A new US Republican thread 2016

[jacobolus]

In direct violation of standard procedure, the White House tried to get the FBI to publicly denounce newspaper stories about Trump campaign officials secretly meeting/communicating with Russian intelligence.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politics/ ... index.html

[jacobolus]

Sessions rescinds the Obama DOJ memo phasing out private federal prisons. Trump & co. are all in favor on private profits built on unnecessary incarceration of non-violent offenders.

Related: they announce they’ll start cracking down on (state-legal) recreational marijuana use.

Because everyone agrees the “war on drugs” has been a tremendous success, right?

“States’ rights”? Oh that’s right, it only applies to bible thumper states sticking their noses into which bathroom stalls citizens are shitting in.

Oh, and that swamp? Two of Sessions’ former aides now work for the private prison lobby (which has also been donating generously to Trump),
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/polit ... rms-216823

[pixelheresy]

What is the story behind so many grenade attacks in Malmö? Where are people getting the grenades from? NVM -- Balkans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_g ... _in_Sweden

Malmö is weird. Has a relatively decent concentration of immigrants (because it is so far south and just across from Denmark, not to mention it is the third biggest city and relatively industrial), but a *huge* concentration of "Sweden Democrats", Neo-Nazis, and other "Pro-Nordic"/white supremacist groups.

To my knowledge, a good deal of bombings/grenade attacks are done by gangs/criminal elements within the ultra-right, but once you escalate, you have foreign-born people doing the same. Many of the Neo-Nazi types are very pro-gun, pro-weapon and those in the arms-smuggling market are predominately from the "Pro-Nordic" community.

They are generally regarded as criminal/gang/hate-related events in the papers, rather than terrorism, per se. Their goals are usually to blow up specific enemies or businesses, rather than cause panic or send some sort of "message".

That being said, even though this is weird, violent crime and such in Sweden is staggeringly low compared to the US and many other parts of Europe. Go figure.

[002]

Nice insight -- thanks for sharing.
Can you share any sources for the good deal of bombings coming from the ultra-right? Most of what I have read mentions gang-related but doesn't really say much about political alignment. I've seen articles where parties like Sweden Democrats are quick to blame immigrants but they are apparently very anti-immigration so no surprises there.

[seebart]

Here's some insight into what to expect:

Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus Interview at CPAC 2017 | ABC News

[pixelheresy]

Nice insight -- thanks for sharing.
Can you share any sources for the good deal of bombings coming from the ultra-right? Most of what I have read mentions gang-related but doesn't really say much about political alignment. I've seen articles where parties like Sweden Democrats are quick to blame immigrants but they are apparently very anti-immigration so no surprises there.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 88516.html

http://www.thelocal.se/20170203/swedish ... ntre-blast

What's also telling is when you read the names of victims being Somali, Balkin, and Middle Eastern last names and the suspects being charged having "riktig svensk" names...

I am not by any means staying it always the Neo nazis (since the Somali gangs have definitely been in the news as well in Malmö), but I personally feel it is part of the escalation and can't be strictly blamed on "more brown people = more problems" like Breitbart wants to present.

[002]

There ya go...what shitheads. You know less than a year ago if anyone told me there were dozens of grenade attacks going on in a place like Sweden each year I would have laughed it off.

[pixelheresy]

Generally speaking, especially from the point of view of an American expat living in Sweden, and having worked for a year in Södertälje (the industrial city outside of Stockholm, referred to as "Little Baghdad" and home to Scania and Astra Zenica), the overwhelming majority of immigrant communities have reinforced the industrial and manufacturing sectors in Sweden and have not have contributed greatly to crime.

Actually, recent independent studies have shown that immigration in Sweden has overall benefitted the economy and social services. There are problems keeping up with big waves of refugees, sure, but Sweden is doing a hell of a lot better socially integrating and getting foreign-born immigrants speaking Swedish and working productively than France, Belgium, or even Germany.

As I type, I have a Pakistani immigrant to my right, and an Iraqi immigrant (who came here as a kid), working with a Russian immigrant (who also came as a kid) across from me.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 47136.html

[kbdfr]

There ya go...what shitheads. You know less than a year ago if anyone told me there were dozens of grenade attacks going on in a place like Sweden each year I would have laughed it off.

But still you are 4.333 times more likely to get murdered in the US than in Sweden
(ntentional homicide rates per 100.000 inhabitants: in the US: 3.9; in Sweden: 0.9; in Australia: 1.0)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... By_country

[002]

I have no real irrational fears about being murdered in Sweden, nor Australia -- in fact I *am* more afraid to go to the USA than anywhere in EU purely because the US gun laws are just fucking retarded. I just didn't think that something like grenade attacks would ever be happening in Sweden with any sort of regularity. The thing I don't want to happen is shit like this:

[vivalarevolución]

Here's some insight into what to expect:

Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus Interview at CPAC 2017 | ABC News

Good listening while I drink my morning tea.

At about 4:30 in that video, Priebus's programming slips up from the propaganda script and almost says that Trump brought together this country together. He decided to keep the togetherness contained to the movement and the party.

Brilliant propaganda, I have to hand it to them. They do a wonderful job of hiding their true intentions couched in populism, which are revealed through the thinly veiled, Congressional and administrative actions of late: further consolidation of power and control, hand off of government resources and programs to corporate and wealthy friends, stoking peoples' fear and desperation to create a fierce loyal following, reverse the declining white share of the population, cut funding to programs that aide the struggling and impoverished (which can increase desperation and crime and give more reason for authoritative crackdowns), de-legitimize any institution that does not fit their agenda, shut off any criticism or opposition whatsoever, and all the other stuff that jacobolus lists better than myself.

And Trump serves as the perfect gullible vehicle to sign off on this agenda and rally the base without caring about the details at all. I've never seen a political movement in this country so adept at making people think they care about the average person but really just take advantage of the average person for their own enrichment.

[vivalarevolución]

I have no real irrational fears about being murdered in Sweden, nor Australia -- in fact I *am* more afraid to go to the USA than anywhere in EU purely because the US gun laws are just fucking retarded. I just didn't think that something like grenade attacks would ever be happening in Sweden with any sort of regularity. The thing I don't want to happen is shit like this:

These are truly scary viewpoints. There is this part of human nature that loves to adhere to extremist ideologies seems to be this reoccurring theme in human history that has violent consequences. Religion often serves as a vehicle for these ideologies, and the more extreme interpretations of Islam floating around these days are sometimes violent and truly scary.

Extreme nationalism also can have the same destructive consequences, and that scares me just as much as any extreme interpretation of religion.

Could we just stay away from extremism, guys and gals?

[pixelheresy]

Yeah... as far as I have seen and read, nothing of that sort of shit ^^^ going on here in Sweden.

Most Swedes, although kind of aloof and socially awkward in comparison to Americans and most Europeans are extremely tolerant. There are some problems with cultural assimilation with the initial immigrants at times, but the children of them are mostly, culturally Swedish. As I said, I have a fair number or coworkers at my current workplace and at prior who are immigrants (many from outside Europe) or the children of immigrants. Most of the latter are atheist/non-observant to their parent religious tradition (e.g. parents are Muslim or Orthdox or whatever and they are just Swedish, and celebrate Jul in the secular sense and love all the delicious pork products here in the magical kingdom of Svergie).

Where pockets in the South of Sweden or in places like France and Belgium in particular get into shit is that the foreigners are ghettoized and hate groups are not systematically shut down or kept in check by the authorities. My wife taught English in a high immigrant area here near Stockholm (Kista - home of Ericsson). She kind of said there were two types: ones that were happy to be in Sweden and parents were working and they felt overall accepted, and those who felt like they were somewhat outside of the circle. The former were mostly working/children of those working in highly-skilled, integrated workplaces (manufacturing, tech, IT), whether white or blue collar. The latter were ones who's parents were literally what they were back in the old country: halal butcher, fruit seller, truck driver, cantor at a mosque, etc. and even though the kids dressed western, they had a chip on their shoulder because 90% of who they interacted with were only in immigrant the community.

Largely speaking and of course it goes both ways, the more people interact with the larger culture, the better. America literally *is* the example of this. Benjamin Franklin wrote at length on how waves of German immigrants would destroy American culture. People said the same with the Chinese, Irish, Italians, and Poles during the 19th and early 20th century. For the most part, that seems absolutely ridiculous now.

[pixelheresy]

Also Aftobladet released an article yesterday (in English) to show the stats.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/a/WP0KG

[vivalarevolución]

Largely speaking and of course it goes both ways, the more people interact with the larger culture, the better. America literally *is* the example of this. Benjamin Franklin wrote at length on how waves of German immigrants would destroy American culture. People said the same with the Chinese, Irish, Italians, and Poles during the 19th and early 20th century. For the most part, that seems absolutely ridiculous now.

I do find your personal thoughts and observations on this topic quite informative and interesting. Appreciate the insight from the epicenter of recent news stories.

But this quote leads me to an interesting question: What exactly is the larger culture in the USA? How do we characterize this larger culture that immigrants should assimilate into?

By my observation, it's kinda hard to pin down an exact larger culture in this country beyond a sort of superficial, vapid, technology addicted, escapist, willfully ignorant consumer class. Because when you look at what is the most popular in this country through ratings, sales, media, or whatever other metric, it's not exactly a culture rich in substance and depth. Is that the larger culture we aspire to here?

Perhaps I am too harsh, but I'm basing this off what is dominant and popular.

[pixelheresy]

But this quote leads me to an interesting question: What exactly is the larger culture in the USA? How do we characterize this larger culture that immigrants should assimilate into?

Generally speaking, at least as I see it, the US is host to a variety of regional cultures. New England is different than the Deep South, which is different than Southern California... It is hard to pin down. Europe at very least has languages to compartmentalize things.

That being said, there are a few principles that I feel (personally) are uniquely "American" (sometimes for better or worse)... the pioneer "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" attitude is one. The "my home, my castle" mentality. The 6 days Secular; 7th day Christian. The "I have my rights" while others are "getting away with something".

I think one of the most fundamental is the respect for individual liberty. This is why people on both sides of the political fence find people like Mike Pence so offensive. Basically, if you do your job, pay your taxes, are a good neighbor, and generally don't act like an asshole, you can more or less do whatever you want in your own home, so long as it doesn't harm others. You can worship who you want. With re: to civil rights, you can marry whom you want. You can (providing certain requirements for safety and criminal status) own a gun. You can think whatever you want to think.

Generally speaking, history has bore that if this principle is upheld and immigrants aren't held to a higher standard, they assimilate (while keeping what pieces of their culture they wish). My mother's family immigrated from Poland in the 60's. Even if they eat weird Polish shit on holidays or celebrate Christmas on Christmas Eve, nobody bats an eye. One of my close friends where I grew up in Central PA was half Iraqi and half German-American. Nobody really batted an eye at his family, even if his father was Muslim and his mom was Presbyterian. Nobody gave a crap that the Kononovs down the street would take off time from school in early January, since they celebrated Christmas on the Orthodox calendar. It was nobody's damn business and they were productive, normal citizens.

I think people's fear is that because that many recent waves of immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East come from very restrictive cultures, that they will want to extend that to American life. If you don't hold them to a higher standard, they aren't going to be interested in instituting shiria law on the populace, because you aren't shoving Christian bullshit down their throats. Everyone is allowed to do as they please, so long as they don't hurt people. If their culture condones what is broadly considered societially harmful behaviors (child marriage, force marriage, etc.) we already have laws for that, which everyone is accountable to... not just them.

I think putting the razor focus in the US (and in France) on fresh Muslim immigrants and refugees only serves to make them *less* American (or French or whatever). Also, what people often forget, the ones who immigrate are often those with slightly more means the average (hence being able to get so far, and not wind up in a camp in Turkey or something), probably have marketable, if not valuable skills, etc. I bet, if you take a look at the Iranian immigrants to the US during the late 1970's, at least half were engineers, doctors, etc. Why? The smart and well to do can jump ship quicker in times of crisis, and wind up someplace better. I actually think most people I know who were of Persian extraction who grew up in the US (at least in the Northeast) had white-collar parents.

Likewise, I have a Syrian refugee family next door. I'm not even kidding. The condo next door, in a nice Stockholm suburb is a husband, wife, and 1 year old baby who moved from Damascus. He used some of his business contexts to basically get the fuck out there before the shit that has been going on in the east is happening in the capital. He's white collar and they are both very nice. Are they the rule? No... but they are not a rarity. They aren't winding up in camps or ghettos, obviously, but this shit happens.

My grandparents were fairly well to do. They owned their own business. They were much much more comfortable in Communist Poland than 90% of people. However, in talking with my grandfather, he said he couldn't stay when he knew people were being taken by the police randomly and interrogated, and regardless of how he and his wife successfully navigated the system, that his three children would not necessarily be guaranteed the education or career they wanted. So he moved. They wound up in rather blue-collar jobs until they retired, but their children went to what school they wanted (including two with Masters degrees) and their kids lived lives for greater freedom.

I think this is what makes Americans American. Conversely, if we punish those fleeing from shit situations because we are afraid of a couple bad apples, then we literally build communities of non-Americans in our country.

Anyway, I am probably ranting. As a child of an immigrant and as a immigrant to another country, I have a little more stake in the matter.

Also, perhaps informative of what I am about, I grew up in Lancaster, PA. The county (primarily founded by those escaping religious persecution) has I think more churches per capita (and of more denominations and religions) than I think any other place in the US. Even though the city is slightly "blue", the area is pretty solidly "red" politically. Suburban Republican... so not particularly crazy religious-right type, but now taxes, family, and "all politics is local".

Here is what Lancaster is like in re: to immigrants/refugees/etc.:

https://theoutline.com/post/985/where-t ... mmigration

Also (and I can find the article... will later... but should get back to the grind), the county boast 0 homeless veterans. The Democratic and Republican leadership worked through several initiatives against homelessness, giving priority and precedence to vets. So regardless what what some people in Washington say, if you work hard enough on it, you can make the principled initiatives and make them stick.

I think, fundamentally, the Republicans in Washington, DC have largely forgot about what it is to be an American, and the Democrats, in being so desperate to stop the bleeding, try to push whatever they can to try to fix it, whether or not it actually is implemented in a way that works. Honestly, most Republicans I know actually wish there was a good single-payer insurance system... just that Obamacare was a half-measure that winds up costing more than it should, due to the pharma and insurance lobbies still holding the government by the balls. The Democrats *basically say the same thing*, the implementation was kind of half-assed, but was a necessary start. You can cite that in MA, when Romneycare (which was completely bi-partisan) was put in place (and basically the same thing), the State government adjusted the standards for insurance operators in the state to comply or not operate in their market.

I think the current batch in Washington (especially rallying around Trump) are making themselves look like cartoon villains rather than politicians seeking to serve their constituents and their needs. Which is a shame. You look at Republicans on the State-government level, and they are still focused more on the needs of their community and even though philosophically opposed sometimes to the Dems, generally work as a team to get the compromise that works the best for the greatest amount. DC politics has degraded to "which hill do we want to die on" all or nothing bullshit and unfortunately, the GOP is looking more and more arbitrary and foolish.

It's sad.

[vivalarevolución]

Great thoughts, thanks! I can forgive the rambling for the quality of the response.

[jacobolus]

Anyway, I am probably ranting. As a child of an immigrant and as a immigrant to another country, I have a little more stake in the matter.

No, this is all exactly right.

We’re all children of immigrants here (except the rare descendants of indigenous tribes who against the odds survived their peoples’ genocide).

Those among us who are now anti-immigrant are folks with no clue what our own ancestors and their experience were like, and are lacking basic empathy.

Honestly, most Republicans I know actually wish there was a good single-payer insurance system... just that Obamacare was a half-measure that winds up costing more than it should, due to the pharma and insurance lobbies still holding the government by the balls.

Moderate/centrist/fiscal conservative Republican voters’ desires don’t matter to the institutional GOP. If it doesn’t directly pay out to corporate donors, it’s dead in the water. Something that actively goes against donor interests? Forget about it.

The pharma/insurance lobbies have the entire Republican party and a handful of Democrats by the pocketbooks (not the balls though; the GOP doesn’t have any balls left at this point).

The lack of any chance for healthcare reform since ~1970 (if not earlier) has been primarily the fault of the Republican Party. Democrats have tried again and again. The ACA was the best they could get passed, as a compromise that the US healthcare industry was willing to (mostly) go along with. If it weren’t for the Republican Party, we could have had something much better for two generations by now.

You look at Republicans on the State-government level, and they are still focused more on the needs of their community and even though philosophically opposed sometimes to the Dems, generally work as a team to get the compromise that works the best for the greatest amount. DC politics has degraded to "which hill do we want to die on" all or nothing bullshit and unfortunately, the GOP is looking more and more arbitrary and foolish.

This is nowhere near accurate w/r/t state-level GOP (in most states anyway). GOP-controlled state legislatures have been working hard to suppress voting, dismantle labor organizations, sell off public infrastructure, promote business monopolies, allow (and cover up) environmental destruction, dismantle the public school system, etc.

[vivalarevolución]

You look at Republicans on the State-government level, and they are still focused more on the needs of their community and even though philosophically opposed sometimes to the Dems, generally work as a team to get the compromise that works the best for the greatest amount. DC politics has degraded to "which hill do we want to die on" all or nothing bullshit and unfortunately, the GOP is looking more and more arbitrary and foolish.

This is nowhere near accurate w/r/t state-level GOP (in most states anyway). GOP-controlled state legislatures have been working hard to suppress voting, dismantle labor organizations, sell off public infrastructure, allow (and cover up) environmental destruction, dismantle the public school system, etc.

I balked at this a bit, considering my experience of living in a very Republican controlled state that basically ignores the concerns of the 40% of so of the population that doesn't vote for them. It is true that the state level GOP is more in tune the needs of the state and may engage in more compromise (we're raising road taxes in Indiana for Pete's sake), but there is the fair share of partisan foolishness. A lot of bills put forth in the legislatures are cookie-cutter bills created by ALEC and the like designed to protect a certain industry or vested interest while slapping in the face of individual rights, citizen concerns, or local government control (e.g. ban on plastic bag bans by cities or the alarming anti-protest measures floating around). This is very ironic considering that the national GOP likes to defer to states rights and federalism on social matters like LGBT rights and abortion, but then the state GOP is perfectly okay with stomping out local control to protect some vested interest.

Much of the national level all or nothing rhetoric about distrust and dismantling of public institutions and citizen/environmental protections is passed down to the state level. The benefits mainly go to the well heeled, corporations, and other powerful interests, while the benefit to citizens is marginal. And don't even get me started with gerrymandering and voter suppression, which is carried out by state legislatures.

There has been a continual rigging of the system by the GOP at all levels over the past decade to solidify their power and control while cracking down on efforts for democratic reforms. The logical endpoint of all this seems to be unchallenged one-party control because they know that the majority of American voters do not like them anymore (for example, since 1992, the GOP has outright won the popular vote only once. So that's 1 for 7). With the prospect of declining popular support, they have resorted to gaming the system.

What I often wonder is if the Democrats would do the same if they had similar majorities and control across the board.

[jacobolus]

Coal companies cheat the public out of mining taxes they owe for mining on public lands by passing the coal through bogus subsidiaries. New rules would have cut out the loophole, but the Trump Interior Department is in coal companies’ pocket, so they blocked the change.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

[fohat]

There has been a continual rigging of the system by the GOP at all levels over the past decade to solidify their power and control

I don't know how old you are, but this began in earnest in the late-1970s and has continued unabated since.
When their champion, Reagan, took office, it solidified and has not weakened, even slightly, to the present day.

[adhoc]

I have no real irrational fears about being murdered in Sweden, nor Australia -- in fact I *am* more afraid to go to the USA than anywhere in EU purely because the US gun laws are just fucking retarded. I just didn't think that something like grenade attacks would ever be happening in Sweden with any sort of regularity. The thing I don't want to happen is shit like this:

Don't forget Switzerland. They also have lax gun laws and since the gun laws are main problem you should be terrified of going to Switzerland as well.

[002]

Ignoring the fact that Switzerland is not EU, I agree it's more than just having guns
I guess the gun culture in Switzerland is much more responsible than in the US. The sweeping gun reforms in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre have mostly had a positive effect here, but I doubt such a change would go so smoothly in the US.

[Findecanor]

BTW. I saw figures in the last week or so that while there are around 4'000 18'000 homicides by firearm per year in USA, there are 22'000 suicides by firearm per year (4000 more)
Researchers claim that suicide rates by firearm could be halved cut by two thirds if gun owners stored them unloaded and locked up properly.

Edit: I remembered it wrong. The real figures are far worse.

[vivalarevolución]

Oh god, guns in America. Might as well bang your head against the wall if you want to discuss this topic. The amount of homicides and suicides by firearms basically qualifies gun violence as an epidemic. I don't even want to dive further into this. But the NRA has a new strategy for stoking fear to boost gun sales. Instead of Obama, the enemy is now the violent left and paid protestors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pol ... 35f09e7d4f

At the end of his speech, transcribed and annotated below, LaPierre made clear the two sides in his newly redefined conflict.

“If you are a member of the leftist media or a soldier for the violent left, a violent criminal, a drug cartel gang member or a would-be terrorist,” he said, “hear this: You’re not going to win and you will not defeat us.”

For the past eight years, the NRA’s opponent was an imaginary all-powerful Obama. Now it is an imaginary, massive, violent, wealthy left-wing, gauzily defined and described. Enemies cobbled together from disparate incidents and exaggerations have one advantage over an enemy who is a real person: Anything you want to loop into it can be made part of the opposing cabal.

[vivalarevolución]

BTW. I saw figures in the last week or so that while there are around 4'000 homicides by firearm per year in USA, there are as many as 22'000 suicides by firearm per year.
Researchers claim that suicide rates by firearm could be halved if gun owners only locked them up properly, thus making it harder for family members to get at them.

4000 homicides by firearm? Maybe that is the amount of incidents, but the amount of annual homicidal deaths from firearms is about three times that.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

The suicides by firearms are just as troubling. Because using firearms for suicide is waaaaaay more effective method than any other, it usually ends up in loss of life. Other methods of suicides are less effective, and when suicide fails or is prevented, people have the opportunity to seek different ways of dealing with their pain rather than ending their lives and loved ones are relieved that they don't have to lose someone they love. The less people that become statistics, the better off we all are.

[seebart]

I really have to say that I find this development quite unsettling:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/r ... gle-235360

[Findecanor]

4000 homicides by firearm? Maybe that is the amount of incidents, but the amount of annual homicidal deaths from firearms is about three times that.

I'm sorry. I really goofed. I remembered the article wrong. You could say that I "trumped"

The original wording was "That's roughly 22,000 of them—4,000 more than were killed in all forms of homicide".
Here is the article I was referring to: Making a different case for guns as a public health issue

[vivalarevolución]

4000 homicides by firearm? Maybe that is the amount of incidents, but the amount of annual homicidal deaths from firearms is about three times that.

I'm sorry. I really goofed. I remembered the article wrong. You could say that I "trumped"

The original wording was "That's roughly 22,000 of them—4,000 more than were killed in all forms of homicide".
Here is the article I was referring to: Making a different case for guns as a public health issue

No worries, at least you can admit a mistake and care about the statistics. I am of the opinion that gun violence is absolutely a public health issue and should be addressed as such. But it is basically impossible to have a sane political discussion about firearms in this country, because, in my opinion, the extremist pro-gun lobby will not move an inch (See above NRA speech), the conversation is highly emotional, and the whole right to bear arms thing in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. I think the more gun control side is much more willing to offer concessions.

I really have to say that I find this development quite unsettling:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/r ... gle-235360

Is this really a surprise, though? They have been hinting at this sort of thing since the first day in office. The administration clearly wants lapdog journalists and absolute control of the message, because the truth often does not work in their favor. They are attempting to crack down on any government whistle blowers that will leak anything unsavory and unflattering about the administration (and I'm sure there is plenty, these are morally decrepit people). They don't want accountability, transparency, compromise, criticism, or any of those principles which are important aspects of a functioning representative democratic government. These dealings with Russian officials show that they are clearly trying to hide something very nefarious. If they don't have anything to hide, then why are they trying to hide something?

[seebart]

Is this really a surprise, though? They have been hinting at this sort of thing since the first day in office. The administration clearly wants lapdog journalists and absolute control of the message, because the truth often does not work in their favor. They are attempting to crack down on any government whistle blowers that will leak anything unsavory and unflattering about the administration (and I'm sure there is plenty, these are morally decrepit people). They don't want accountability, transparency, compromise, criticism, or any of those principles which are important aspects of a functioning representative democratic government. These dealings with Russian officials show that they are clearly trying to hide something very nefarious. If they don't have anything to hide, then why are they trying to hide something?

It's not a "suprise" as much as it is the real first "taste" of censorship. Apparently the FBI refused White House request to knock down recent Trump-Russia stories which is the real story if that's even true. From what I understand an exclusion of certain media by the white house even to these informal meetings has never happened before?