FBI decided Trump had to be investigated as a possible Russian agent


NBC News Photo

❝ In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.

The inquiry carried explosive implications. Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president’s own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow’s influence.

❝ The investigation the F.B.I. opened into Mr. Trump also had a criminal aspect, which has long been publicly known: whether his firing of Mr. Comey constituted obstruction of justice.

Our fake president’s behavior would be insufficient for such an unprecedented investigation to be decided. The usual standards calling the counter-intelligence division of the FBI into play require additional substantive information. This would be coming not only from covert American sources like the NSA; but, might originate with the security forces of any of our longtime allies.

None of this is considered, of course, either by White House flunkies rolled out of weekend cold storage or predictable Fox News-level apologists. Word games and psycho-babble sufficient to impress today’s Republican base don’t require facts or sound reason.

Regardless, as the investigation progressed, the Mueller Investigation of Trump started. Initially into obstruction of justice. The FBI dossier was passed along to the Special Counsel and wherever that leads will determine whether or not the Fake President will become the first president indicted as a foreign agent.

Kudos to the New York Times reporters and staff who gathered this news and broke the story, this evening.

You thought FACEBOOK relies on free speech standards based on common law?

❝ Documents obtained by the New York Times show how the social giant’s international content moderation strategy is dictated by thousands of pages of PowerPoint presentations and spreadsheets that “sometimes clumsily” tell thousands of moderators what to allow and what to delete. The revelation raises deep questions about the future of Facebook’s role in international discourse — especially in the wake of damaging revelations about how the platform allowed propaganda during the 2016 U.S. presidential elections…

❝ Facebook moderators who spoke to the Times under condition of anonymity said they felt hamstrung by the extraordinarily complex rule set, which forces them to make rapid decisions, sometimes using Google Translate, about fraught topics including terrorism and sectarian violence…

❝ The result, according to the Times, is that Facebook has become a “far more powerful arbiter of global speech than has been publicly recognized or acknowledged by the company itself.”

RTFA. Ain’t about to make you assured the Honchos are working for the common good or trying to match historical standards. But, then, 19th Century minds rely on 17th Century guidebooks written by a handful of English pimps to a colonial King. Or The Players Edition of the Rules of Golf.