Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

[laklak]

Russian hackers "penetrated" several voter registration rolls? Shock! Horror! THEY ELECTED TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!

Voter rolls are public records. You can pay a nominal fee in most states and get an electronic copy of the whole fucking thing. In some states access is restricted, usually to residents and/or candidates from that state, but it hardly requires Deep Dark Web hacking skills to get the information.

And once you get it, what are you going to use it for? How are you going to fix an election because you know the party affiliation and address of each voter?

[Forty Two]

Well, some have an anti-Trump agenda, as per the FBI Agents, Strzos and Page, in their little wing-ding affair talking about how Hillary just has to win, and that it was their mission and obligation to make sure Trump loses. That's fairly antitrump, and they haven't been fired. They just had new news out there about newly discovered texts where those two were supplying a memo to Comey so Comey could report to Obama, because "POTUS wants to know everything we're doing..." on the investigations.

Do you think they should have been fired, Forty Two? If so, what policy of the FBI do you think they violated?

The point was only that they are rabidly anti-Trump. I don't know if they did anything that's a terminable offense. They sure seemed to be allowing their political preferences impact their jobs, at least based on the texts. But, any investigation in that regard would need more investigation.

Then why did you mention them being fired? Do you think they should have been fired?

Dude, I explained this. I mentioned them not being fired, because that means THEY ARE STILL THERE and the suggestion to me was that it would be ridiculous to think that the DOJ (of which the FBI is a part) is "anti-Trump." Well, we have two examples of prominent persons actually involved in the Clinton and Trump investigations who were, in fact, rabidly antitrump and they are still there. So, yes, some of those agencies appear to be rabidly anti-trump. I don't expect Strzos and Page to be the only ones, since their texts allude to others who were and are of the same mind.

I also said flat out already that I don't know if they should be fired, because that would require more information about when agents should or should not be fired. If Strzos changed the language of the clinton report from gross negligence to extreme carelessness to further his goal that "Clinton just has to be elected" and how "we" can't let Trump get elected, then I sure think it deserves a solid look.

It doesn't tell you anything you want to hear, so you find excuses to dismiss the information it contains.

It contains no information. Someone who, based on the description, does not have personal knowledge of the facts being reported tells the reporter something vague (they may have identified person, who may or may not be prosecuted). What's the import of that? Do we even know from the information in the article whether that's true? How can we? The reporter is talking to someone who may not be in a position to know.

So you acknowledge that in that article you learned of possible indictments of Russian government figures responsible for hacking the DNC. You choose to dismiss that information because you don't accept that the Russians hacked the DNC despite private experts and government intelligence agencies stating unequivocally that it happened, and because you don't like it when reporters use anonymous sources.

I learned only that someone who may or may not actually know what they're talking about says that there may be certgain figures responsible for the hacking that may or may not be indicted. I choose to accept that information for what it is: a vague reference that to date is not corroborated at all. All the articles I've found about this issue refer back to the article posted here and the "persons familiar with the investigation." That's it. Nothing else.

There has certainly not been an "unequivocal" statement that "it happened." Every statement by experts and intelligence was full of equivocation. The government intelligence, especially, was filled with equivocation about how they know it was the Russians - nothing concrete -- it's motive, it's opportunity, and it's actions which appear "consistent with" hackers that have been "linked" to Russia. To call that "unequivocal" is just plain wrong. It's been nothing but equivocal.

It's not that I don't "like it" when reporters use anonymous sources. I've posted, quite clearly, above, how anonymous sources are supposed to be used - published policies by the very same news outlets that are violating their own confidential source policies. I've published very neutral persons expressing concerns about the misuse and overuse of anonymous sources, coming from a perspective not of politics but of journalistic integrity. You're not, apparently, bothering to read any of it.

[Forty Two]

Aye L'Emmy, but people with political opinions can never be trusted to be impartial nor can they be expected to be diligent and conscientious in the discharging of their responsibilities - because they're always looking to manipulate situations to make difficulties in the lives of those whom they oppose.

Never? Who said that? However, think a minute. If Strzos and Page were exchanging texts about how much they hated Hillary and thought they had a duty to see to it that she did not get elected, and that Trump just "had to win," would you not find it at least "concerning" that they changed language in a report that removes Trump from a possible criminal prosecution for an offense, and then Strzos was placed in a key role in an investigation of allegations against Clinton?

Surely you can see that this is a bit more than just "having a political opinion?" Saying "I'm a Democrat" or "I'm prochoice" or "I'm voting Hillary/Trump" - those are political opinions. Discussing how a candidate cannot be allowed to win, and that there should be an "insurance policy" in the federal law enforcement department against such a victory, and how the candidate you support just "has to win" -- while you're on two investigations - each involving both said candidates -- AND you change language from "gross negligence" to "extreme carelessness" (thus, negating criminal responsibility) is a tad bit more than just "having a political opinion....

[Forty Two]

Big Russian delegation anticipated for prayer breakfast in Washington
By Tim Lister, Mary Ilyushina and Frederik Pleitgen, CNN

A. Larry Ross, a spokesman at the Fellowship Foundation, told CNN, "I can confirm that this year, the Breakfast will be attended by more than 3,800 individuals representing over 130 countries and territories around the world. Approximately 55 are coming from Russia, including a group of 35 young professionals -- millennial doctors, lawyers and business leaders in their 20s and 30s -- invited out of a context of relationship and faith."

Oh..... my...... goooooodddd!!!!!

Did you know that Vladimir Putin himself,
and his entire Russian delegation and support staff were allowed into the United States in September 2015????? Putin himself was actually given a "platform" here in the US???

Way back then, though - that was in the better days when the notion of Russia being a foreign policy concern was met with laughter from Democrats, who said - what was it now? Oh, yes, "The 1980s called, and they want your foreign policy back."

"The cold war has been over for 20 years!"



This was all while the intelligence community was fully aware of Russia's "longstanding desire to undermine" the US's democratic processes.

[Brian Peacock]

Aye L'Emmy, but people with political opinions can never be trusted to be impartial nor can they be expected to be diligent and conscientious in the discharging of their responsibilities - because they're always looking to manipulate situations to make difficulties in the lives of those whom they oppose.

Never? Who said that? However, think a minute. If Strzos and Page were exchanging texts about how much they hated Hillary and thought they had a duty to see to it that she did not get elected, and that Trump just "had to win," would you not find it at least "concerning" that they changed language in a report that removes Trump from a possible criminal prosecution for an offense, and then Strzos was placed in a key role in an investigation of allegations against Clinton?

Surely you can see that this is a bit more than just "having a political opinion?" Saying "I'm a Democrat" or "I'm prochoice" or "I'm voting Hillary/Trump" - those are political opinions. Discussing how a candidate cannot be allowed to win, and that there should be an "insurance policy" in the federal law enforcement department against such a victory, and how the candidate you support just "has to win" -- while you're on two investigations - each involving both said candidates -- AND you change language from "gross negligence" to "extreme carelessness" (thus, negating criminal responsibility) is a tad bit more than just "having a political opinion....

That's your contention, you support it. I do wish you'd drop this silly "Yeah, but Hillary..." nonsense - my opinion and criticism of the current administration is not dependent on, nor rooted in, my presumed fondness for Hillary or the Democrat Party. To have formed a low opinion of Trump and/or to criticise his actions or ideas is not a function of Democrat Party affiliation. To continue to imply that objectors and criticisers are fundamentally operating to a de facto double-standard is disingenuous, to say the least.

The 'You're either with us or agin us" mentality is proving toxic to the discovery of the truth here - so toxic in fact that even if the Congressional, Senatorial, and FBI investigations end up showing clear connections between the Trump campaign and Russia the fervently partisan will still be emboldened by the ramped-up 'them and us' rhetoric to invoke conspiracy theories about how it's all a put up job by Clinton, the DNC, the FBI, the Justice Dept, and whoever else they can think of - not to mention that the Nunes memo clearly demonstrates that conspiracy theories now comprise mainstream Republican thinking. This 'The other lot have fixed it' toxicity rubs both ways you know, and will surely bubble up even if the investigations exonerate Trump and/or his campaign team and associated hangers-on.

Do you think the FBI is institutionally and/or systematically corrupt and biased, or only when it comes to Trump? Do you think their work against organised crime and terrorist groups is similarly compromised, such that they can no longer be relied upon to be diligently conscientious and dispassionately impartial in the discharging of their responsibilities to the American people and the Constitution of the United States? If the FBI, Justice Dept and the FISA court can be so severely and, apparently, so easily compromised and corrupted by the likes of the Democrats party and Fusion GPS, and to such an extent that any internal or external oversight appears effectively useless, then surely they're susceptible to corruption from organised crime and terrorist groups as well?

[pErvinalia]

Hillary told you to say that, didn't she?

[Brian Peacock]

[Seabass]

Hillary got to him.

[laklak]

Well, the left said for years he was a moron.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Dude, I explained this. I mentioned them not being fired, because that means THEY ARE STILL THERE and the suggestion to me was that it would be ridiculous to think that the DOJ (of which the FBI is a part) is "anti-Trump." Well, we have two examples of prominent persons actually involved in the Clinton and Trump investigations who were, in fact, rabidly antitrump and they are still there. So, yes, some of those agencies appear to be rabidly anti-trump. I don't expect Strzos and Page to be the only ones, since their texts allude to others who were and are of the same mind.

Your willingness to diagnose entire agencies as 'rabidly anti-trump' on the basis of texts between two employees of one of those agencies is a remarkable example of political paranoia. I admire your ability to employ circumlocutions and specious nuance to avoid precisely regurgitating talking points employed by right-wing propagandists. It would be boring if you just said 'deep state, deep state!'

I also said flat out already that I don't know if they should be fired, because that would require more information about when agents should or should not be fired. If Strzos changed the language of the clinton report from gross negligence to extreme carelessness to further his goal that "Clinton just has to be elected" and how "we" can't let Trump get elected, then I sure think it deserves a solid look.

You attribute a motive to Strzok's actions that you can't possibly know. If there were any evidence that he had changed the language to further a political aim, I think there's little doubt that he would have been fired already. But then again, I guess it all fits together. Of course he wouldn't have been fired, because apparently according to you he's an employee of a 'rabidly anti-trump' agency.

There has certainly not been an "unequivocal" statement that "it happened." Every statement by experts and intelligence was full of equivocation. The government intelligence, especially, was filled with equivocation about how they know it was the Russians - nothing concrete -- it's motive, it's opportunity, and it's actions which appear "consistent with" hackers that have been "linked" to Russia. To call that "unequivocal" is just plain wrong. It's been nothing but equivocal.

The intelligence agencies expressed high confidence in their assessment that Russian military intelligence was responsible for the hacking, and stated that they were in possession of evidence that was not released to the public which supports that assessment. That's as unequivocal as such statements get, as was explained in the document. You're correct, though, that there was no claim of absolute certainty.

There has been no evidence brought forward that any other entity was responsible for the hacking and subsequent release of stolen information, despite fruit-loops raving about Seth Rich. Given the choice between Putin, Trump, and Sean Hannity on one side, and professional cyber-security experts and the entire intelligence community of the United States on the other, I'm inclined to dismiss the claims of Putin and co.

It's not that I don't "like it" when reporters use anonymous sources. I've posted, quite clearly, above, how anonymous sources are supposed to be used - published policies by the very same news outlets that are violating their own confidential source policies. I've published very neutral persons expressing concerns about the misuse and overuse of anonymous sources, coming from a perspective not of politics but of journalistic integrity. You're not, apparently, bothering to read any of it.

The fact is that if a reporter has good reason for protecting the identity of their sources, they will do so, and their editors will approve the publishing of the story if the report has credibility, based on what the reporter has told them about the sources. It's not as if the Wall Street Journal is in any way aligned with the left, or has a reputation for publishing false stories. I think that your repeatedly expressed concerns about anonymous sources are another example of your admirable ability to employ circumlocution, disguising the fact that basically you're parroting Trump's 'fake news' mantra.

[Brian Peacock]

The Nunes memo clearly implies that the FBI's application for a FISA warrant relied entirely on Steele's raw intelligence, and that the Democrat-paid-for material comprised the totality of the information on which the court based it's decision re Carter Page. It implies that the FBI simply reproduced that material for the court without undertaking any form of verification or corroboration, and that, presumably, either the FBI deliberately lied or cherry-picked and/or withheld such information that would facilitate the issuing of a warrant - and in so doing they essentially circumvented the entire FISA oversight process. However, let us not forget that the application was made in order to extend an investigation that was already well underway. Steele's intelligence did not inspire or initiate the FBI's investigation even if it did, to some unknown extent, support a FISA warrant that placed on a legal footing an extension to the scope of surveillance already being undertaken. Some may then ask, at what stage were the FBI and DOJ so fatally corrupted - from the inception of the enquiry or at some layer point? The answer to that defines whether one thinks the FBI is institutionally currupt or merely corruptable.

The whitterings of Nunes and his fellow travellers casts the Democrats as some kind of malign and malevolant demigod with powers to corrupt and manipulate the events which control the run of history. This is clearly ridiculous, but it is in fact the interpretation which has to be maintained in order to support the contention that the ongoing investigations are a partisan put up job designed and implemented with the express purpose of undermining the office of the current president. As such, there appears no limit to where the inveigling tendrils of Democrat influence can spread or what they can control, and every bit of information about this affair which bubbles into the public domain has to be scoured and scrutinized to reveal the true dark hand of Democrat meddling that many believe is always just beneath the surface.

[Forty Two]

Aye L'Emmy, but people with political opinions can never be trusted to be impartial nor can they be expected to be diligent and conscientious in the discharging of their responsibilities - because they're always looking to manipulate situations to make difficulties in the lives of those whom they oppose.

Never? Who said that? However, think a minute. If Strzos and Page were exchanging texts about how much they hated Hillary and thought they had a duty to see to it that she did not get elected, and that Trump just "had to win," would you not find it at least "concerning" that they changed language in a report that removes Trump from a possible criminal prosecution for an offense, and then Strzos was placed in a key role in an investigation of allegations against Clinton?

Surely you can see that this is a bit more than just "having a political opinion?" Saying "I'm a Democrat" or "I'm prochoice" or "I'm voting Hillary/Trump" - those are political opinions. Discussing how a candidate cannot be allowed to win, and that there should be an "insurance policy" in the federal law enforcement department against such a victory, and how the candidate you support just "has to win" -- while you're on two investigations - each involving both said candidates -- AND you change language from "gross negligence" to "extreme carelessness" (thus, negating criminal responsibility) is a tad bit more than just "having a political opinion....

That's your contention, you support it. I do wish you'd drop this silly "Yeah, but Hillary..." nonsense - my opinion and criticism of the current administration is not dependent on, nor rooted in, my presumed fondness for Hillary or the Democrat Party. To have formed a low opinion of Trump and/or to criticise his actions or ideas is not a function of Democrat Party affiliation. To continue to imply that objectors and criticisers are fundamentally operating to a de facto double-standard is disingenuous, to say the least.

Look, you're missing it. I was not alleging a double standard there, or saying "yeah but hillary." The issue - focus here - the issue was whether or not there was bias against Trump in the DOJ (of which the FBI is a part). I alleged that we had proof that clearlythere was bias there, as we have two people texting, who were in prominent roles, who clearly were biased and acting in conformity with that bias, and they alluded to others in the organization who were of the same mind. The response given was a sarcastic snot about "oh, so nobody can have a political opinion of any kind..." and do their jobs. And, I responded to that by explaining and illustrating why and how this was not about merely having a political opinion, but it was about people actively stating and acting out their moral imperative to see that one candidate is not elected and the other is, while both of those candidates are under investigation and the people talking/acting were principal participants in both investigations. That's not just "having a political opinion." Reversing the roles is not saying "yeah but hillary" ok? Think and focus -- reversing the roles is a way to illustrate that what we're talking about is not mere political viewpoint held by federal cops. And, the reason the role reversal works is because it takes out the issue of an intense hatred of the candidate from the thought process, and says "if the same thing was happening to a person that you did not loathe, and in fact preferred (at least in relation to the other), would you suggest that it was "mere political opinion" all else being equal?

And, I put it to you, that if, indeed, Strzos and Page were doing and saying exactly what they did and said, only with the roles reversed (against Clinton and in favor of Trump) then you and others would very likely have a significant problem with them doing that. I put it to you, that many in the media would be suggesting that their conduct was an "attack on our democracy."

So, yes, it illustrates a double standard that I think exists. But, the double standard is not the point here. The point is to show that it's not just about an FBI agent being a Republican or Democrat or voting for one or the other candidate. It's about an FBI agent who is spearheading investigatory action against two candidates expressing and acting out a moral imperative to see to it that one of the candidates doesn't set foot in the white house, and that the other candidate "must get elected" and that the FBI agents involved in the investigation should follow through with an "insurance policy" to see to it that they achieve that goal. That's using the machiner of the DOJ/FBI to achieve a political result.

It should not matter who the target of that its. It's a problem. IMO.

[Brian Peacock]

And the second half of my previous post? Any thoughts?

The 'biased' FBI agents have been reprimanded and removed from the task force. Do you think their supposed past prejudice fatally compromises the ongoing investigation? If so, why?

[Forty Two]

Dude, I explained this. I mentioned them not being fired, because that means THEY ARE STILL THERE and the suggestion to me was that it would be ridiculous to think that the DOJ (of which the FBI is a part) is "anti-Trump." Well, we have two examples of prominent persons actually involved in the Clinton and Trump investigations who were, in fact, rabidly antitrump and they are still there. So, yes, some of those agencies appear to be rabidly anti-trump. I don't expect Strzos and Page to be the only ones, since their texts allude to others who were and are of the same mind.

Your willingness to diagnose entire agencies as 'rabidly anti-trump' on the basis of texts between two employees of one of those agencies is a remarkable example of political paranoia.

I did not diagnose the organization as a whole as rabidly anti trump. I said Strzos, Page and folks they referred to in their communications were arguably rabidly anti-trump based on the text message evidence. So, SOME of the agency is, in fact, rabidly antitrump, it appears. I never said anything about the entirety of the agency.

Now, the Democrats pushed the narrative of the FBI being anti-Hillary in the summer of 2016, because Comey came out with the "reopening the investigation" thing. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... nald-trump They pushed the narrative that it was "Trumpland" and that's why you shouldn't believe the allegations. Now, of course, it's a threat to democracy to question a single one of the good, hard-working, tireless, servants of all that is good and just in the world....

I admire your ability to employ circumlocutions and specious nuance to avoid precisely regurgitating talking points employed by right-wing propagandists. It would be boring if you just said 'deep state, deep state!'

Or, you could lower the volume on hyperbole, and just accept that what I said was that there were, in fact, some agents who appeared, based on their own words, to be on a mission to keep trump out of office, and to put hillary in office, and that there were others involved and that there was an "insurance policy" to deal with it. That's what they said, expressly, literally - that's not saying everyone in the agency or the DOJ was in on it. The people involved were the people involved. But saying that there were SOME involved does not mean everyone is involved.

I also said flat out already that I don't know if they should be fired, because that would require more information about when agents should or should not be fired. If Strzos changed the language of the clinton report from gross negligence to extreme carelessness to further his goal that "Clinton just has to be elected" and how "we" can't let Trump get elected, then I sure think it deserves a solid look.

You attribute a motive to Strzok's actions that you can't possibly know.

Hence my use of the word "if" and to discover his motive we would need an investigation - he could be questioned and so could other people who discussed stuff with him. Why shouldn't there be such an investigation?

If there were any evidence that he had changed the language to further a political aim, I think there's little doubt that he would have been fired already. But then again, I guess it all fits together. Of course he wouldn't have been fired, because apparently according to you he's an employee of a 'rabidly anti-trump' agency.

Well, we know he changed the language --
was there a good, solid, investigation to determine why he changed it? Certainly, his own words noted that he just thought Trump should never be President and that Hillary "just has to be elected." And, that there was an insurance policy to accomplish that. Obviously, I can't read his mind, but if you don't think that what I've described is enough to warrant an investigation, how much evidence do you think needs to be there before an investigation is opened on a government official?

There has certainly not been an "unequivocal" statement that "it happened." Every statement by experts and intelligence was full of equivocation. The government intelligence, especially, was filled with equivocation about how they know it was the Russians - nothing concrete -- it's motive, it's opportunity, and it's actions which appear "consistent with" hackers that have been "linked" to Russia. To call that "unequivocal" is just plain wrong. It's been nothing but equivocal.

The intelligence agencies expressed high confidence in their assessment that Russian military intelligence was responsible for the hacking, and stated that they were in possession of evidence that was not released to the public which supports that assessment. That's as unequivocal as such statements get, as was explained in the document. You're correct, though, that there was no claim of absolute certainty.

Not just "no claim of ABSOLUTE certainty" -- there has been no claim of even "clear and convincing evidence" and there has been no claim even that that there is hard evidence or proof at all. The reason for the high confidence is stated in the memo - motive, opportunity, ability and "looks like hackers that have been previously linked to Russia..." That's called "equivocation" - the use of ambiguous language. It amounts to "I'm not saying it was Russians, but it was Russians."

There has been no evidence brought forward that any other entity was responsible for the hacking and subsequent release of stolen information, despite fruit-loops raving about Seth Rich.

There has been no evidence BROUGHT FORWARD that the Russians were responsible for the hacking and subsequent release either. If you have any, show us. The intelligence reports don't do it, because they don't have evidence in there. They just say that there is motive, opportunity, ability, and hackers using methods that are like those of those that were linked to Russia in the past. That ain't evidence, my friend.

Given the choice between Putin, Trump, and Sean Hannity on one side, and professional cyber-security experts and the entire intelligence community of the United States on the other, I'm inclined to dismiss the claims of Putin and co.

Sure, but that's not the choice, only. One, it could be the Russians, but there be not connection to Trump. And, if you believe the intelligence agencies you have stated you are most likely to believe over the alternatives, then the last word from them is that Trump/Trump campaign had nothing to do with it (at least that there was no evidence that they did). Clapper - former head of the CIA -- said exactly that and nothing has yet changed.

So, quick question - if you believe the intelligence agencies that the Russians are the ones who did it, do you also believe them when they say that there is no evidence that Trump was in on it?

It's not that I don't "like it" when reporters use anonymous sources. I've posted, quite clearly, above, how anonymous sources are supposed to be used - published policies by the very same news outlets that are violating their own confidential source policies. I've published very neutral persons expressing concerns about the misuse and overuse of anonymous sources, coming from a perspective not of politics but of journalistic integrity. You're not, apparently, bothering to read any of it.

The fact is that if a reporter has good reason for protecting the identity of their sources, they will do so,

Every journalistic policy on the topic says that if they have a "good reason" to do so, they should explain that reason.

and their editors will approve the publishing of the story if the report has credibility, based on what the reporter has told them about the sources. It's not as if the Wall Street Journal is in any way aligned with the left, or has a reputation for publishing false stories. I think that your repeatedly expressed concerns about anonymous sources are another example of your admirable ability to employ circumlocution, disguising the fact that basically you're parroting Trump's 'fake news' mantra.

It's not, to me, about them knowingly publishing false stories. The reporter can accurately convey what a source tells him, and thus the reporter is telling the truth, but the source is not being 100% accurate or the source isn't in a position to really know. When you have someone quoted who is not a source "participating" in an investigation, but is just a source "familiar" with an investigation, and then they purport to describe things that someone not involved in the investigation would have to learn by speaking to yet other people, we are in a realm of inaccuracy. It's no different than taking a line of people and asking them to repeat a story. If a story is more than just a few words - even if it's just a few sentences - you don't get past two or three total people in the Chinese Whispers line before you have material differences in the story. When you're talking about politics and law, and you've got a report about what the President's fucking LAWYERS are telling him in terms of legal advice, but the report is coming from "people familiar with..." and not the lawyers, then you are in the realm of this: (1) reporter recounts the story to us, (2) reporter heard it from Joe Blow the person familiar, but (3) Joe Blow was told by either a lawyer breaking the strict attorney-client privilege rule or a (4) someone who heard it from yet another person. We have no way to assess the credibility of any of the people - we have no way to judge their motivation - we have no way to know who first talked -- I mean, did the reporter talk to someone who misheard something? We just don't know.

And, no, I don't credit today's reporters with a thoroughness that they have their detailed notes all information needed to substantiate. Reporters are under an intense pressure to get scoops and to publish stories. And, so they try to develop relationships with people who can give them that. They need a story, they know Adam Schiff, and they pick up the phone and call him for comment - he will tell them something on condition of anonymity and if the reporter wants to keep access, he has to honor it.

I'm not saying that's every single time - but i am saying - and you know as well as I do - that it does happen SOMETIMES and it happens enough for it to be important to guard against. The notion that politicians do not use the media and reporters to push their messages, is absurd. Of course they do. And, if a reporter lets them remain anonymous, all the better. This is both Democrats and Republicans.

Now, with the WSJ being a conservative outfit, I agree with you. However, conservatives have hated Trump since he announced his candidacy. Yes, he has support from many Republicans, but he has a strong opposition within his own party, and that's why his administration has been just besieged by leaks and attacks from within. Politics is a dirty game.

[Brian Peacock]

... To continue to imply that objectors and criticisers are fundamentally operating to a de facto double-standard is disingenuous, to say the least.

Look, you're missing it. I was not alleging a double standard there, or saying "yeah but hillary."
...

So, yes, it illustrates a double standard that I think exists. ...