes - the haters. Some are opposed to his policies, others are so enraged that they rail against the bluster and opposition to Conservative issues is muffled.
It isn't exactly difficult to understand. Infrastructure spending, tax cuts and conservative justices are the real aim. Immigration changes are not exactly priority number one for the conservatives
Some? Nearly all of Trump's critics are opposed to his policies in one way or another. It is just that they have additional concerns about his personality, and temperant alongside that. Opposition to Conservative issues is hardly muffled - the Women's March was in part a march against the administration's plans concerning Planned Parenthood and the desire of many Republicans to seen Rode v Wade overturned. Immigration changes may not be the number one priority, but they were certainly up there for the Republican base who have been passionate about this issue even prior to Trump.
Tax cuts can be reserved; they hardly quantify as something which will engineer some massive revolution that Trump's successor will not be able to overturn. Tax reform, conservative justices are all issues Conservatives care about yes. But immigration, and Obamacare are just as important and so far neither of these things are going well.
Infrastructure spending is not really a Conservative issue. Of all the things that the likes of Paul Ryan et al get excited about all of things I've just listed are way more important to them than infrastructure spending.
Another fine mess from Cameron and Osborne for Theresa to clean up...
Quite.
I don't think any results will be overturned, but does yet more to overshadow the electoral legacy the posh boys are fond off...
Cameron won these seats however. Will be interesting to see if Mrs May can match his achievements. Of course with Corbyn and Farron leading the opposition and ukip a dead duck anything less than he achieved should raise an eyebrow. No?
Oh dear - the networks now have photos of Schumer and Pelosi meeting with a Russian ambassador they claim not to have met.
This nonsense is getting out of hand.
Amy Schumer???
If only :-) Chuck probably weighs less.
Isn't she his daughter? Or am I talking crap?
They are second cousins once removed.
That's pretty close.
There's a brilliant line in Scott about someone "riding up to the castle with all the arrogance of a second cousin". Captures the importance of family in the clan structure.
It can be a problem until one deploys Mrs Jack W from the ramparts ....
But Huddersfield played them off the park - look at the statistics. Two dodgy refereeing decisions and goalkeeping error. I was there and Colback and Anita should have had reds.
Comments
This nonsense is getting out of hand.
What Trump is saying is that Obama personally ordered his phones to be tapped. As President he knows whether that is true or not.
I'm not defending the leadership or the nation, but the levels of paranoia about both seem off the charts right now.
I admire the Dutch for their electoral system. My theory is that the founders realised that there's no government better than no government. And by ensuring that almost all the time between elections is taken up by coalition building discussions, they ensure that government interference in citizens' lives is kept to a minimum.
Amen, brother.
Hhhhmmm ....
The Carrier Deal certainly wasn't what it seemed: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/12/05/trumps-misleading-numbers-about-the-carrier-deal/?utm_term=.2becde32d9bb
I think even American liberals and Democrats want the country to succeed but have different views of what that actually means. For example, they'd view overturning Roe v Wade as a step backwards.
Trump as cover for a quiet Conservative revolution (think Newt's 'Contract for America) is going smoothly
The odd feint and dummy to normality (i.e. his speech to Congress last week) and a house full of dead cats will probably baffle the haters for another few years. Hook, line and sinker comes to mind.
Should the FBI have announced that Trump's circle were under investigation? I don't think so, that was an investigation of current activity, the email investigation was of historic activity. So there is a practical difference that makes it much harder to disclose what they were doing.
With the fiasco regarding the travel ban, Trump having to fire his National Security Advisor, and the trouble with Sessions Trump's first months in office are certainly not going smoothly. Indeed the EO has had to be adjusted in light of the court rulings and has been delayed several times now. On top of that you'd had the paranoia within the administration over leaks. The Trump administration actually really liked the response to the Congress speech and were hoping that it would be the major turn around in terms of the narrative that has surrounded what they've been doing so far. The Sessions story has totally shifted that narrative away.
And that's not forgetting the trouble they are having in regards to Obamacare either!
It isn't exactly difficult to understand. Infrastructure spending, tax cuts and conservative justices are the real aim. Immigration changes are not exactly priority number one for the conservatives
I'm just sorting through my Scottish stock at present for the Edinburgh book fair at the end of March: http://www.rarebooksedinburgh.com/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
- so it's pretty likely that Obama never needed to order surveillance (& that's probably true of most subjects of surveillance).
He did, of course, order his extra judicial killing, which is a major stain on his presidency, IMO.
https://twitter.com/pierrebri/status/838097059311939584
https://twitter.com/pierrebri/status/838097366473375745
On hearing of the death of a Turkish ambassador, Talleyrand is supposed to have said: "I wonder what he meant by that?"
NEW THREAD
https://twitter.com/jgault13/status/838103608197529601
Tax cuts can be reserved; they hardly quantify as something which will engineer some massive revolution that Trump's successor will not be able to overturn. Tax reform, conservative justices are all issues Conservatives care about yes. But immigration, and Obamacare are just as important and so far neither of these things are going well.
Infrastructure spending is not really a Conservative issue. Of all the things that the likes of Paul Ryan et al get excited about all of things I've just listed are way more important to them than infrastructure spending.