CSNbbs

(01-10-2019 07:45 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-09-2019 11:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-09-2019 09:28 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-09-2019 09:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-09-2019 08:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I guess we should just ignore the fact that there was a crime that we all know about and that has even been referenced in the thread. The DNC and Posesta were both hacked and had their emails stolen and published.

Regardless of how easy that was to do, those emails were stolen through fraudulent means.

Goody. You reference a 'crime' with no bearing at all to the thrust of the investigation.

Hmmm.....

The Watergate counsel was predicated on..... investigating the break-in at the Watergate suite. And it investigated the..... break-in.

The Whitewater counsel was predicated on...... investigating the known fraud of the Whitewater development which directly implicated potential issues with Bill *and* Hillary. And it investigated..... the Whitewater development.

The Plame counsel was predicated.... a known illegal actus of disclosing classified information which potentially at the outset implicated members of the Administration. And it investigated..... the act of the Plame disclosure and the implications in the VP office.

I can go on for another 5 or 6 here, or do you get the point?

Now you claim:

The Mueller Counsel was predicated on....... the act of the DNC being hacked (according to you). And it investigated....... Flynn, Manaforth, pee pee allegations, nude selfies on a company server, Cohen, Comey firing, Carter Page, Rick Gates, money laundering, failure to file a form, more money laundering based on the failure to file a form, tax evasion, Skadden Arps, Van der Zwaan.....

Kind of a stream of consciousness linkage there between your supposed predicate and, wouldnt you agree?

Yeah, that's right - Ken Starr only investigated Whitewater, not Lewinsky, or Paula Jones, or the White House travel office fiasco, or the alleged improper collection of Republican appointee FBI files. I totally remember that.

The original mandate was *solely* Whitewater. *After* it was revealed that a possible crime had been committed by the President (i.e. perjury), it was clear (with the crime in mind) that a Special Prosecutor was needed.

Clinton's own Justice Department recommended that the Starr team be retasked since it was already there.

At least read your history before complaining.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/p...ae1d5a7ab0

Quote:On Jan. 16, Reno submitted a petition, excerpted below, to the three-judge panel that oversees independent counsel investigations: {} It would be appropriate for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to handle this matter because he is currently investigating similar allegations involving possible efforts to influence witnesses in his own investigation.

Quote:The panel granted Reno's request the same day

But, as Owl# states, it probably would have been better to impanel an entirely separate Special Counsel, as in the 'bridge' time there were the appearances of a 'morphing' investigation.

But it is clear that if Starr had not assumed the Lewinsky investigation, a separate one would have been created. Along the manner I highlighted above. Irrespective of your whining about it.

Thank you for the opportunity to buttress the point I made in the sequence.

Yeah, and the original mandate here was *solely* "any links and or coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" and "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." *After* it was revealed that possible crimes had been committed by numerous campaign associates of the President (i.e. perjury, obstruction of justice, money laundering, etc.), it was clear that investigating these items fell under the second item of Mueller's investigatory authority, without need of any "expansion" of Mueller's authority. It is also clear that if Mueller had not assumed the investigation of these items, a separate prosecuting entity (the U.S. Attorney, perhaps) would have done so, as has happened with a number of items already. Irrespective of your whining about it.

Let me know when you find the document "expanding" Starr's investigation to cover the travel office and FBI file stuff. Oh, and Vince Foster and the Rose Law Firm.

Look, it may very well be that Mueller ends all this by saying, "Yeah, there's nothing here vis-a-vis Trump himself. Some of his campaign people made really dumb choices and may have engaged in some individualized coordination with Russians for their own personal gain, but the campaign itself didn't do anything." If so, that's totally fine. But I'm hard-pressed to see how anything Mueller has done so far outstrips the relatively broad mandate he was given by "[Trump's] own Justice Department," to use your phrasing.

By *law* there has to be a predicate *crime*. Yes, it *is* a broad mandate. Name a single fing predicate crime in that mandate?

Do you see any 'crime' or 'specified crime' in the mandate bolded above? Please point them out in particularity.

As for the Rose Law Firm -- one fing guess who McDougall's attorney's were for the Whitewater acquisition, the subsequent transactions, and who represented both fing sides of the Whitewater/McDougall owned savings and loan that was milked dry to keep it afloat. One guess is all you need.

For Foster --- wow, funny thing he (and the First Lady) were *partners* at the Rose Law firm. In fact both he *and* Hillary billed time to several Whitewater and Whitewater-S/L transactions. C'mon man, use Google once in awhile. Jeezus Criminy Krist.

And to be honest, I would side with you in the case of the Travelgate. But the facts show another morph, had you even been bothered to look.

March 20, 1996, Attorney General Janet Reno requested that Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr expand his inquiry to specifically include the travel office affair, in particular allegations that White House employees had lied about Hillary Clinton's role in the firings, and that David Watkins or Hillary Clinton had made false statements in previous testimony to the GAO, Congress, or the Independent Counsel. The basis for the 'morph' was the background, since the Whitewater investigation had deep involvement with Foster, and Foster was apparently the pivot point for the Travelgate fiasco.

But, wow, once again a request naming a predicate crime.

Further, the Special Counsel involved was not Starr, but was originally Fiske.

The FBI files followed that grant since the allegations were made that the First Lady had pressured the FBI to be the 'firing pin' as opposed to herself. The initial discovery of the usage of the FBI files was through the Travelgate investigation. It just so happened that the fired Travel Office employees werent the only ones under the radar of the central scrutinizer re: FBI files.

Jurisdictional Basis for Travelgate


Awww, the historical facts dont seem to be breaking your way, do they?

Do you think if you keep throwing mud at an object it will turn into a 'correct statement' by magic or something?

I look forward to your naming of a predicate crime in the Mueller grant of of jurisdiction. Have fun at it.

(01-10-2019 10:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2019 12:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-09-2019 11:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Using the Whitewater investigation to try and prove the point you’re trying to make is hilarious. Raucously hilarious.

I suggest you read the actual history. I have made it easy for you to do. It is posted above.

Why doncha come back after you have read it, lad. Or not. Might be "Racuously Hilarious". I look forward to your book report.

I find it "Racuously Hilarious" that Janet Reno not only requested the continuance of the Whitewater into the Lewinsky investigation, but also found a legal requirement to name the crime and issue:

Quote:The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate to the maximum extent authorized by the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994 whether Monica Lewinsky or others suborned perjury, obstructed justice, intimidated witnesses, or otherwise violated federal law

Raucously hilarious I say!

Quote:But you’re mischaracterizing the Mueller investigation at the end. It isn’t investigating the hacking,

Glad you caught that. That is the crime you flap your arms about earlier. You squawk about that being the predicate crime just a couple of posts ago. I was taking *your* arm flap to demonstrate the idiocy of using it as such. Glad you note it seems out of place. That was the point.

So I assume that we are now to believe that your breathless proffer of the hacking as the predicate 'what is the fing *crime* that is being investigated' isnt so accurate. Thats good. But as to my comment to Owl#s, I doubt seriously you will point to a specific crime that is the explicit underpinning of the Mueller investigation --- like every fing other Special Counsel has been.

Now that you admit that your preliminary squawk about the hacking not being the crime that is the explicit underpinning of the Mueller Counsel Team, then *what* is the crime being investigated?

You previously state categorically that the predicate crime is the 'hacking', now its *not* the hacking. You are seemingly keeping all of your bases covered, for what its worth. Let's see what else you serve up for the melange 'definition de jour', shall we?

Quote:it’s investigating whether the hacking was part of something bigger. A crime started the entire mess - the stealing of personal communications and then publishing of them.

Oh goody, a complete revision of the standard --- one that conveniently bootstraps in sync with the kneejerks. But now you seemingly return to the predicate crime (the crime that *should* be the explicit goal and reason for the Special Counsel) being the 'hacking'. Good god, first its the hacking, then its not, then it is. Three stances in two posts, two stances in two paragraphs. The gyrations start....

So as to the bolded, the 'crime' that "started" the entire mess and is the legal predicate for the Mueller team --- where the **** is the investigation of it? You have seemingly forgotten that this crime that you so desperately need to predicate Team Mueller seems to be --- uh --- missing from the investigation. Funny that. Not just funny, but Raucously hilarious!

Looks like we got a Raucously hilarious case of a 'lad cha-cha-cha' starting here.

Quote:The other issue, which I don’t think is a crime but is obviously an act of aggression at the least,

Oh, now an 'other issue' to be considered, yet.... funny I doubt that this will be a crime focus. Wait, now its a 'not a crime' as the basis for an investigation. Got it.... I...... think....

cha cha cha, flap flap flap.

lad: the statement of initiation of *every* Special Counsel investigation states a 'crime' that should be investigated. Even the raucously hilarious Whitewater 'morphed to Lewinsky' --- Reno herself morphed it explicitly for an explicit investigatory power for an explicitly stated crime. As bad as it was to morph it in that manner, at least she didnt do a 'dash of this, a dab of that, and insta-presto there is a specific ground' (a crime, by necessity in the statute) for 'looking into' as you seemingly have started to thrash around here.

Quote:So that, coupled with numerous other actions taken by Trump and his administration or campaign officials created suspicion that there may have been collusion/cooperation between the Trump campaign and these foreign agents.

So to pull the plug on your so finely crafted 'coupled with/created suspicion/*may* have' Rube Goldberg construction, still no basis crime, right?

Quote:So you have a crime for sure.

Okay..... *back* to a base crime to form the predicate of the investigation. So tell me this super duper secret -- what is it? But a *crime* FOR SURE nonetheless!!! Please! No more drama! Tell us what it IS!!!

Quote:You have aggressive actions by a hostile foreign nation.

Aggressive actions is now your predicate crime? Uh...... okay..... Have to make sure to get going on that Iran Mueller team if *that* is now the base predicate crime.

Wow, I am getting tired with this many balls in the air with this juggling act.....

Quote: And then you have a group of people who are connected pretty darn closely to this (including one who publicly asked for help). So why wouldn’t you investigate a possible connection/collusion?

Because you havent named one base crime as the predicate? Just various piles of paint thrown against a canvas.....

Im surprised you havent taken flight with all that Raucously hilarious arm flapping in that post..... You may have just outdone yourself. Good job.

And, I am glad to help you clear up some historical issues on the Whitewater investigation and the Lewinsky investigation. I am sure you are cognizant now that it was actually *two* investigations, with *two* specifically delineated base crimes to investigate, and *one* horrendously lazy AG who seemed to think it would be a good idea to have the team already in place on investigation 1 to simply take over the investigation 2. But at least the horrendously lazy AG had the sense to specifically *authorize* the investigation 2.
And, Heavens to Betsy! She *even* *specifically and explicitly* named the *crime* that investigation 2 was to look into in.

Or is the horrendously lazy AG simply laughing herself at the Raucously hilarious direction that she pointed and authorized the existing team to, or just because she got to name a predicate crime to be investigated for the second time?

So lad, now that you know the nuts and bolts (nuts and bolts tend to be important, kind of like normal definitions of words, mind you) of the direction that Whitewater was officially steered into the Lewinsky investigation, do you still find it so Raucously hilarious? The world is curious..... Maybe we have just witnessed the re-definition of the term 'specific crime to be investigated' much like we have previously and not that long ago have seen with 'subsidy', 'redistribution', and 'competition'.

Still raucously hilarious because the Whitewater investigation morphed into the Lewinsky investigation.

With a naming of a predicate crime. You always seem to 'overlook' that.

So, lad, riddle me this:

Would your panties be in a wad if Reno had named a second counsel with the same predicate crime listed: yes or no?

Quote:As was pointed out in another post, the Mueller investigation was always allowed to follow any criminal leads it uncovered during the initial investigation of any ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.

Please tell me the predicate crime listed in the Mueller grant? Not *your* contortions, but the what is in the text there.

I.E. : the Mueller investigation is an investigation in search of crime. Dead stop.

Every single fing Special Counsel prior to this has been an investigation of a lsited crime in the jurisdictional grant. Dead stop. Even the 'threesy' of the Starr Whitewater/Lewinsky/Travelgate investigation(s). Each aspect had a separate jurisdictional grant listing one or more *actual* fing crimes.

And yes, you are definitely clueless on both concept and the implications as far as I can tell.

Quote:So I don't see how the transformation of the Whitewater investigation is any different than the current investigation with respect to crimes not directly related to the original investigation.

The transformation was *only* undertaken after a specific crime was listed to be investigated. And had a direct grant to investigate that crime.

Quote:Or do you need a separate directive outlining specific investigate focuses to sleep well at night?

I would definitely prefer it. The law *requires* it, mind you. But that is the interesting difference between you and I, is that I seem to give a **** about what the language of the law is, and what words mean.

Let me chalk you up to the 'Special Counsel' with no particular legal jurisdiction, act willy nilly, and come back to us at some time supporter. Got it.

I guess you are on the 'unlimited scope and unlimited jurisdiction' bandwagon. Do you *really* think that is a good idea overall, as opposed to having very delineated and exercising only a limited scope of investigation? I guess you do. Fits in nicely with your lean towards 'government should be able to whatever the **** it wants however the **** it wants' stance at times.

(01-10-2019 12:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2019 10:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2019 12:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-09-2019 11:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Using the Whitewater investigation to try and prove the point you’re trying to make is hilarious. Raucously hilarious.

I suggest you read the actual history. I have made it easy for you to do. It is posted above.

Why doncha come back after you have read it, lad. Or not. Might be "Racuously Hilarious". I look forward to your book report.

I find it "Racuously Hilarious" that Janet Reno not only requested the continuance of the Whitewater into the Lewinsky investigation, but also found a legal requirement to name the crime and issue:

Quote:The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate to the maximum extent authorized by the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994 whether Monica Lewinsky or others suborned perjury, obstructed justice, intimidated witnesses, or otherwise violated federal law

Raucously hilarious I say!

Quote:But you’re mischaracterizing the Mueller investigation at the end. It isn’t investigating the hacking,

Glad you caught that. That is the crime you flap your arms about earlier. You squawk about that being the predicate crime just a couple of posts ago. I was taking *your* arm flap to demonstrate the idiocy of using it as such. Glad you note it seems out of place. That was the point.

So I assume that we are now to believe that your breathless proffer of the hacking as the predicate 'what is the fing *crime* that is being investigated' isnt so accurate. Thats good. But as to my comment to Owl#s, I doubt seriously you will point to a specific crime that is the explicit underpinning of the Mueller investigation --- like every fing other Special Counsel has been.

Now that you admit that your preliminary squawk about the hacking not being the crime that is the explicit underpinning of the Mueller Counsel Team, then *what* is the crime being investigated?

You previously state categorically that the predicate crime is the 'hacking', now its *not* the hacking. You are seemingly keeping all of your bases covered, for what its worth. Let's see what else you serve up for the melange 'definition de jour', shall we?

Quote:it’s investigating whether the hacking was part of something bigger. A crime started the entire mess - the stealing of personal communications and then publishing of them.

Oh goody, a complete revision of the standard --- one that conveniently bootstraps in sync with the kneejerks. But now you seemingly return to the predicate crime (the crime that *should* be the explicit goal and reason for the Special Counsel) being the 'hacking'. Good god, first its the hacking, then its not, then it is. Three stances in two posts, two stances in two paragraphs. The gyrations start....

So as to the bolded, the 'crime' that "started" the entire mess and is the legal predicate for the Mueller team --- where the **** is the investigation of it? You have seemingly forgotten that this crime that you so desperately need to predicate Team Mueller seems to be --- uh --- missing from the investigation. Funny that. Not just funny, but Raucously hilarious!

Looks like we got a Raucously hilarious case of a 'lad cha-cha-cha' starting here.

Quote:The other issue, which I don’t think is a crime but is obviously an act of aggression at the least,

Oh, now an 'other issue' to be considered, yet.... funny I doubt that this will be a crime focus. Wait, now its a 'not a crime' as the basis for an investigation. Got it.... I...... think....

cha cha cha, flap flap flap.

lad: the statement of initiation of *every* Special Counsel investigation states a 'crime' that should be investigated. Even the raucously hilarious Whitewater 'morphed to Lewinsky' --- Reno herself morphed it explicitly for an explicit investigatory power for an explicitly stated crime. As bad as it was to morph it in that manner, at least she didnt do a 'dash of this, a dab of that, and insta-presto there is a specific ground' (a crime, by necessity in the statute) for 'looking into' as you seemingly have started to thrash around here.

Quote:So that, coupled with numerous other actions taken by Trump and his administration or campaign officials created suspicion that there may have been collusion/cooperation between the Trump campaign and these foreign agents.

So to pull the plug on your so finely crafted 'coupled with/created suspicion/*may* have' Rube Goldberg construction, still no basis crime, right?

Quote:So you have a crime for sure.

Okay..... *back* to a base crime to form the predicate of the investigation. So tell me this super duper secret -- what is it? But a *crime* FOR SURE nonetheless!!! Please! No more drama! Tell us what it IS!!!

Quote:You have aggressive actions by a hostile foreign nation.

Aggressive actions is now your predicate crime? Uh...... okay..... Have to make sure to get going on that Iran Mueller team if *that* is now the base predicate crime.

Wow, I am getting tired with this many balls in the air with this juggling act.....

Quote: And then you have a group of people who are connected pretty darn closely to this (including one who publicly asked for help). So why wouldn’t you investigate a possible connection/collusion?

Because you havent named one base crime as the predicate? Just various piles of paint thrown against a canvas.....

Im surprised you havent taken flight with all that Raucously hilarious arm flapping in that post..... You may have just outdone yourself. Good job.

And, I am glad to help you clear up some historical issues on the Whitewater investigation and the Lewinsky investigation. I am sure you are cognizant now that it was actually *two* investigations, with *two* specifically delineated base crimes to investigate, and *one* horrendously lazy AG who seemed to think it would be a good idea to have the team already in place on investigation 1 to simply take over the investigation 2. But at least the horrendously lazy AG had the sense to specifically *authorize* the investigation 2.
And, Heavens to Betsy! She *even* *specifically and explicitly* named the *crime* that investigation 2 was to look into in.

Or is the horrendously lazy AG simply laughing herself at the Raucously hilarious direction that she pointed and authorized the existing team to, or just because she got to name a predicate crime to be investigated for the second time?

So lad, now that you know the nuts and bolts (nuts and bolts tend to be important, kind of like normal definitions of words, mind you) of the direction that Whitewater was officially steered into the Lewinsky investigation, do you still find it so Raucously hilarious? The world is curious..... Maybe we have just witnessed the re-definition of the term 'specific crime to be investigated' much like we have previously and not that long ago have seen with 'subsidy', 'redistribution', and 'competition'.

Still raucously hilarious because the Whitewater investigation morphed into the Lewinsky investigation.

With a naming of a predicate crime. You always seem to 'overlook' that.

So, lad, riddle me this:

Would your panties be in a wad if Reno had named a second counsel with the same predicate crime listed: yes or no?

Quote:As was pointed out in another post, the Mueller investigation was always allowed to follow any criminal leads it uncovered during the initial investigation of any ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.

Please tell me the predicate crime listed in the Mueller grant? Not *your* contortions, but the what is in the text there.

I.E. : the Mueller investigation is an investigation in search of crime. Dead stop.

Every single fing Special Counsel prior to this has been an investigation of a lsited crime in the jurisdictional grant. Dead stop. Even the 'threesy' of the Starr Whitewater/Lewinsky/Travelgate investigation(s). Each aspect had a separate jurisdictional grant listing one or more *actual* fing crimes.

And yes, you are definitely clueless on both concept and the implications as far as I can tell.

Quote:So I don't see how the transformation of the Whitewater investigation is any different than the current investigation with respect to crimes not directly related to the original investigation.

The transformation was *only* undertaken after a specific crime was listed to be investigated. And had a direct grant to investigate that crime.

Quote:Or do you need a separate directive outlining specific investigate focuses to sleep well at night?

I would definitely prefer it. The law *requires* it, mind you. But that is the interesting difference between you and I, is that I seem to give a **** about what the language of the law is, and what words mean.

Let me chalk you up to the 'Special Counsel' with no particular legal jurisdiction, act willy nilly, and come back to us at some time supporter. Got it.

I guess you are on the 'unlimited scope and unlimited jurisdiction' bandwagon. Do you *really* think that is a good idea overall, as opposed to having very delineated and exercising only a limited scope of investigation? I guess you do. Fits in nicely with your lean towards 'government should be able to whatever the **** it wants however the **** it wants' stance at times.

My panties aren't in a wad about what happened with the Clinton probe, but I'm glad that you're so concerned about my undergarments! I do prefer a different kind though, the panties can be a bit restrictive...

(01-10-2019 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2019 10:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2019 07:45 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, and the original mandate here was *solely* "any links and or coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" and "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." *After* it was revealed that possible crimes had been committed by numerous campaign associates of the President (i.e. perjury, obstruction of justice, money laundering, etc.), it was clear that investigating these items fell under the second item of Mueller's investigatory authority, without need of any "expansion" of Mueller's authority. It is also clear that if Mueller had not assumed the investigation of these items, a separate prosecuting entity (the U.S. Attorney, perhaps) would have done so, as has happened with a number of items already. Irrespective of your whining about it.
Let me know when you find the document "expanding" Starr's investigation to cover the travel office and FBI file stuff. Oh, and Vince Foster and the Rose Law Firm.
Look, it may very well be that Mueller ends all this by saying, "Yeah, there's nothing here vis-a-vis Trump himself. Some of his campaign people made really dumb choices and may have engaged in some individualized coordination with Russians for their own personal gain, but the campaign itself didn't do anything." If so, that's totally fine.

I think that's looking more and more like a very likely outcome. I'm glad you're fine with that. I don't think many on the left will be.

Quote:But I'm hard-pressed to see how anything Mueller has done so far outstrips the relatively broad mandate he was given by "[Trump's] own Justice Department," to use your phrasing.

The mandate was basically, "Orange man bad. Go figure out how." I don't think that sort of broad mandate is appropriate. Watergate did not drag on because there was clearly a crime and it was investigating that crime. Monicagate turned into an investigation in search of a crime. This is more of that. I think some republicans saw Monicagate as payback for Watergate, and I think many democrats see this as payback for Monicagate.

I would take some issue with the characterization of "[Trump's] own Justice Department." The people calling the shots are carer bureaucrats. They owe their allegiance to the bureaucracy, not to Trump. To be clear, that's the bureaucracy, not the Constitution. Probably more correctly, they think the bureaucracy IS the Constitution.

While I understand the criticism of a broad mandate, how would you have handled a situation where, say the mandate was hyper focused (on say communications between Trump campaign and Russia regarding hacked emails), which then uncovered evidence of other crimes? Would you have required the special counsel to get public approval to proceed from the DOJ?

If the crimes are unrelated to the scope of the investigation, that is what the law mandates at this time for Special Counsels.

Or, you turn the evidence of the unrelated issues over to a body that does have jurisdiction. Again, that is what the law mandates at this time for Special Counsels.

Honestly, if they are 'related crimes', then the the initial Lewinsky investigation is a good model. The grant was originally to investigate wrongdoing by *Lewinsky*. Related criminal acts like perjury of President in the same matter are without a doubt fair game for a Special Prosecutor due to the 'arising out of' language in the grant.

If there is an issue with the implementation of the law -- Go read some Gorsuch and get the law changed.

Is that too much to ask for? Adherence to existing law?

Look, if the grant of jurisdiction listed even *one* simple crime --- I am okay with it; it follows the Special Counsel Act. If more unrelated crimes are discovered, by all means either throw them to a jurisdiction that can handle them, *or* do what Reno did and expand the jurisdiction explicitly.

If you prefer the grab bag 'investigation in search of a crime', then by all means follow the course that the Mueller investigation has charted.

(01-10-2019 01:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]My panties aren't in a wad about what happened with the Clinton probe, but I'm glad that you're so concerned about my undergarments! I do prefer a different kind though, the panties can be a bit restrictive...

Albeit you still didnt answer the question about whether you would be okay with a second Special Counsel being named for Lewinsky where you find the existing Counsel being named as 'raucously hilarious'.

If you have a problem with a second counsel, what gives you that problem?

If you dont, then what is your very serious issue about a jurisdictional grant being granted to the existing counsel there?

Look, had that grant not been given, nor given with the proper predicate crime, I would join your hilarity.

But the singular fact is that those steps were taken. So what (if any) is the difference between one counsel having dual investigations per the law or two?

What exactly do you find 'raucously hilarious' given those historical facts? The fact that Starr might be 'tainted' and 'after a hide' so he shouldnt be given such a broad grant? Or do you think the object and subject of the Lewinsky investigation to be stupid?

I can understand the 'raucously hilarious' statement if one did not know the procedural and legal history of the process. Truly. And I would join you on that viewpoint had it been a single magic-presto 'step to the left'.

The facts paint another picture (at least somewhat) yet you still cling (bitterly? sorry couldnt resist a political topical 'joke') to the 'raucously hilarious' characterization. I am seriously curious as to why.

Quote:This shows that Bob Mueller can demonstrate to a court, without the testimony of Paul Manafort, that the campaign had a connection to Russian intelligence and the connection involved information going from the campaign to the Russians," Napolitano said. "The question is, was this in return for a promise of something from the Russians, and did the candidate, now the president, know about it?” That would be "a conspiracy," he added, regardless of whether the Trump campaign actually got anything of value from the Russians.

"If this is collusion — though collusion isn't a crime — this would be collusion,” Smith said. "The crime is the conspiracy, the agreement," Napolitano said. "Collusion is a nonlegal term." "I know, but if there's collusion," Smith pressed, "giving stuff to the Russians about polling data ..." "Would probably fit into that kind of a category," Napolitano agreed

Napolitano, that darn liberal hack with no judicial or legal experience!

https://theweek.com/speedreads-amp/81682...ssion=true

(01-10-2019 01:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:This shows that Bob Mueller can demonstrate to a court, without the testimony of Paul Manafort, that the campaign had a connection to Russian intelligence and the connection involved information going from the campaign to the Russians," Napolitano said. "The question is, was this in return for a promise of something from the Russians, and did the candidate, now the president, know about it?” That would be "a conspiracy," he added, regardless of whether the Trump campaign actually got anything of value from the Russians.

"If this is collusion — though collusion isn't a crime — this would be collusion,” Smith said. "The crime is the conspiracy, the agreement," Napolitano said. "Collusion is a nonlegal term." "I know, but if there's collusion," Smith pressed, "giving stuff to the Russians about polling data ..." "Would probably fit into that kind of a category," Napolitano agreed

Napolitano, that darn liberal hack with no judicial or legal experience!

https://theweek.com/speedreads-amp/81682...ssion=true

Well, a 'conspiracy' again has to have an underlying crime or attempt. It doesnt exist on its own. That is Crim Law 101.

'Conspiracy for collusion' has the same legal ramification of 'conspiracy to pillow fight' when there is no criminal penalty for collusion.

So once again, 'conspiracy to do...... what?' Again, show me an underlying criminal actus reus and proper mens reus for....... something.

God this is broken record.

(01-10-2019 01:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2019 01:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]My panties aren't in a wad about what happened with the Clinton probe, but I'm glad that you're so concerned about my undergarments! I do prefer a different kind though, the panties can be a bit restrictive...

Albeit you still didnt answer the question about whether you would be okay with a second Special Counsel being named for Lewinsky where you find the existing Counsel being named as 'raucously hilarious'.

If you have a problem with a second counsel, what gives you that problem?

If you dont, then what is your very serious issue about a jurisdictional grant being granted to the existing counsel there?

Look, had that grant not been given, nor given with the proper predicate crime, I would join your hilarity.

But the singular fact is that those steps were taken. So what (if any) is the difference between one counsel having dual investigations per the law or two?

What exactly do you find 'raucously hilarious' given those historical facts? The fact that Starr might be 'tainted' and 'after a hide' so he shouldnt be given such a broad grant? Or do you think the object and subject of the Lewinsky investigation to be stupid?

I can understand the 'raucously hilarious' statement if one were ignorant of the process. Truly. And I would join you on that viewpoint had it been a single magic-presto 'step to the left'.

The facts paint another picture (at least somewhat) yet you still cling (bitterly? sorry couldnt resist a political topical 'joke') to the 'raucously hilarious' characterization. I am seriously curious as to why.

What I found hilarious is that you tried to suggest Whitewater was different than this Mueller investigation. Whitewater's scope creep was significant and you admit that. The legality of that creep doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You suggest that the Mueller probe has crept too much, but fail to mention that, from the start, there has been a directive to follow that creep. So that creep too is legal and shouldn't be of issue to you.

And further, the connection to a crime for both Clinton and Trump are similarly disconnected. For Whitewater, the whole issue that started the investigation was a fraud committed by Madison Guaranty, a company bought by Jim McDougal. The Clintons were involved with the land purchase of Whitewater, but were not owners/employees of Madison Guaranty, which is the entity through which the initial crime was committed. So the Whitewater investigation was investigating if the Clintons had anything to do with the fraud. Kind of like how Mueller is investigating if the Trump campaign had anything to do with the hacking/election interference...

But to each their own.

(01-10-2019 01:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:This shows that Bob Mueller can demonstrate to a court, without the testimony of Paul Manafort, that the campaign had a connection to Russian intelligence and the connection involved information going from the campaign to the Russians," Napolitano said. "The question is, was this in return for a promise of something from the Russians, and did the candidate, now the president, know about it?” That would be "a conspiracy," he added, regardless of whether the Trump campaign actually got anything of value from the Russians.

"If this is collusion — though collusion isn't a crime — this would be collusion,” Smith said. "The crime is the conspiracy, the agreement," Napolitano said. "Collusion is a nonlegal term." "I know, but if there's collusion," Smith pressed, "giving stuff to the Russians about polling data ..." "Would probably fit into that kind of a category," Napolitano agreed

Napolitano, that darn liberal hack with no judicial or legal experience!

https://theweek.com/speedreads-amp/81682...ssion=true

and some people think Fox is biased and CNN is not! When the libs quote Fox...

(01-10-2019 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2019 01:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2019 01:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]My panties aren't in a wad about what happened with the Clinton probe, but I'm glad that you're so concerned about my undergarments! I do prefer a different kind though, the panties can be a bit restrictive...

Albeit you still didnt answer the question about whether you would be okay with a second Special Counsel being named for Lewinsky where you find the existing Counsel being named as 'raucously hilarious'.

If you have a problem with a second counsel, what gives you that problem?

If you dont, then what is your very serious issue about a jurisdictional grant being granted to the existing counsel there?

Look, had that grant not been given, nor given with the proper predicate crime, I would join your hilarity.

But the singular fact is that those steps were taken. So what (if any) is the difference between one counsel having dual investigations per the law or two?

What exactly do you find 'raucously hilarious' given those historical facts? The fact that Starr might be 'tainted' and 'after a hide' so he shouldnt be given such a broad grant? Or do you think the object and subject of the Lewinsky investigation to be stupid?

I can understand the 'raucously hilarious' statement if one were ignorant of the process. Truly. And I would join you on that viewpoint had it been a single magic-presto 'step to the left'.

The facts paint another picture (at least somewhat) yet you still cling (bitterly? sorry couldnt resist a political topical 'joke') to the 'raucously hilarious' characterization. I am seriously curious as to why.

What I found hilarious is that you tried to suggest Whitewater was different than this Mueller investigation. Whitewater's scope creep was significant and you admit that. The legality of that creep doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Again, I will ask for *third* time. Would you be so 'riled up' if a 2nd office undertook the Lewinsky Investigation? Easy question to answer.

----------------------------

As for the above, neat answer. Too bad it is not an answer to the question posed.

My question to you above should highlight the problem with your last sentence.

Do you understand that the 'creep' of the Starr team jurisdiction was *not* a function of an investigator given unlimited jurisdiction and told to 'go find some ****', but rather that an *independent* person (Reno) *requested* the additional independent investigation(s) with *specified and listed crimes* be placed with an already existing team, and another *independent* body (a judicial panel) *authorizing* that joinder of investigations? I dont think you understand these differences from the Mueller tour de force.

Quote:You suggest that the Mueller probe has crept too much,

Incorrect. I am saying that there is no criminal matter that they have been charged with investigating. There is no predicate criminal matter cited like there has in *any* previous Special Counsel investigation. Dead stop.

Look at *all* of the previous Special Counsel authorizations. Every single one of them was charged with investigating a *specified* crime. They were investigations *of* a crime -- the one in the authorization.

Nothing in the Mueller investigation authorization is a crime. It seriously *is* an investigation *in search of a crime*. Kind of turns the legal requirements (and historical practice) on its fing head.

Quote:And further, the connection to a crime for both Clinton and Trump are similarly disconnected. For Whitewater, the whole issue that started the investigation was a fraud committed by Madison Guaranty, a company bought by Jim McDougal. The Clintons were involved with the land purchase of Whitewater, but were not owners/employees of Madison Guaranty, which is the entity through which the initial crime was committed. So the Whitewater investigation was investigating if the Clintons had anything to do with the fraud.

Exactly, They were investigating a *crime*. They werent investigating *for* a crime.

Funny, we are back to Owl#s comment, which I stated that there were many people that either dont understand, or dont want to understand the difference.

(01-10-2019 02:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2019 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2019 01:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2019 01:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]My panties aren't in a wad about what happened with the Clinton probe, but I'm glad that you're so concerned about my undergarments! I do prefer a different kind though, the panties can be a bit restrictive...

Albeit you still didnt answer the question about whether you would be okay with a second Special Counsel being named for Lewinsky where you find the existing Counsel being named as 'raucously hilarious'.

If you have a problem with a second counsel, what gives you that problem?

If you dont, then what is your very serious issue about a jurisdictional grant being granted to the existing counsel there?

Look, had that grant not been given, nor given with the proper predicate crime, I would join your hilarity.

But the singular fact is that those steps were taken. So what (if any) is the difference between one counsel having dual investigations per the law or two?

What exactly do you find 'raucously hilarious' given those historical facts? The fact that Starr might be 'tainted' and 'after a hide' so he shouldnt be given such a broad grant? Or do you think the object and subject of the Lewinsky investigation to be stupid?

I can understand the 'raucously hilarious' statement if one were ignorant of the process. Truly. And I would join you on that viewpoint had it been a single magic-presto 'step to the left'.

The facts paint another picture (at least somewhat) yet you still cling (bitterly? sorry couldnt resist a political topical 'joke') to the 'raucously hilarious' characterization. I am seriously curious as to why.

What I found hilarious is that you tried to suggest Whitewater was different than this Mueller investigation. Whitewater's scope creep was significant and you admit that. The legality of that creep doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Again, I will ask for *third* time. Would you be so 'riled up' if a 2nd office undertook the Lewinsky Investigation? Easy question to answer.

----------------------------

As for the above, neat answer. Too bad it is not an answer to the question posed.

My question to you above should highlight the problem with your last sentence.

Do you understand that the 'creep' of the Starr team jurisdiction was *not* a function of an investigator given unlimited jurisdiction and told to 'go find some ****', but rather that an *independent* person (Reno) *requested* the additional independent investigation(s) with *specified and listed crimes* be placed with an already existing team, and another *independent* body (a judicial panel) *authorizing* that joinder of investigations? I dont think you understand these differences from the Mueller tour de force.

And for the third time, I'm not riled up, nor are my panties in a twist.

My comment dealt with the comparison of the two investigations. I provided no commentary on the Whitewater investigation and its creep.

(01-10-2019 07:45 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote: [ -> ]Let me know when you find the document "expanding" Starr's investigation to cover the travel office and FBI file stuff.

OONH2:

Just specifically wanted to make sure that you saw this:

Jurisdictional Basis for Travelgate

Sufficient?

As an added plus, it doesnt once mention Pepe the Frog.

Heh....

Regarding the Manafort data issue, that lad said undoubtedly had oodles and boodles of highly double secret sauce, I noticed this:

Quote:Most of the data was public

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/po...imnik.html

Heh.

(01-10-2019 07:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Heh....

Regarding the Manafort data issue, that lad said undoubtedly had oodles and boodles of highly double secret sauce, I noticed this:

Quote:Most of the data was public

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/po...imnik.html

Heh.

Quote:...but some of it was developed by a private polling firm working for the campaign, according to the person.

Edit: regardless, this article does make the first cogent argument as to why Manafort might have shared this data outside of it going to assist Russian campaign efforts. Manafort has a $2.4MM debt he was trying to settle.

(01-10-2019 09:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2019 07:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Heh....
Regarding the Manafort data issue, that lad said undoubtedly had oodles and boodles of highly double secret sauce, I noticed this:

Quote:Most of the data was public

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/po...imnik.html
Heh.

Quote:...but some of it was developed by a private polling firm working for the campaign, according to the person.

Edit: regardless, this article does make the first cogent argument as to why Manafort might have shared this data outside of it going to assist Russian campaign efforts. Manafort has a $2.4MM debt he was trying to settle.

But how does that get you to "Trump" "colluding" with "the Russians"?

(01-11-2019 02:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2019 09:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2019 07:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Heh....
Regarding the Manafort data issue, that lad said undoubtedly had oodles and boodles of highly double secret sauce, I noticed this:

Quote:Most of the data was public

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/po...imnik.html
Heh.

Quote:...but some of it was developed by a private polling firm working for the campaign, according to the person.

Edit: regardless, this article does make the first cogent argument as to why Manafort might have shared this data outside of it going to assist Russian campaign efforts. Manafort has a $2.4MM debt he was trying to settle.

But how does that get you to "Trump" "colluding" with "the Russians"?

That was the whole point of my edit...

(01-11-2019 08:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-11-2019 02:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2019 09:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2019 07:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Heh....
Regarding the Manafort data issue, that lad said undoubtedly had oodles and boodles of highly double secret sauce, I noticed this:

Quote:Most of the data was public

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/po...imnik.html
Heh.

Quote:...but some of it was developed by a private polling firm working for the campaign, according to the person.

Edit: regardless, this article does make the first cogent argument as to why Manafort might have shared this data outside of it going to assist Russian campaign efforts. Manafort has a $2.4MM debt he was trying to settle.

But how does that get you to "Trump" "colluding" with "the Russians"?

That was the whole point of my edit...

And mine as well. I still think this is pointing where OO suggested, to another Scooter Libby. We're going to see some minor players prosecuted and likely convicted for minor unrelated activities, but no collusion or conspiracy involving Donald Trump. I'm not sure how the left will accept that.

(01-11-2019 09:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-11-2019 08:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-11-2019 02:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2019 09:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2019 07:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Heh....
Regarding the Manafort data issue, that lad said undoubtedly had oodles and boodles of highly double secret sauce, I noticed this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/po...imnik.html
Heh.

Quote:...but some of it was developed by a private polling firm working for the campaign, according to the person.

Edit: regardless, this article does make the first cogent argument as to why Manafort might have shared this data outside of it going to assist Russian campaign efforts. Manafort has a $2.4MM debt he was trying to settle.

But how does that get you to "Trump" "colluding" with "the Russians"?

That was the whole point of my edit...

And mine as well. I still think this is pointing where OO suggested, to another Scooter Libby. We're going to see some minor players prosecuted and likely convicted for minor unrelated activities, but no collusion or conspiracy involving Donald Trump. I'm not sure how the left will accept that.

It will be interesting to see how some on the left handle that for sure.

I've said for quite some time that I doubted that Trump would be charged with anything related to colluding/conspiring with Russia, but that people in his campaign would be. I don't know why Trump himself not being charged would mean the investigation is less worthwhile, but maybe you're not suggesting that - can't quite tell.

That's why, when I talk about the investigation, I clearly say the Trump campaign, because that is what is being investigated. Trump surrounded himself with some very sketchy characters.

(01-11-2019 10:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-11-2019 09:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-11-2019 08:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-11-2019 02:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2019 09:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Edit: regardless, this article does make the first cogent argument as to why Manafort might have shared this data outside of it going to assist Russian campaign efforts. Manafort has a $2.4MM debt he was trying to settle.

But how does that get you to "Trump" "colluding" with "the Russians"?

That was the whole point of my edit...

And mine as well. I still think this is pointing where OO suggested, to another Scooter Libby. We're going to see some minor players prosecuted and likely convicted for minor unrelated activities, but no collusion or conspiracy involving Donald Trump. I'm not sure how the left will accept that.

It will be interesting to see how some on the left handle that for sure.

I've said for quite some time that I doubted that Trump would be charged with anything related to colluding/conspiring with Russia, but that people in his campaign would be. I don't know why Trump himself not being charged would mean the investigation is less worthwhile, but maybe you're not suggesting that - can't quite tell.

That's why, when I talk about the investigation, I clearly say the Trump campaign, because that is what is being investigated. Trump surrounded himself with some very sketchy characters.

Oh, Bull Hockey. The target is Trump, regardless of the frame you guys want to put it in. The campaign and associates and family and dog walkers and bimbos and people he met 30 years ago are all just means to get him. Unfortunately for you guys, there was no collusion, so you will have to content yourselves will turning over rocks and finding stuff on those associates. There will be innuendo of the type you guys take as evidence, such as the assistnt to the assistant of the Department of Assistants being seen at the DC library at the same time as a Russian. The conspiracy theory will live on, forever. Soon we will hear of the third Russian on the grassy knoll, and the nest of spies living in Alabama.

Collusion makes no sense, for either alleged side, and you guys are trying to confuse association with collusion, to the point that a handshake with a russian at a state dinner is suspicious activity.

When Mueller folds his tent without displaying a conspiracy, the conspiracy theorists on the left(everybody?) will call for another investigation, since this was obviously influenced by Trump's meddling, or by Russian agents within the investigation, or by global warming, or something, anything, because anything that does not land Trump in Leavenworth will be deemed insufficient. Anything that does not show Hillary as the true Queen of the US is insufficient.