[cherdano]

rmnka447, on 2017-May-21, 13:49, said:

The donation to the Clinton Foundation to worry about would have the one the Russians made to get access to US uranium. Proof of a clear cut quid pro quo (Clinton Foundation donation for approval by Sec. Clinton of the uranium sale -- clear bribery) held by the Russians would have seriously compromised her as President.

You know, I agree that these donations raise ethical questions, and that the Uranium deal illustrates them well. But with the above paragraph you just overplay your hand, probably because you've read too much BS about it. Instead of making valid criticism, you earn a well-deserved "False" from snopes.

http://www.snopes.co...um-russia-deal/
https://www.nytimes....um-company.html

Just try to be a little more serious with your arguments, and you'll be taken more seriously.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-May-21, 17:17, said:

The Atlantic gets it:


https://www.theatlan...a-islam/527547/

So, what do you think he should have said? What tone should he have taken? Perhaps he should not have visited Saudi Arabia at all? Let the Saudis buy their 110 billion dollars of arms from Europe or Russia?

[Winstonm]

And this can't be anything like Clinton's non-profit foundation.

Quote

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are donating $100 million to a women’s empowerment fund proposed by Ivanka Trump, President Donald Trump’s elder daughter and a senior White House adviser.

[ldrews]

Somebody is following through on their promises: http://www.reuters.c...h-idUSKCN18F13T

[barmar]

jogs, on 2017-May-21, 06:10, said:

Obama told the UK if they voted for Brexit the US would put UK on the bottom of the trading queue.
Trump said if the EU punishes the UK for Brexit, the US would put UK on top of the trading queue.

Yet the UK loves Obama and hates Trump. Makes no sense to me.

Maybe trade policy isn't the only criterion that matters to people.

[Zelandakh]

RedSpawn, on 2017-May-20, 15:08, said:

How did I exaggerate the problem?

Zelandakh, on 2017-May-19, 09:47, said:

OK, I have read a little further and the real amount missing is supposedly.....$62.4 billion.

[Zelandakh]

jogs, on 2017-May-21, 06:10, said:

Yet the UK loves Obama and hates Trump. Makes no sense to me.

Believe it or not, the UK has some experience of dealing with ultra-right-wing authoritarian types. Plus there was all that nonsense about GCHQ spying on him, which was just seen as bizarre across The Pond. Then there is the thought that Brits seem to be less gullible than the average red state voter and view the crap he spouts with a degree of skepticism sadly lacking amongst his base. Mostly though, it is that Brits are less openly racist or islamophobic than wide swathes of the USA and do not think that someone that openly espouses such values is a good idea for the position of POTUS.

[Winstonm]

Test. Whose Saudi Arabia speech contained this quote?

Quote

"This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations. This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life, and decent people of all religions who seek to protect it."

A. President Obama
B. President Trump

[Zelandakh]

Winstonm, on 2017-May-22, 06:52, said:

Test. Whose Saudi Arabia speech contained this quote?

Here's the longer bullet-point version from one of Britain's most right-winged major newspapers.

[RedSpawn]

y66, on 2017-May-20, 17:32, said:

From Donald Trump, Establishment Sellout by Ross Douthat:

This is a very provocative and interesting article. I am still in awe of how it responds to some of the very things I have been asserting in the Water Cooler on or about May 20th. Is Ross Douthat clairvoyant?

Wow!

[RedSpawn]

Zelandakh, on 2017-May-19, 09:47, said:

OK, I have read a little further and the real amount missing is supposedly.....$62.4 billion. That is still an unacceptably large number but something a little different from the $6.5 trillion headline.

And now.....back to your regularly scheduled Trump show. How about that special counsel, eh?

HOLD UP! WAIT A MINUTE! STOP THE PRESSES!

I need a link followed with a page # of a credible source where you distilled this problem down from $6.5 trillion in unsupported accounting adjustments to just a mere $62.4 billion error.

If that were the case, the auditors would not issue a disclaimer of opinion on the entire consolidated US government financial statements. $62.4 billion is not as material as $6.5 trillion in unsupported accounting adjustments.

Thanks.

[RedSpawn]

ldrews, on 2017-May-21, 19:27, said:

So, what do you think he should have said? What tone should he have taken? Perhaps he should not have visited Saudi Arabia at all? Let the Saudis buy their 110 billion dollars of arms from Europe or Russia?

Trump is handling the people's business in Saudi Arabia by getting jobs over here for the Air Defense Industry.

He is a businessman and a Marketing guru and we need that $100 billion contract so we have inside knowledge of the military capabilities the Saudis are buying from us.

It's a win-win situation.

[Zelandakh]

RedSpawn, on 2017-May-22, 07:53, said:

I need a link followed with a page # of a credible source where you distilled this problem down from $6.5 trillion in unsupported accounting adjustments to just a mere $62.4 billion error.

It comes from an official email statement and is reported, inter alia, by Reuters.

Quote

In an e-mailed statement, a spokesman said the Army “remains committed to asserting audit readiness” by the deadline and is taking steps to root out the problems.

The spokesman downplayed the significance of the improper changes, which he said net out to $62.4 billion. “Though there is a high number of adjustments, we believe the financial statement information is more accurate than implied in this report,” he said.

The $6.5 trillion figure is correct in as much as that is the total number of adjustments made without supporting evidence as to their validity. But as already mentioned, the vast majority of this figure is the same discrepancy being adjusted across multiple accounts and therefore being counted many times over. This is not the same as the actual amount of cash unaccounted for. That figure is the $62.4 billion. That it surprises you that government figures should be misreported for political reasons on the other hand is priceless!

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-May-20, 16:11, said:

umbering added:


CBS explains the Special Cousel:


It is clear the Special Counsel is not just window dressing for appearance sake. He is for all purposes - the Justice Department in regards to his tasked duties.

1) The Clinton investigation was handled by the FBI so it was a criminal investigation that found no reason to bring charges.
2) No, the Trump investigation is early. I agree that Mueller was brought in to fend off any charges of partisanship - to a point. But Mueller is not tasked with looking into counter-intelligence matters nor to report to the American people those things that happened that were not technically criminal but should be known for a democracy to function - such as attempts at back channel communications link to Putin. Mueller was brought in because it appeared the Justice Department could not on its own conduct an investigation unencumbered by partisanship.
3) Here, you are clearly wrong. Sources have all sorts of very good reasons for not having their names published. The thing that matters is the integrity of the reporters and editors and news organization releasing the information gathered. I know of no - zero - reliable news organizations that accept single source stories as reliable. Stories require at least two confirmations and usually more. In the Trump case, competing news organizations have confirmed almost all of the initial reports through their own sources. Keep in mind, once a story leaks the first time and is in the newspapers, there is much less pressure on sources to continue to deny the story.

But, we of little faith do not believe Trump. We think he is corrupt and incompetent. So I am biased against him and his administration.

Very well explained, but it gets worse and worse.

http://www.npr.org/2...gence-committee

Comey served as the seventh Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from September 2013 until May 2017. Comey was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York from January 2002 to December 2003, and subsequently the United States Deputy Attorney General from December 2003 to August 2005.

He is a consummate lawyer.

Comey knew he was out the door when Trump came in, so his keeping contemporaneous notes on (non-approved FBI forms) of his conversations with Trump were an "insurance policy" when and if he files a "wrongful termination" lawsuit against the United States government. He is a LAWYER. Of course, he knows what he is doing about keeping a trail of evidence for a future court case where he will be the plaintiff.

His testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee is just more kabuki theater to keep some of the key senators away from handling the people's business (debating and passing bills) in the Senate.

[Cyberyeti]

RedSpawn, on 2017-May-22, 07:59, said:

Trump is handling the people's business in Saudi Arabia by getting jobs over here for the Air Defense Industry.

He is a businessman and a Marketing guru and we need that $100 billion contract so we have inside knowledge of the military capabilities the Saudis are buying from us.

It's a win-win situation.

You need it so the Saudis can bomb Yemeni children - how ethical, what the Saudis are up to is despicable, and they use their money to shut the UN up.

[RedSpawn]

Zelandakh, on 2017-May-22, 08:29, said:

It comes from an official email statement and is reported, inter alia, by Reuters.


The $6.5 trillion figure is correct in as much as that is the total number of adjustments made without supporting evidence as to their validity. But as already mentioned, the vast majority of this figure is the same discrepancy being adjusted across multiple accounts and therefore being counted many times over. This is not the same as the actual amount of cash unaccounted for. That figure is the $62.4 billion. That it surprises you that government figures should be misreported for political reasons on the other hand is priceless!

The Army is downplaying the number to $62.4 billion because they know it is a hot mess. If the financial statements the DoD prepared were indeed reliable, the internal auditors would not render a disclaimer of opinion for the entire US government financial statements and then specifically reference significant MATERIAL weaknesses in the DoD as the primary concern.

The internal auditors would instead issue a qualified auditor's opinion saying, EXCEPT FOR.... But they aren't doing that, they are not buying the DoD's financial statements as being transparent or reliable or representative of the financial condition of the Department of Defense.

With respect to the $6.5 trillion in unsupported accounting adjustments, true enough, it doesn't have to be ALL cash, it could be (1) inventory (2) accounts receivable (3) materials and supplies (4) property, plant, and equipment or (5) intragovernmental transfers to other U.S. departments or agencies. But if the military doesn't have enough detailed records to know which of these 5 it could be and by how much, then the financial statements are "double speak" and do not conform to generally accepted government accounting standards.

The DoD can't take a physical inventory of its property, plant, and equipment because it doesn't really have a detailed, reliable listing of its property, plant, and equipment...this is still SERIOUSLY SCARY STUFF for an organization as large as the DoD.

The funny thing is the DoD simply doesn't know how big the problem is because it is not politically expedient to get to the bottom of this. What organization really wants to resolve its own gross negligence?

If the DoD knew precisely how big the problem was, the PLUG FACTOR would have been resolved well after 2002 and the internal auditors would have reviewed the supporting documentation and signed off on the financials with something better than a disclaimer of opinion.

However, here we are 15 years later and the DoD is still giving us the same old tired lines about "legacy" computer systems and yet we have some of the best computer minds in the State of Washington who could be contracted to resolve this problem in less than 2 years. IF that was just the problem. . . .

I will say again, if any corporation had to make unsupported accounting adjustments to the tune of $2.3 trillion to $6.5 trillion and did this over a 15 year time span, Wall Street would destroy the corporation's stock and the U.S. government would shut down the accounting firm who gave a "clean" audit report (as the case with Enron and Arthur Andersen LLP accounting firm).

[kenberg]

I have been off in Minnesota, first visiting childhood haunts in the Twin Cities and then visiting a couple of friends from my early (as far back as elementary school) days. They live in retirement up north. I did not take a computer, I used my cell as little as possible and rarely watched tv. Well, now I am back. The WC has survived my neglect, I see.

A couple of thoughts.

I have been reading the report on the first hundred days of news coverage that was mentioned earlier by redspawn. As Diana said, it is interesting. The following was an amusing jolt:

Quote

Until the early 1960s, news coverage of national politics divided rather evenly between Congress and the president.[11] That situation began to shift in 1963, the year that the broadcast television networks expanded their evening newscasts to 30 minutes and hired the correspondents and camera crews needed to produce picture-driven news.

This fits right in with my vacation, where much time was spent recalling life from the middle of the last century.

The link above provides a further link to an interview with the author of the paper.

I also found the Douthat article from the Y66 post interesting.


My trip was for fun, not for political research, but I have an observation or two. My childhood home was a half block from a playground, a half block in the other direction from the elementary school. We visited the playground, and I struck up a conversation with a woman who was there with her two pre-school kids while her two others were at school. It felt as if I had stepped back into the 1940s. Friendly, family oriented, easy going. We also visited a neighborhood bar that my parents took me to when I was too young to be left at home, and then the bowling alley downstairs from the bar, where i used to set pins. [Becky was game for all of this and I think got a kick out of it. We did a similar thing a year or so back with some of her childhood places.] Some changes, but remarkably little. For example, there is still an outdoor skating rink in the winter, but no longer a hockey rink. Up north, we stayed at the Wigwam Motel, on a lake (everything is on a lake in Minnesota), $69 a night. The Chicken Shack down the road served a fine breakfast, and there were many many customers. Do I have a point? Maybe. I did not encounter all off these angry people we keep hearing about. The guy at the Wigwam talked about the warm winter and the cancellations from ice fishing enthusiasts, but he didn't get around to linking it to politics, one way or the other. I am not sure what, if anything, to make of all this but we keep hearing of a re-enactment of the French Revolution. I wasn't seeing it.


Ten days away from Trump felt pretty good.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-May-21, 20:15, said:

And this can't be anything like Clinton's non-profit foundation.

https://www.yahoo.co...-180023756.html

https://www.washingt...m=.628afe7a1d01

I think the White House needs additional lawyers to sort through these ethical dilemmas BEFORE they put their foot in their mouth as they did here.

Quote

Even more explicitly, the Office of Government Ethics rules, former Republican ethics counsel Richard Painter tells me, “prohibit use of official position to solicit for ANY charity or other private entity.” The OGE guidelines specifically state: “Executive branch employees are subject to restrictions on the gifts that they may accept from sources outside the Government. Unless an exception applies, executive branch employees may not accept gifts that are given because of their official positions or that come from certain interested sources.” The rationale for this is obvious (except to Trump). “Even if a gift is from a person or organization that has no official dealings with the employee’s agency, accepting a gift offered because of the employee’s official position may create an appearance of using public office for private gain,” the OGE guidelines explain. “Moreover, if an employee receives a payment from an outside source in some circumstances, the public may believe that the employee is serving two masters or is distracted by outside activities.”

Ugh! This is not just a "substance" versus "form" issue. It has the appearance that Ivanka used her position in government to help raise funds for a noble charity that will be funded through the World Bank. And just because we have moved from a fund that Ivanka would have direct control over to a World Bank fund that she wouldn't, doesn't really change the underlying concern that she could have used her position as a federal employee (senior White House adviser) to obtain these funds in the first place. Would she have won this contribution from Saudi Arabia and UAE if she weren't the daughter of the President of the United States? This is oh, so messy!

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2017-May-22, 07:18, said:

Here's the longer bullet-point version from one of Britain's most right-winged major newspapers.

Trump sounds like a spokesperson for the BBB of Saudi Arabia.

[Winstonm]

This makes the most sense to me of where all this is heading.

Quote

Trump’s Russia Scandal Is Becoming a Corruption Scandal
....All this implies that the probe is scrutinizing the financial aspects of Trump’s business, which is a family operation. While some Trump advisers opposed the firing of Comey, Kushner reportedly advocated for it. That fact may seem strange if one thinks of Kushner as a voice of pragmatism. But it is easier to understand if you think of him as a figure sitting near the heart of a financial scandal, who harbors a strong interest in suppressing the investigation....

That would certainly explain why Trump is so freaked out about the investigation.