CSNbbs

Somebody needs to explain to me why Trump, Jr. actions were a crime and the Clinton Campaign's actions were not.

(08-05-2018 01:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Somebody needs to explain to me why Trump, Jr. actions were a crime and the Clinton Campaign's actions were not.

Don't you get that Hillary lost and therefore her actions are all excused?

(08-05-2018 01:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Somebody needs to explain to me why Trump, Jr. actions were a crime and the Clinton Campaign's actions were not.

Trump Jr’s actions that we know of (meeting with a representative of the Russian government offering information on Clinton) were not a crime - and I don’t think I’ve seen a lot of people say that the meeting itself was. The claim I see most frequently is that it’s evidence as to why the ongoing investigation into potential collusion is warranted. Because we know that Trump and Trump Jr. have been willing to lie about the meeting and it’s purposes, so it would behoove our intelligence agencies to dig deeper and see if there is a reason they lied, and if there was more to the meeting, and potential crimes were committed.

To me, the big difference between the two situations is who each person represented. Steele did not represent a foreign government - he was a hired hand who only had his client’s interests (eventually, the DNC) in mind when researching Trump. There’s no evidence of ulterior motive. For Trump Jr, the Russian lawyer was representing the interests of Russia, and there was definitely an ulterior motive. Furthermore, we eventually found out that the material Russia ended up having (and using through Wikileaks) was stolen material - which means a crime was committed to get the information, and it was not provided to Russian hackers willfully. That aspect is pretty much just like Watergate, when information about the DNC was stolen during a break in.

(08-02-2018 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2018 07:34 PM)JOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2018 01:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-30-2018 06:05 PM)JOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-30-2018 02:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]This is the first time aside from an Enron defense that I have heard that anyone claim that one sentence tucked into a footnote fits anywhere near 'full disclosure of a material and cogent fact', especially when that one footnote sentence doesnt even refer to the Parties or Individuals as anything more than an the aforesaid indirect references. Kudos to you JOwl.... (I guess...)

The footnote took up over a full page. The nature of the information was perfectly suited to a footnote. I have no doubt the judges read it and understood it just as well as I did.

How many FISA applications have you read? I've read parts of one, and this obscuration of parties and individuals seemed standard procedure.

You seem upset about the size of the text used to convey this information in the FISA application... can't you spare even a bit of that dismay for the _complete_ and _intentionally misleading_ omission of same information in the Nunes memo?

But I see that while you responded to my question, you proffered no defense of the memo. So perhaps there is a hint that you are bit troubled by it.

Zero FISA warrants. Plenty of plain jane ones. Hiding that **** in a footnote in the the normal style would be somewhat horseshit, the judge, if/when the application came out would be livid, the ADA would lose their job, might be fined, might have bar problems.

With all due respect, the 'charging parties' minimized the **** out of what should have been highlighted in the warrant, to be blunt. But that seems to escape that eagle eye of yours.

How many warrant have you had experience with JOwl? Since you are opining so loftfully here --- or is this Vox speaking for you?

By the way, perhaps you should compare the 14 paragraphs of Nunes with the warrant as well. The Nunes memo was pretty much dead to rights.

Seriously? You're going with "Hiding that **** in a footnote in the the normal style would be somewhat horseshit, the judge, if/when the application came out would be livid, the ADA would lose their job, might be fined, might have bar problems." ?

The application with this page-plus footnote was reviewed four times, each time by a different FISA judge. Four Republican FISA judges. Four Republican FISA judges, each of whom _approved_ the application.

So given that history, excuse me while I laugh at your suggestion that including that information in a footnote is misconduct that would make a FISA judge so livid as to cost the applicant his job, etc. I have zero warrant experience, which appears to be exactly the same amount of relevant experience as you.

Whatever, sparky. Glad to know your friends at Vox are on that religiously. Good that they have that 'no experience with warrants' person like you in their corner to beat that drum for them.

If you are so thick as to not to understand when you have 'a thing' that is relied upon in the manner that the Steele memo is relied upon, and when the action is an ex parte action, you dont fing hide **** nor do you pack it in the corner. Especially as to provenance.

You want to do that? -- go for it sparkles.

And yes, was on the opposite side of 'warrant issues' at a much earlier stage in my career. So, as far as I am concerned you can FOAD for your blind characterization.

Tells me how much to add to your 'brings relevance to' score, to be honest.....

Quote:And yes, I've read the Nunes memo. All 14 paragraphs. You and I both know that it is misleading by omission, for reasons I've detailed numerous times above. But you refuse to admit it.

Yes. You keep beating that drum rather incessantly. And no, the Nunes memo ism pretty the fk spot on. The one thing that is 'anywhere' near misleading is the characterization of the background of the Memo.

But, to be honest, I find the warrant to be just as misleading by obscuring to a massive extent that very same issue. They went out of their way to bury that massively salient fact as much as possible yet still be able to dance to the tune 'it was disclosed (maybe)'.

Is *that* how you *really* want the fing FBI and intelligence community to play with those salient facts if it were *your* life they were going massively intrude in? Seriously? I find that action to be grotesque, *especially* when dealing with an ex parte proceeding.

Funny that you whine so much about 'misleading by omission' when the warrant application pretty much plays the 'misleading by hiding the fk out the provenance.' Richly hypocritical for you I'd say.

The rest of the 16 paragraphs are pretty much dead accurate. But I am sure they are not for you.

You seem mad, bro. I have no idea what "you want to do that? -- go for it sparkles" means. Presumably it relates to one of your prior comments, but I'm not seeing it. Also, you're pulling in acronyms I've never heard before... you'll have to elaborate.

And come on, you're obviously just lashing out here. You're trying to slam the FISA application that explicitly stated this information in a footnote, while defending the Nunes memo that _intentionally_ omitted this information. You know they're in no way comparable. It's okay to admit it.

I gave you ample, sourced information from Daily Caller on the standard that is typically followed in FISA applications. If the FBI's typical approach pisses you off, then go take issue with the government that passed the Patriot Act and Patriot II (I know I take issue with those ******* -- it's one of the reasons I refused to vote for Hillary in 2016; she voted for both of those just like she voted to allow Bush to invade Iraq). But don't play like this very standard FISA application somehow represents deep state collusion against Trump, or in any way validates the intentionally misleading omission of facts in the Nunes memo. Because that's garbage.

[Also, what's with the varying number of paragraphs in the Nunes memo? Is it 14, is it 16, ...?]

(08-05-2018 06:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]To me, the big difference between the two situations is who each person represented. Steele did not represent a foreign government - he was a hired hand who only had his client’s interests (eventually, the DNC) in mind when researching Trump. There’s no evidence of ulterior motive.

WTF? What do you mean there was no ulterior motive?

(08-05-2018 06:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Trump Jr’s actions that we know of (meeting with a representative of the Russian government offering information on Clinton) were not a crime - and I don’t think I’ve seen a lot of people say that the meeting itself was.

You weren't watching CNN (Tapper) and ABC (Stephanouolous) this morning thenThe claim I see most frequently is that it’s evidence as to why the ongoing investigation into potential collusion is warranted. . The consensus was the Trump was worried about Junior's exposure, and rightfully so.

Quote:Because we know that Trump and Trump Jr. have been willing to lie about the meeting and it’s purposes,

HOW do you know that? becasuse the MSM keeps saying so?

Quote:To me, the big difference between the two situations is who each person represented. Steele did not represent a foreign government - he was a hired hand who only had his client’s interests (eventually, the DNC) in mind when researching Trump.

He was hired to dig up dirt on Trump, by the people that Clinton hired to dig up dirt on Trump. he went to Russia for the dirt. He was paid with Clinton money.

Quote:There’s no evidence of ulterior motive.

So you are under the impression he was there to write an op-ed article? sight-see? What was the motive, if not to get dirt on Trump?

Quote: For Trump Jr, the Russian lawyer was representing the interests of Russia, and there was definitely an ulterior motive.

Irrational and illogical. So you think Trump Jr. said to himself, this is a Russian agent, representing the Kremlin, purporting to sell me dirt. Great!! Russian agents have the best info.
That is why Hillary is sending a guy to Russia!

What crap. Either he knew he was an Russian agent (not proved yet, BTW) or he didn't Then when the russian agent he is so keen to see comers in, he shows her the door? Wonderfully logical.

Quote:Furthermore, we eventually found out that the material Russia ended up having (and using through Wikileaks) was stolen material - which means a crime was committed to get the information, and it was not provided to Russian hackers willfully. That aspect is pretty much just like Watergate, when information about the DNC was stolen during a break in.

what does this have to do with the TT meeting? What is your source that tells you the material Junior rejected was the emails? Or is that just another opinion presented as fact? In any case, whatever she was selling was rejected and no money changed hands.



OTOH, the information that the Clinton campaign paid for, through their agent Steele, was supposedly obtained with wiretaps and hidden cameras. Oh, very morally superior!!!!

let me be clear, I know the Russians stole emails. Crime. I have seen nothing to suggest they did it in collusion with the Trump campaign, or Trump. Might as well claim he changed one of the villagers into a newt. Accusations are not proof.

We know both parties wanted dirt on the other's candidate. BFD. No crime there. We know one party spent a ton of money to send an agent to Russia to get dirt. The other wasted 15 minutes in a useless meeting.

If your goal was to explain why the TT meeting is a problem, but financing an agent's trip to Russia for the same purposes is not, you have failed.

(08-05-2018 06:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 06:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]To me, the big difference between the two situations is who each person represented. Steele did not represent a foreign government - he was a hired hand who only had his client’s interests (eventually, the DNC) in mind when researching Trump. There’s no evidence of ulterior motive.

WTF? What do you mean there was no ulterior motive?

You’re telling me Steele had an ulterior motive when gathering intelligence other than providing it to the client? Did he start gathering it before he was contracted?

(08-05-2018 08:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 06:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 06:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]To me, the big difference between the two situations is who each person represented. Steele did not represent a foreign government - he was a hired hand who only had his client’s interests (eventually, the DNC) in mind when researching Trump. There’s no evidence of ulterior motive.

WTF? What do you mean there was no ulterior motive?

You’re telling me Steele had an ulterior motive when gathering intelligence other than providing it to the client? Did he start gathering it before he was contracted?

Christopher Steele's hatred for Donald Trump has been pretty well documented.

(08-05-2018 08:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 06:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 06:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]To me, the big difference between the two situations is who each person represented. Steele did not represent a foreign government - he was a hired hand who only had his client’s interests (eventually, the DNC) in mind when researching Trump. There’s no evidence of ulterior motive.

WTF? What do you mean there was no ulterior motive?

You’re telling me Steele had an ulterior motive when gathering intelligence other than providing it to the client? Did he start gathering it before he was contracted?

What's the need for an "ulterior" motive? They both had the same motive, to gather dirt on the opposition candidate.

(08-05-2018 08:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 06:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 06:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]To me, the big difference between the two situations is who each person represented. Steele did not represent a foreign government - he was a hired hand who only had his client’s interests (eventually, the DNC) in mind when researching Trump. There’s no evidence of ulterior motive.

WTF? What do you mean there was no ulterior motive?

You’re telling me Steele had an ulterior motive when gathering intelligence other than providing it to the client? Did he start gathering it before he was contracted?

What's the need for an "ulterior" motive? They both had the same motive, to gather dirt on the opposition candidate.

(08-05-2018 11:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 08:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 06:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 06:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]To me, the big difference between the two situations is who each person represented. Steele did not represent a foreign government - he was a hired hand who only had his client’s interests (eventually, the DNC) in mind when researching Trump. There’s no evidence of ulterior motive.

WTF? What do you mean there was no ulterior motive?

You’re telling me Steele had an ulterior motive when gathering intelligence other than providing it to the client? Did he start gathering it before he was contracted?

Christopher Steele's hatred for Donald Trump has been pretty well documented.

It has?

(08-05-2018 11:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 08:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 06:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 06:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]To me, the big difference between the two situations is who each person represented. Steele did not represent a foreign government - he was a hired hand who only had his client’s interests (eventually, the DNC) in mind when researching Trump. There’s no evidence of ulterior motive.

WTF? What do you mean there was no ulterior motive?

You’re telling me Steele had an ulterior motive when gathering intelligence other than providing it to the client? Did he start gathering it before he was contracted?

What's the need for an "ulterior" motive? They both had the same motive, to gather dirt on the opposition candidate.

Yes, the Trump campaign and the DNC had the same motivation. But Russia and Steele did not. Russia was motivated to further their own interests against ours. Russia valued Trump winning because his values more closely aligned with Russia’s (friendlier towards Russia in Ukraine, a willingness to isolate ourselves on the international stage, a willingness to undermine our NATO allies, etc.). I havent see any evidence to believe that Steele was trying to further the interests of another country’s over ours - hence why the ulterior motive matters.

And the ulterior motive starts to matter even more when you talk about possible collusion. Since we know Russia has goals that don’t align with ours, it stands to be reasonable that there may have been quid pro quos proposed to some members on the campaign (such as, we’ll release stolen emails if you change your party’s public stance on Ukraine at the RNC Convention).

(08-06-2018 06:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 11:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 08:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 06:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 06:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]To me, the big difference between the two situations is who each person represented. Steele did not represent a foreign government - he was a hired hand who only had his client’s interests (eventually, the DNC) in mind when researching Trump. There’s no evidence of ulterior motive.

WTF? What do you mean there was no ulterior motive?

You’re telling me Steele had an ulterior motive when gathering intelligence other than providing it to the client? Did he start gathering it before he was contracted?

What's the need for an "ulterior" motive? They both had the same motive, to gather dirt on the opposition candidate.

Yes, the Trump campaign and the DNC had the same motivation. But Russia and Steele did not. Russia was motivated to further their own interests against ours. Russia valued Trump winning because his values more closely aligned with Russia’s (friendlier towards Russia in Ukraine, a willingness to isolate ourselves on the international stage, a willingness to undermine our NATO allies, etc.). I havent see any evidence to believe that Steele was trying to further the interests of another country’s over ours - hence why the ulterior motive matters.

And the ulterior motive starts to matter even more when you talk about possible collusion. Since we know Russia has goals that don’t align with ours, it stands to be reasonable that there may have been quid pro quos proposed to some members on the campaign (such as, we’ll release stolen emails if you change your party’s public stance on Ukraine at the RNC Convention).

Russia and Steele were not in in parallel positions. Steele is analogous to Junior - the person hunting for dirt. Russia is the source in both cases.
Except that Steele bought and paid for the Russians' stuff, and Junior rejected it. Steele spent weeks - Junior wasted 15 minutes.

Sure, Russia was motivated to promote their own interests. But there is no evidence the lawyer was an agent of the Russian government. Much more evidence of Russian agents talking to Steele.

The truth seems to be that Russia just wanted to , an objective they are meeting quite well with the aid of the Mueller investigation and its proponents, thank you very much.

Possible collusion? You have gone daft again. How many quid pro quos do you think were offered, negotiated, and exchanged in a surprise 15 minute meeting under false pretenses? If anybody was going to exchange quid pro quos, it would be Steele, who went to Russia as an emissary of Clinton, and had all the time and money in the world. In fact he did exchange quid pro quos, at least in the form of money. You must be a whiz at making deals. Want to buy a used car? We can get this done quickly. You don't even need to see the car.

Instead of yapping about vague "ulterior" motives, tell us what you think they were. I think Junior's motive was to help his dad by getting some dirt on Hillary. who knows? Maybe he thought the lawyer had knowledge of the Benghazi cover up. That would be explosive in the campaign. But it turned out to be crap, he dismissed her, and it was over in a quarter hour. You are making up crap like a jealous husband. "You spent 15 MINUTES alone with that man. How many times did you have sex? When are you meeting him again?" It is disappointing to see you reaching so far for so little.

Russia may, or may not, have wanted Trump to win, or they may, or may not have, wanted Clinton to lose. They damn sure have gotten precious little from Trump, and probably would have done better with Hillary "reset button" Clinton. But if the motivation was to sow distrust in our system, the Mueller investigation is the gift that just keeps on giving.

The TT meeting was nothing. The solicitation and compilation of the Steele dossier was something. Your insistence that those roles are reversed says nothing good about you, Lad.

(08-06-2018 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 11:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 08:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 06:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 06:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]To me, the big difference between the two situations is who each person represented. Steele did not represent a foreign government - he was a hired hand who only had his client’s interests (eventually, the DNC) in mind when researching Trump. There’s no evidence of ulterior motive.

WTF? What do you mean there was no ulterior motive?

You’re telling me Steele had an ulterior motive when gathering intelligence other than providing it to the client? Did he start gathering it before he was contracted?

Christopher Steele's hatred for Donald Trump has been pretty well documented.

It has?

Good grief. Do we have to discuss why is their air?

And what difference does ulterior motive make anyway? Don't actions speak for themselves?

(08-06-2018 10:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-06-2018 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 11:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 08:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 06:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]WTF? What do you mean there was no ulterior motive?

You’re telling me Steele had an ulterior motive when gathering intelligence other than providing it to the client? Did he start gathering it before he was contracted?

Christopher Steele's hatred for Donald Trump has been pretty well documented.

It has?

Good grief. Do we have to discuss why is their air?

And what difference does ulterior motive make anyway? Don't actions speak for themselves?

I mean, when you say that it's been well documented that Steele hated Trump, shouldn't it be easy to provide a source? If you're saying that this is an ulterior motive of Steele, it seems like a good question to ask. Sorry for asking you to back up your claim with evidence.

And I've said already why ulterior motives matter - read one of my replies above.

(08-06-2018 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-06-2018 10:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-06-2018 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 11:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 08:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You’re telling me Steele had an ulterior motive when gathering intelligence other than providing it to the client? Did he start gathering it before he was contracted?

Christopher Steele's hatred for Donald Trump has been pretty well documented.

It has?

Good grief. Do we have to discuss why is their air?

And what difference does ulterior motive make anyway? Don't actions speak for themselves?

I mean, when you say that it's been well documented that Steele hated Trump, shouldn't it be easy to provide a source? If you're saying that this is an ulterior motive of Steele, it seems like a good question to ask. Sorry for asking you to back up your claim with evidence.

And I've said already why ulterior motives matter - read one of my replies above.

Both men want to get dirt on the opposition from Russians. I think Junior's motivation was to help his dad, and Steele's to make a bundle of money, and maybe to hurt Trump as a byproduct. If those are the ulterior motives you think existed, I agree.

The point is, they are parallel situations, yet you and the wild eyed left insist one is ominous and the other innocent.

(08-06-2018 09:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Russia and Steele were not in in parallel positions. Steele is analogous to Junior - the person hunting for dirt. Russia is the source in both cases.
Except that Steele bought and paid for the Russians' stuff, and Junior rejected it. Steele spent weeks - Junior wasted 15 minutes.

Sure, Russia was motivated to promote their own interests. But there is no evidence the lawyer was an agent of the Russian government. Much more evidence of Russian agents talking to Steele.

Yes, no evidence that the lawyer was an agent, besides, well, her own words:
"Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer who met with top members of the Trump campaign team in June of 2016, has admitted to funneling information to the Kremlin starting in 2013. She had denied any such connection since the discovery of the meeting in July of last year.

The admission came after emails surfaced showing Veselnitskaya working closely with Russian legal authorities. In an interview with NBC News that aired Friday, Veselnitskaya said “I am a lawyer and I am an informant,” and that she has been communicating with Russia’s prosecutor general, Yuri Y. Chaika, since 2013.

http://fortune.com/2018/04/28/veselnitsk...lin-agent/

Quote:The truth seems to be that Russia just wanted to , an objective they are meeting quite well with the aid of the Mueller investigation and its proponents, thank you very much.

Possible collusion? You have gone daft again. How many quid pro quos do you think were offered, negotiated, and exchanged in a surprise 15 minute meeting under false pretenses? If anybody was going to exchange quid pro quos, it would be Steele, who went to Russia as an emissary of Clinton, and had all the time and money in the world. In fact he did exchange quid pro quos, at least in the form of money. You must be a whiz at making deals. Want to buy a used car? We can get this done quickly. You don't even need to see the car.[\quote]

Your entire premise is built on the idea that the meeting was short and unproductive, which we are only hearing about through Trump Jr. As I've mentioned before, the Trump's have lied about this meeting multiple times - something you seem to be in disbelief about.

After the NYTimes broke the story on July 8, Trump Jr. release this statement on the same day: It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared (Kushner) and Paul (Manafort) to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up.

A day later, Trump Jr. changed his tune and released this statement: After pleasantries were exchanged the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Mrs. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information. She then changed subjects and began discussing the adoption of Russian children and mentioned the Magnitsky Act. It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting.

A day later the tune changed, and Trump Jr.s attorney said that Jr. was email ahead of time about information on Hillary.

A day later Trump Jr. then released his email exchanges, where it shows that he was excited by the prospect of receiving opposition research on Clinton.

A few days later, Jay Sekulow told CNN that Trump was not involved with drafting Jr's statement on July 8.

About 2 weeks later, the WH admits that Trump had helped draft the initial statement.

So in this time frame we have Trump Jr lying about what the initial meeting was about and the WH lying about their involvement with that initial attempted coverup. The WH is still saying Trump didn't know about the meeting, but that facade will certainly come down still, especially since Trump was bragging about having information about Hillary that would change the election, a day or two before the meeting was to happen (but after the emails setting up the meeting had been sent).

[quote]

Instead of yapping about vague "ulterior" motives, tell us what you think they were. I think Junior's motive was to help his dad by getting some dirt on Hillary. who knows? Maybe he thought the lawyer had knowledge of the Benghazi cover up. That would be explosive in the campaign. But it turned out to be crap, he dismissed her, and it was over in a quarter hour. You are making up crap like a jealous husband. "You spent 15 MINUTES alone with that man. How many times did you have sex? When are you meeting him again?" It is disappointing to see you reaching so far for so little.

Russia may, or may not, have wanted Trump to win, or they may, or may not have, wanted Clinton to lose. They damn sure have gotten precious little from Trump, and probably would have done better with Hillary "reset button" Clinton. But if the motivation was to sow distrust in our system, the Mueller investigation is the gift that just keeps on giving.

The TT meeting was nothing. The solicitation and compilation of the Steele dossier was something. Your insistence that those roles are reversed says nothing good about you, Lad.

I haven't been vague about the ulterior motives. Russia was motivated to help Trump in order to get what they wanted - I listed three very ulterior motives earlier. The Trump campaign had no ulterior motives - they just wanted to help Trump win and were willing to (based on what is public) at least entertain assistance by a hostile, foreign power.

I'm not reaching very far, over so little - I'm providing you with reasons as to why I believe the Mueller probe into the campaign is warranted. You just refuse to accept the rationale I provide and delusionally dismiss it as nothing.

And to the bold, are you serious? Our intelligence community and ol' Putin himself have said Russia wanted Trump to win. It makes way more sense for them to have wanted him to win than Clinton - why even try and suggest otherwise? By what logic would Russia have wanted Clinton (not Sanders, not the Dems, Clinton specifically) to win?

And OO, you're insistence that there is absolutely no evidence to support the Mueller probe, or that there was absolutely nothing wrong with willingly accepting a meeting with Russian officials offering dirt on an opponent, or that there's no reasonable rationale for potential collusion between the campaign and Russia, says nothing good about you.

(08-06-2018 10:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-06-2018 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-06-2018 10:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-06-2018 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 11:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Christopher Steele's hatred for Donald Trump has been pretty well documented.

It has?

Good grief. Do we have to discuss why is their air?

And what difference does ulterior motive make anyway? Don't actions speak for themselves?

I mean, when you say that it's been well documented that Steele hated Trump, shouldn't it be easy to provide a source? If you're saying that this is an ulterior motive of Steele, it seems like a good question to ask. Sorry for asking you to back up your claim with evidence.

And I've said already why ulterior motives matter - read one of my replies above.

Both men want to get dirt on the opposition from Russians. I think Junior's motivation was to help his dad, and Steele's to make a bundle of money, and maybe to hurt Trump as a byproduct. If those are the ulterior motives you think existed, I agree.

The point is, they are parallel situations, yet you and the wild eyed left insist one is ominous and the other innocent.

Sorry for being rude, but are you that dense? Do you think I was talking about the motivations of the campaigns? You're comparing apples to oranges above when talking about Steele vs. Trump Jr.

I'm talking about the motivations of the people providing the intelligence. So what motivations did Steele and the Russian government have with providing information to the DNC or the Trump campaign? With Steele it's obvious - money (because that was his job). With the Russian government, the motivations are far less obvious and most likely go against our own interests.

That's why motivation matters, because the people providing the intelligence could use a valuable item (opposition research) to try and achieve a goal of their (Steele or Russia) own.

You're right that these situations are similar, but I think there is enough of a difference to be concerned and to investigate the potential involvement of the Russian government in our election. I'd have no problem about also investigating Steele's intel, and whether Russia somehow knew about it and attempted to feed fake intelligence to Steele as well.

(08-06-2018 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ][quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='15417177' dateline='1533566927']
Russia and Steele were not in in parallel positions. Steele is analogous to Junior - the person hunting for dirt. Russia is the source in both cases.
Except that Steele bought and paid for the Russians' stuff, and Junior rejected it. Steele spent weeks - Junior wasted 15 minutes.

Sure, Russia was motivated to promote their own interests. But there is no evidence the lawyer was an agent of the Russian government. Much more evidence of Russian agents talking to Steele.

Yes, no evidence that the lawyer was an agent, besides, well, her own words:
"Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer who met with top members of the Trump campaign team in June of 2016, has admitted to funneling information to the Kremlin starting in 2013. She had denied any such connection since the discovery of the meeting in July of last year.

The admission came after emails surfaced showing Veselnitskaya working closely with Russian legal authorities. In an interview with NBC News that aired Friday, Veselnitskaya said “I am a lawyer and I am an informant,” and that she has been communicating with Russia’s prosecutor general, Yuri Y. Chaika, since 2013.

http://fortune.com/2018/04/28/veselnitsk...lin-agent/

Quote:The truth seems to be that Russia just wanted to , an objective they are meeting quite well with the aid of the Mueller investigation and its proponents, thank you very much.

Possible collusion? You have gone daft again. How many quid pro quos do you think were offered, negotiated, and exchanged in a surprise 15 minute meeting under false pretenses? If anybody was going to exchange quid pro quos, it would be Steele, who went to Russia as an emissary of Clinton, and had all the time and money in the world. In fact he did exchange quid pro quos, at least in the form of money. You must be a whiz at making deals. Want to buy a used car? We can get this done quickly. You don't even need to see the car.[\quote]

Your entire premise is built on the idea that the meeting was short and unproductive, which we are only hearing about through Trump Jr. As I've mentioned before, the Trump's have lied about this meeting multiple times - something you seem to be in disbelief about.

After the NYTimes broke the story on July 8, Trump Jr. release this statement on the same day: It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared (Kushner) and Paul (Manafort) to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up.

A day later, Trump Jr. changed his tune and released this statement: After pleasantries were exchanged the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Mrs. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information. She then changed subjects and began discussing the adoption of Russian children and mentioned the Magnitsky Act. It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting.

A day later the tune changed, and Trump Jr.s attorney said that Jr. was email ahead of time about information on Hillary.

A day later Trump Jr. then released his email exchanges, where it shows that he was excited by the prospect of receiving opposition research on Clinton.

A few days later, Jay Sekulow told CNN that Trump was not involved with drafting Jr's statement on July 8.

About 2 weeks later, the WH admits that Trump had helped draft the initial statement.

So in this time frame we have Trump Jr lying about what the initial meeting was about and the WH lying about their involvement with that initial attempted coverup. The WH is still saying Trump didn't know about the meeting, but that facade will certainly come down still, especially since Trump was bragging about having information about Hillary that would change the election, a day or two before the meeting was to happen (but after the emails setting up the meeting had been sent).

[quote]

Instead of yapping about vague "ulterior" motives, tell us what you think they were. I think Junior's motive was to help his dad by getting some dirt on Hillary. who knows? Maybe he thought the lawyer had knowledge of the Benghazi cover up. That would be explosive in the campaign. But it turned out to be crap, he dismissed her, and it was over in a quarter hour. You are making up crap like a jealous husband. "You spent 15 MINUTES alone with that man. How many times did you have sex? When are you meeting him again?" It is disappointing to see you reaching so far for so little.

Russia may, or may not, have wanted Trump to win, or they may, or may not have, wanted Clinton to lose. They damn sure have gotten precious little from Trump, and probably would have done better with Hillary "reset button" Clinton. But if the motivation was to sow distrust in our system, the Mueller investigation is the gift that just keeps on giving.

The TT meeting was nothing. The solicitation and compilation of the Steele dossier was something. Your insistence that those roles are reversed says nothing good about you, Lad.

I haven't been vague about the ulterior motives. Russia was motivated to help Trump in order to get what they wanted - I listed three very ulterior motives earlier. The Trump campaign had no ulterior motives - they just wanted to help Trump win and were willing to (based on what is public) at least entertain assistance by a hostile, foreign power.

I'm not reaching very far, over so little - I'm providing you with reasons as to why I believe the Mueller probe into the campaign is warranted. You just refuse to accept the rationale I provide and delusionally dismiss it as nothing.

And to the bold, are you serious? Our intelligence community and ol' Putin himself have said Russia wanted Trump to win. It makes way more sense for them to have wanted him to win than Clinton - why even try and suggest otherwise? By what logic would Russia have wanted Clinton (not Sanders, not the Dems, Clinton specifically) to win?

And OO, you're insistence that there is absolutely no evidence to support the Mueller probe, or that there was absolutely nothing wrong with willingly accepting a meeting with Russian officials offering dirt on an opponent, or that there's no reasonable rationale for potential collusion between the campaign and Russia, says nothing good about you.
[/quote]

It says I have common sense.

Your scenario is that Junior willingly accepted a meeting with Russian officials is based on one thing - that she represented herself as a Russian "official" to get the meeting(she did not), and then she walked in and Said, hello, I am __________ and I represent Putin, and here is what he is offering (no dirt) in exchange for him to publish some stolen emails that contain nothing incriminating, and Junior said Wow and jumped at the chance, because he is stupid, and made the deal on the spot for his Dad, who considered it binding.

None of that happened.

But poor Steele, who just happened to be vacationing in russia on the clinton dime, with no particular agenda, just had stuff thrust upon him.

any news on the space invaders?

I say the bolded, because it is entirely possible that Putin was more AGAINST Clinton than he was FOR Trump. How would you tell the difference? There is evidence that some of the meddling was for/agasinst both sides.

all that supports the Mueller investigation is conspiracy theories like this.

(08-06-2018 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-06-2018 10:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-06-2018 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 11:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2018 08:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You’re telling me Steele had an ulterior motive when gathering intelligence other than providing it to the client? Did he start gathering it before he was contracted?

Christopher Steele's hatred for Donald Trump has been pretty well documented.

It has?

Good grief. Do we have to discuss why is their air?
And what difference does ulterior motive make anyway? Don't actions speak for themselves?

I mean, when you say that it's been well documented that Steele hated Trump, shouldn't it be easy to provide a source? If you're saying that this is an ulterior motive of Steele, it seems like a good question to ask. Sorry for asking you to back up your claim with evidence.
And I've said already why ulterior motives matter - read one of my replies above.

Well, for starters the Nunes memo states in part, "For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not, being president." This clear evidence of Steele's bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files—but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications." From https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/02/politics/...index.html

OK, so you say that is a biased source. Fine. But the Schiff rebuttal memo doesn't dispute the truth of that assertion. It simply suggests that biased sources are used all the time. Which is kind of my point about why do ulterior motives matter. But information from biased sources needs to be corroborated. And here is the rub.

According to Adam Schiff in an interview on CNN which I have linked previously, "some of" the dossier information used in the FISA warrant was corroborated. And the dossier played a minor part in the FISA warrant application. Let's assume both those statements are factually correct, as I have no basis to dispute them. That means the FISA warrant was improperly granted. Yes, I know there was a republican judge who reviewed the application and the fact that the source was partisan was mentioned in a footnote and yada yada yada. But judges are not fact finders. Judges can only act on the facts that are presented. And as we've also gone over previously, without an ad litem, there was nobody in that courtroom with any incentive to present the fact that part of the information used from the dossier was in fact unverified as of the date of that hearing. And that makes the application just a little bit defective. Which is kind of like being a little bit pregnant.