Are you an FBI investigator ? Because they are the only one's with access to any "proof" of Trump collusion or other crimes at this point....but to be clear there's a ton of indicators that they have "proof" of serious malfeasance.

There is abundant proof that Trump is a repeatedly convicted and admitted (he plead guilty) fraud, however....which is what I referenced. Not long ago that would have been plenty to disqualify him from running at all. Today, multiple convictions for running fraud schools, selling fraud investments, charitable fraud, etc. aren't even on the list of worst 10 things in his history.

The republican created dossier is another nothingburger.

Once again, since you need things explained multiple times to grasp it, the memo is nothing, it's not evidence, it's a disputed republican provocateur's inflammatory notes based on....nothing according to the Democrats that have read the actual classified evidence, which is not being released. The ridiculous partisan memo probably won't be released either, the DOD is clear it could harm our national interests and law enforcement capabilities, and republicans refuse to allow them to screen for secret information it may contain, so releasing it as planned would intentionally be doing what they're (and you're) irate Clinton could possibly have done unintentionally with her less secure email servers, releasing harmful secret information, this time intentionally and for pure short term political gains and nothing more.
Good luck with that.

Keep in mind, the author of your memo is the same idiot who claimed the recent email and "missing" emails was absolute proof of a secret anti Trump society having taken over at the FBI..until the missing emails were recovered, then he moved on to this next BS ploy.

Here's the rub....
Shep Smith on Fox does some good work, and also some awful work for his propagandist bosses either spreading their lies or remaining silent in their face.
Maddow on MSNBC also does some good work, and also is incredibly biased and slanted and gladly omits or glosses over important facts if they don't fit her narrative.
CNN-I honestly don't know, I don't watch them either, but I gather they are also quite biased and guilty of lies by omission.

Hedges had other options. He was not relegated to RT, he chose to work there. Granted, they may be his most profitable option, they are not his only option.

Is RT a Russian propaganda channel, yes, absolutely. Does that mean Hedges is a Russian propagandist...yes, yes it does. He doesn't have to spread their lies and tow their line to be one, just his presence as an attempt to give their propaganda machine validity means he's a valuable tool they are using to spread lies. Let's see him do a story that accuses Putin or Russia of malfeasance....won't happen. That makes him a tool, even if he never lies for them.

@worm
you do realize that you literally just made @Januari 's point...right?

and i get it...government spending BAD.
government can't do anything blah blah blah...gotcha.

but instead of using the VA as an example of government malfeasance and incompetence,why not use medicare/medicaid?

the VA is run by the DoD and considering that during rumsfelds tenure they lost over a trillion american dollars..POOF..where is that money? nope..can't find it.the pentagon is a mess.

medicare/medicaid is run by the dept of health,which runs on a 3% overhead,has the ability to negotiate with pharmacuticals,and is a system that is already in place AND we all already pay in to.

see,
i am not a fan of obamacare.
i think single payer is the way to go,and the only way to go.
people like to make the comparison of obamacare insurance with car insurance.
forgetting that driving is a privilege...
breathing is not.

so if we take the "profit motive" out of health care.then the majority of people NOT covered would not wait until something dire or life threatening was going down with them to head to the doctor.preventive care has been shown to reduce medical costs dramatically.
see:norway
see:denmark
see:france
see:britain

while i understand many liberals defense of obamacare,i see it only a half measure that can easily be remanded and/or gotten rid of all together.however unlikely that may be.the threat will be enough.

people forget that obamacare was basically written by the heritage foundation in 1992.a right wing think tank and not much was changed (though the pre-existing clause was a positive).

they forget that then Governor mitt romney implemented a similar health care system in massechusetts.which saw steady increases in premiums yearly.

and here is the thing that really eats at me.
it is mandatory.

so here is my prediction:
obamacare is not going anywhere.
while it may be used as apolitical football and health insurance companies will use (and already HAVE used) the threat of leaving due to little or no money (this is a lie) in order to force the government to raise their subsidies.

this is corporate welfare on a scale that over-shadows the bank bailouts of 2007.which at final tally was over 17 trillion.

so obamacare is going nowhere because it is the goose that lays the golden egg,and the gift that keeps on giving.

oh there will threats,and over-politicizing,and wringing of hands,and committee meetings.

but that will be just for show.
we put the fox in charge of the henhouse,and the fox is gonna make damn sure it is going nowhere.

james o'keefe and project veritas are reknowned in their deceptions and their so-called 'gotcha" shenanigans.

and when i say "shenanigans",i mean clever editing to create a false premise that suits a political agenda.in this case:republicans.

o'keefe is not the first to kneel at the altar of political money,and suck the cock of his masters,simply to buy his way into the powered elites outhouse,located on the very edge of the property.(oooh i am being sassy today).

we can look back at the tea party and literally watch dick army,former congressman turned lobbyist (shocker right there),single handedly change the direction of an entire movement to serve the needs and desires of HIS masters,by the creation of "americans for prosperity".

i am not kidding.
go check it out.
when the original tea party started their message was very similar to the occupy wall street movement in 2011,but dick army and his merry band of fuckheads,manipulated the leadership from outrage against:big banks,wall street and the horrendous malfeasance of rumsfelds department of defense (still looking for that 1 trillion dollars of tax payer money)..

to...

big government and the democrats.

it was quite impressive in its simplicity and brilliance.
reprehensible and grotesque,but impressive.

we can even look at the private organization of the DNC,and how they openly attempted to undermine bernie sanders campaign.a man who was running on THEIR ticket for fuck sakes!

i seem to be on a kick today in regards to people who sell their integrity for cash.for access.for influence.

it appears john carpenters "they live" was not just a simple,cheesy,sci-fi movie but rather a documentary.

"i have come here to kick ass,and chew bubble gum.and i am all out of bubble gum".
rowdy randy piper (rip)

@newtboy
i think you are being a tad over-zealous in your commentary.
now you know i agree with you on pretty much all aspects of police:brutality,malfeasance,hubris,fascism etc etc..

but we both realize that for the majority of police officers it is a job,and one they take seriously.statistically this is just a plain fact.

so i am struggling to understand your rage induced commentary directed toward a cop who is simply saying "please,comply".

that is pretty sound advice when dealing with an agent of the state who is not only authorized to use physical force,but carries a gun.

i found his advice pretty non-controversial.

your obvious points non-withstanding,because your points are accurate and have caused incredible misery,but his advice is also just as sound,and if it could deter even just one police beating.wouldn't that be worth it?

i am telling ya man,izzo is a pretty straight up guy for a cop,and he addresses pretty much every point you brought up on his channel.i know some of those points he makes you will disagree with,because i disagreed,but this man will surprise you on a bunch of points.i know he surprised me.

here is a video of him talking about his impending termination.he knew it was coming because he exposed corruption in his precinct:
https://youtu.be/-4TpcIPKj_E
*edit:i should post this video next round,give it a watch newt.

he has one video where he talks about quotas,and the reason why they are supposedly "non-existent".they do not call them quotas,but they are penalized if they give out too many warnings,or write a lower cost infraction.

trust me man,put aside your cop hate and check this dude out.you can still disagree,but he does give a solid representation of a cops perspective.

Very true, which is why I was glad she asked whether anyone in charge of compliance had been fired. However, her point about his paying back the money is pertinent, as he has stated repeatedly that he "takes full responsibility." I don't feel one can claim to both take full responsibility and personally suffer none of the consequences.

While cross-selling is absolutely legal, managers at a high level should be savvy enough about how people behave to realize that if low-level employees are heavily incentivized to sell, while also being punished for not selling enough, then they're going to get creative about how they do it. That should absolutely lead to careful monitoring of any newly-opened accounts to ensure they're entirely legitimate. Without that compliance structure in place, it's inevitable that fraud is going to happen. Human nature makes it very easy to predict.

This is without even getting into the allegations that whistle-blowers who made serious efforts to inform upper-level management about the malfeasance were disregarded and subsequently fired.

Isn't there at least one State where it is illegal (well, just not allowed really) to refuse legal counsel after arrest? Or am I disremembering? I seem to remember the instances of questionable plea bargins and confessions were almost non-existent, as well as limited cases of police post-arrest malfeasance...

No, I mentioned those few officers that had not seen the criminal action (and so not ignored it), they are just such a tiny minority that they are statistically insignificant. I gave them...and the non-corrupt forces an incredibly generous 10%, even though I believe the true measure is closer to <2%. I have yet to see an independent investigation of any police force that failed to find rampant criminal behavior force wide. I conceded that they likely do exist...somewhere...but they have yet to show themselves, and appear to be quite endangered if not extinct.
Whistleblowers do show up, but in such tiny numbers compared to total law enforcement that they statistically don't exist at all.
I understand that's your position, I just disagree. Ben Franklin was talking about private citizens VS law enforcement, and you have twisted it backwards. Those IN law enforcement have a higher duty to be honest, non-violent, non-criminals. Do you not agree? And please understand no one has suggested putting them all in prison based on a presumption of guilt...which is what Ben Franklin was talking about...the court of public opinion is a different matter. Also, in practice, assuming that all law enforcement is 'bad' and are untrustworthy liars actually lets far more innocent 'escape suffering', since they are the one's making the (often enough, false) charges. Just something to think about.

OK, let me try another tact. Do you think it's OK to put all members of a mafia crime family in prison, even though some may have done little more than honest accounting work? Well, I'm not suggesting prison, or even replacement, just meaningful, independent oversight EDIT:with real teeth. While I would LIKE to replace all officers (including the 'good' ones, let them all re-apply with stricter standards) and start fresh, I do see that that's not in any way reasonable or feasible...the best I can hope for is a change in behavior and a change in how we treat them...to one of zero tolerance for any professional malfeasance.
OK, once again, there is a statistically insignificant population of law enforcement that is totally 'pure' and not criminal. They exist. Because law enforcement as a group has become SO corrupt, they will be lumped in with the rest in public opinion until they prove themselves. There comes a point when the presumption of innocence is so damaged by a particular group of like minded individuals (which excludes by race, as a race is not 'like minded') that it no longer makes sense....and I'm far past that point. I now presume they are all trained liars (and I contend that's true, all of them, 100%, it's part of the job, and another way they're 'bad', but that's another discussion altogether) and that they'll lie to and about anyone they come in contact with. It's a terrible presumption to have to make about a group of people, but the only logical one to make since the alternative so overwhelmingly often leads to severe suffering for the innocent.

Your video, Frosted Flakes Commercial -- Police Malfeasance, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

She keeps asking how I would feel, as a white person... Quite honestly, I wouldn't give a flying fuck, because I'm not part of the "sensitive precious flower"/P.C. Police club. Dressing up as a particular group or race or nationality is only seen as offensive in countries such as the US (and others of course) where this sense of professional-victimhood/offended is becoming way too common.

Stop projecting malfeasance onto the actions of others.

Also... gentrification is a socio-economic problem, not a racial one. Poor white families are also affected by it. The emphasis is on POOR, not white or black or whatever.

you had me until "i am glad the kid is dead".

you appear to be fighting a battle based on dissimilar distinctions.
you point out (rightly in my opinion) that there is evidence mike brown went for officer wilsons gun.while there is contradictory eye-witness accounts in that regard,if it had proven true,wilson would have been justified.

but...

this has zero to do with the evidence presented in this video.
which is exactly what people here on this thread have been trying to point out to you and you keep ignoring.either willingly or otherwise.

i do not understand conservatives such as yourself.you seem to adore the rule of law,but only when it is subservient to your own prejudices.

so let us break this down a bit.
if it were proven in a court of law that mike brown DID go for officer wilsons gun (which is possible).then under the current federal law wilson would be justified in this particular shooting.

then WHY did the D.A and A.D.A so obviously manipulate the grand jury?
why did they sabotage their OWN grand jury?
there are only two possibilities:
both the D.A and A.D.A are a level of epic incompetence,as to justify an immediate termination,OR their malfeasance,manipulations and LYING were intentional.

they never truly sought and indictment but rather a no-indict.which is a perversion of the system and goes against the basic principles of due process,equality and justice.

and now we will never know and neither do you bob.
this will never see the inside of a court and the rule of law has been raped by these two district attorneys.

so you can armchair lawyer all you like.it is meaningless in a system that has been so thoroughly corrupted and you cheer like a 12 yr old tween at a beiber concert.

glad someone is dead?
you should feel shame not pride.
a boy is dead and the system has been perverted.

there is nothing to be proud of...nothing.

And what if the law says that you may not talk about certain subjects, that you may not say anything within 10 feet of a political figure, or that you may not investigate state malfeasance? In these hypotheticals, which takes priority, the law or your human rights?

Remember, the constitution does not grant you these rights, they are inherent in you. The constitution forbids the government from passing any law which abridges your rights, but it certainly doesn't stop them from trying (and sometimes succeeding). This means there are necessarily cases where you must use speech to break the law when it is specifically designed to stop you from exercising your rights.

@skinnydaddy1
the ignorance of your commentary is staggering.
it reveals a total lack of understanding in regards to:history,the fourth estate and the importance of whistleblowers.

you state that he betrayed an oath.
but what was that oath in regards to?
the government? or the citizens and constitution of the united states?

manning has stated quite clearly he felt the american people needed to know what was being perpetrated in their names.

he honored his oath.

as for HOW he released that information i disagree with as well.he should not have just dumped massive amounts of data,unlike snowden who vetted the information,manning just dumped it.

he gave this information to wikileaks.
a notorious and well-known site for whistleblowers to retain anonymity.
your accusation that this site "lies" is unfounded and has no basis in truth.

maybe in your mind wikileaks lies but that is speculation and conjecture.better known as "wishful thinking".

which brings me to my next point in regards to your willfully ignorant commentary.
you state:
"He gave information to a a group of people that used it to lie and put people at risk for nothing."

and yet in your ad hominem swipe at @Asmo you state:
"What secret did he give away that was damning to the US government? Oh thats right Nothing Other than information that gave away procedures on how informants were handled and oh! some of their names."

well?
which one is it?
were people put at risk or werent they?

you make an argument in one comment where manning is a traitor and had put people lives at risk and in your very NEXT commentary you state that nothing of value was revealed.

you literally negated your first position by YOUR OWN COMMENTARY.

you postulated the our opinion of our government is irrelevant.
i totally agree.
our opinion of our government is irrelevant in these matters.

the fourth estate was put in place to be the watchdog of the powerful.
it is VITAL to this estate that they be able to glean information on the inner workings of governmental processes.for this to work whistleblowers who uncover government malfeasance be allowed to reveal the glitches in the system.

a government by the people for the people should be informed on the goings on of a government enacting policies in THEIR name.

manning saw a glitch in the system and revealed some of the working of our government and by YOUR OWN COMMENTARY,did not reveal anything of significant value.

manning stood up to the most powerful institution on the planet and has suffered three years in prison (wheres the speedy trial?).has been sleep deprived,forced nudity and been subjected to loud music for hours on end (all forms of torture).

he has suffered all this because he felt the american people had the right to know.

manning has shown a courage and a set of balls that has become painfully obvious you do not own.

manning is not only a hero but has a brass set.

@Confucius

thank you so very much for taking the time to clarify your position.
but i think we are in a fundamental disagreement.
and here is why:

1.manning approached wikileaks.not the other way around.
2.is manning a traitor or patriot? i guess it depends on the perspective.
but manning was quite clear his reasons behind revealing those documents and none of those reasons were of being naive' or subverted by a third party.

when you consider the oath of military responsibility,an i oath i took over 25 years ago,the line that stands out is "to protect from enemies both foreign and domestic".
could those documents be seen as subverting the american people?
and if so,would that not make revealing those documents a patriotic act?

again,perspective and i guess we disagree.

conversely, if we use your premise then we would have to view this man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg
as a traitor.
now the 70,000 plus documents HE revealed exposed the gulf of tonkin AND extremely sensitive data concerning the vietnam war.i would go as far to say that without this mans courage (yes..courage) to expose the lies of our government,vietnam may have lasted for a much longer time.ellisberg fascillitated the beginning of the end of the vietnam war

the documents manning revealed just left the american government red faced and embarrassed but nothing of strategic value.ellisberg on the other hand revealed much MUCH more.

traitor or patriot? by your definition:traitor and a far worse one than manning.

and on that we disagree.

what we agree on is that governments lie.
we are in unison on this point but we diverge on how to deal with the situation.

you suggest to work within the bounds of journalism or becoming a politician.
now who is being the naive one?
this implies that the 4th estate is in perfect functioning order and that politicians are informed on all matters.

i submit that neither is the case.
a corporate run new media which engages mainly in sensationalism and hyperbolic opinion rhetoric and a legislature that is mostly subserviant to their financial backers( basically wall street) are not the institutions to tackle and uncover government malfeasance and outright lies.

they have been corrupted.see:iraq war

so i find it disturbing when the government hi-jacks 200 ap reporters emails and phone records.

or when a low level private reveals low level ambassador documents.

or my government's justice department prosecutes SIX people under the espionage act but not ONE indictment concerning wall street.

the message is clear:we are the US government.fuck with us and we will fuck you up.citizen or non-citizen.
there will be no journalism.
there will be no leaking of anything.
sit down and shut up.

or we will ruin you.

government by the people for the people right?

@Confucius
maybe i am reading your comment wrong.
i feel this is important because manning had the courage to expose the hypocrisy and malfeasance of the state department.

i feel this is important because it brings to light how the obama administration has used the espionage act 6 times.which is more than any other administration combined in the 100 yrs of precedent.

my hope is that this trial will illuminate the absolute hypocrisy being practiced by an administration that speaks of liberties and constitutional rights but in actuality does everything within its power to squash those very rights it pretends to champion.

so..yeah.while it may be sad it is very important.

@lantern53 i dont understand you man.
you profess to be all about smaller government and more liberty but are absolutely fine with an authoritarian governmental style.
government social programs are bad but fascism is ok?

you are a walking contradiction my friend.