(10-14-2017 04:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-14-2017 07:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-14-2017 12:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-13-2017 10:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-13-2017 10:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And real estate often has very large cash transactions.

In fact, as one article o linked to, a Russian oligarch bought a Trump property for many, many millions over its worth...

And I wouldn’t really use the fact that trump pays his taxes as evidence he hasn’t been involved with financial crimes. Maddoff paid his taxes too...

I have deal with a lot of real estate purchases and sales over the last 50 years, ranging from 4figures to 7 figuresand have yet to do one in cash.

Likewise the income to his properties is primarily credit card or check.

Of course, I don’t know all of Trump’s businesses. Maybe the golf clubs take in a lot of cash.

Truthfully, I think money laundering would be peanuts to Trump.

But, who knows. Maybe he runs prostitution rings, and a tape showing that will mysteriously show up at the NYT.

My prediction from way early in this thread holds. There will be nothing on Trump. There will likely be some minor indictments of minor people (Flynn). No collusion by anybody.

But notice how the tangent of 'collusion' has disappeared to the emergence of broadly hinted but still nebulous 'financial crimes'.

Kind of tells me that Mueller and the 'resistance' are actually promoting and advocating the witch-hunt and chasing down rabbit-holes that many said would be the final result.

But, a special prosecutor never met a rabbit-hole he (edited to ad 'or she', since I dont want to get the tar and feather of being a pig-headed sexist) didnt want to explore......

Go back and read my old posts, please. As I have said again, and again, and again, I would be shocked if Trump himself was found guilty of colluding with Russia. Instead, I find it much more likely that people within his campaign did (like Jr who was thrilled to get an offer of dirt on Clinton from a Russian source) and I will actually be shocked if they don’t find that.

The investigation was always about the Trump campaign, not just the Teflon Don himself.

Collusion has not disappeared, it is just that Trump has now been responsible for so many shocking, bewildering, and terrifying acts (firing Comey, sparring with NK, bungling Maria, Charlottesville response, and so on) that public attention can only stay on one thing. And the only reason I brought up financial crimes in relation to the Nueller investigation, as opposed to results about collusion, is I wanted to give my opinion on what I think a likely outcome will be.

Go ahead and try be the exact kind of partisan hack you’re trying to rail against in your recent posts, because that is what you’re doing by trying to, I don’t know, shame me, because I offered my thoughts on what the likely outcome of the Trump presidency would be, based on information available to me. It’s frustrating that you seem to be confusing someone’s opinion of what a likely outcome will be with someone’s opinion of what the outcome should be.

So mentioning the *fact* that an amorphous 'collusion' investigation has ballooned into a (well beyond the legally mandated scope) investigation of amorphous 'financial' crimes is now being a "partisan hack". Interesting point of view.

Im just opining that anyone can intertwine normal course of business facts with an ominous underlying tone to make those facts sound like the most sketchy thing since Goebbels and pals.

The structure of the points brought up re: Trump has this same structure. I've seen it and dealt with this structure of crap first hand in full force (albeit going the opposite way to make Solyndra seem to be an evil cabal of insider self-dealing poop for the Democrats).

So based on experience, feel free to color me skeptical. I will be neutral on the investigation(s) until solid fing facts are presented without all the eerie organ music that I hear in my mind reading these items.

If the *facts* (absent the horror movie organ music in the articles) lead me to believe that collusion occurred, tell me where to sign up to help out with the ouster of power.

As for the other item that I mentioned that has seemingly made me into a "partisan hack", I don't think you can deny that the investigation of collusion has now seemingly morphed into one on 'financial crimes', which is *well* beyond the legal scope of the Mueller team.

But, to quote the movie "American Wedding", 'polish my n-ts and serve me a milkshake' since I am *amazingly* surprised to see this veer off in this tangent. Looks like we are headed into the American Sportsmen Special Prosecutor Edition where our intrepid guides will seek *anything* they can ferret out, much in a manner that led to the Whitewater investigation's crowning achievement of Monica Lewinsky.

But this shouldn't be news to you, since OO, 69/75, and myself told you *exactly* this was the direction the special prosecutor and his investigation would take. My only question at this point is in which rabbit-hole direction some underling will be indicted, because, by God when you *investigate* with this vigor *someone* needs to be indicted for *something* (Canon 2 of the Guild of Special Prosecutors).

So pardon my 'partisan hack' statement that this is apparently exactly what is currently happening. But, I guess that anything that doesnt go well out of its way to castigate Trump needs to be classified as a 'partisan hack' these days?

First and foremost, NO, your comment about the how the investigation has ballooned to include things outside of a narrowly defined scope does NOT get you labeled a partisan hack. I'm not sure how you came to such a specific conclusion from my post. And no, anything that doesn't go out of its way to castigate Trump does not need to be classified as a partisan hack.

I called you a partisan hack because of your comments which very much seemed to be responding to my posts, because they touched on what OO and I had been going back and forth about. I said that because of: (i) how you stated that collusion has disappeared from the conversation with respect to the investigation (it has not disappeared, as I continue to restate my opinion on it) and how financial crimes just appeared (again, go back and read my old posts); (ii) you intentionally seemed to be confusing the difference between an opinion of how the investigation will end and how the investigation should end (if you notice, I am not calling for Trump to be ousted from his office at the moment, because as you said, concrete evidence does not exist to suggest he should be); (iii) in a similar vein, misunderstanding the difference between analyzing a situation and castigating someone; and (iv) how it appears how you always try to be above the line of party politics, but yet quickly attack the actions of those on the left side of the spectrum, while ignoring similar actions of those on the right side.

I completely understand your qualms about the investigation with respect to the scope ballooning to a point where it becomes an all out fishing expedition, and I think that is a completely rationale position. You're right that there is certainly a slippery scope component to this and that being aware of that is the first step towards not supporting something that turns into an investigation with a goal of getting someone, as opposed to uncovering possible Russian collusion.

However, I don't think investigating the campaign team's finances (especially Trump's) is well beyond the legal scope of the investigation. I think it's rationale and within the scope because an investigation into possible collusion with a foreign adversary would need to understand if there was either potential blackmail material/leverage on POTUS, which could have been used to coerce someone into colluding, or if there were payments made in a quid pro quo. That's why I don't think investigation into the campaign's main players is not tangential, but in-line with the collusion investigation.

(10-14-2017 05:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  However, I don't think investigating the campaign team's finances (especially Trump's) is well beyond the legal scope of the investigation. I think it's rationale and within the scope because an investigation into possible collusion with a foreign adversary would need to understand if there was either potential blackmail material/leverage on POTUS, which could have been used to coerce someone into colluding, or if there were payments made in a quid pro quo. That's why I don't think investigation into the campaign's main players is not tangential, but in-line with the collusion investigation.

Months ago, I harped on this thread about the silliness of the mythical collusion, asking what was the quid pro quo. No answer. I was told then by *somebody* here that a QPQ was not needed.

But let's explore this theory. sometime in 2015, Trump called Putin, and said Vlad, do me a favor. Steal the DNC emails and publish them without any editing. My campaign team tell me that is all I need to win Wisconsin. In return, I will__________________________.

What fills in the blank there? Seems like the Russians are mad at us all the time now. Is that an act?

No liberal can concoct a theory or narrative of what they are trying to prove without sounding like a complete idiot. I have asked and asked, and nary a response. It's almost as if they know it is a smoke screen.

But yeah, it sounds better if Manafort called and asked for the email theft and in return promised....again, what? To accept a lot of money?

(10-14-2017 06:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-14-2017 05:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  However, I don't think investigating the campaign team's finances (especially Trump's) is well beyond the legal scope of the investigation. I think it's rationale and within the scope because an investigation into possible collusion with a foreign adversary would need to understand if there was either potential blackmail material/leverage on POTUS, which could have been used to coerce someone into colluding, or if there were payments made in a quid pro quo. That's why I don't think investigation into the campaign's main players is not tangential, but in-line with the collusion investigation.

Months ago, I harped on this thread about the silliness of the mythical collusion, asking what was the quid pro quo. No answer. I was told then by *somebody* here that a QPQ was not needed.

But let's explore this theory. sometime in 2015, Trump called Putin, and said Vlad, do me a favor. Steal the DNC emails and publish them without any editing. My campaign team tell me that is all I need to win Wisconsin. In return, I will__________________________.

What fills in the blank there? Seems like the Russians are mad at us all the time now. Is that an act?

No liberal can concoct a theory or narrative of what they are trying to prove without sounding like a complete idiot. I have asked and asked, and nary a response. It's almost as if they know it is a smoke screen.

But yeah, it sounds better if Manafort called and asked for the email theft and in return promised....again, what? To accept a lot of money?

You’re not actually interested in this, because by nature any act of collusion is going to sound kind of out there. But I’ll humor you and take you at your word.

Let’s assume pee tape is real (the Steele dossier has a lot of information that is turning out to be true). Putin realizes he has leverage over Trump, a candidate for president, so he tells him to utilize the information Russia has (emails) as well as act in a way that will de divisive and play into Russia’s goal of destabilizing the US (see all of the weird Russian backed social media groups being uncovered).

Let’s assume no pee tape. Putin realizes he can attempt to hurt Clinton, whom he hates, by supporting Trump’s efforts. He communicates with the campaign about activities like the emails being released and again, the Russian backed social media groups.

Let’s assume some financial transactions. Putin identified Trump as a candidate who can cause chaos in the election, devaluing our democracy. Putin funnels money to Manafort to bribe him to put people who are Kremlin friendly in Trump’s inner circle and push Trump to change his stances on Russia (see the change in the RNC platform regarding Crimea).

Or, Putin directly transfers money to Trump for the same reasons above. And then Russia uses their resources to help Trump get elected (see the Podesta emails being released hours after the Access Hollywood tapes were released).

Now, there is also the chance that there was no collusion and Russia just attempted to help Trump without his or without his campaign’s knowledge. But I’m more suspicious of that because of the contact between Trump jr. and the Russian lawyer that was specifically about giving the Trump campaign Russian sources opposition research.

(10-14-2017 05:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  (iv) how it appears how you always try to be above the line of party politics, but yet quickly attack the actions of those on the left side of the spectrum, while ignoring similar actions of those on the right side.

So I guess we are devolving into the "Jane you ignorant slut" side of conversational etiquette. Got it.

By the way, had you read closely, even in my last post there was a sharp attack on the right when it came to the Solyndra accusations. I guess I should have "ignored" those issues, being the blatant partisan hack that I supposedly am.....

I guess your "always" is a little short in the accuracy department there, to be honest. Ill shut up here before this devolves any further.

(10-14-2017 06:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-14-2017 06:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-14-2017 05:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  However, I don't think investigating the campaign team's finances (especially Trump's) is well beyond the legal scope of the investigation. I think it's rationale and within the scope because an investigation into possible collusion with a foreign adversary would need to understand if there was either potential blackmail material/leverage on POTUS, which could have been used to coerce someone into colluding, or if there were payments made in a quid pro quo. That's why I don't think investigation into the campaign's main players is not tangential, but in-line with the collusion investigation.

Months ago, I harped on this thread about the silliness of the mythical collusion, asking what was the quid pro quo. No answer. I was told then by *somebody* here that a QPQ was not needed.

But let's explore this theory. sometime in 2015, Trump called Putin, and said Vlad, do me a favor. Steal the DNC emails and publish them without any editing. My campaign team tell me that is all I need to win Wisconsin. In return, I will__________________________.

What fills in the blank there? Seems like the Russians are mad at us all the time now. Is that an act?

No liberal can concoct a theory or narrative of what they are trying to prove without sounding like a complete idiot. I have asked and asked, and nary a response. It's almost as if they know it is a smoke screen.

But yeah, it sounds better if Manafort called and asked for the email theft and in return promised....again, what? To accept a lot of money?

You’re not actually interested in this, because by nature any act of collusion is going to sound kind of out there. But I’ll humor you and take you at your word.

Let’s assume pee tape is real (the Steele dossier has a lot of information that is turning out to be true). Putin realizes he has leverage over Trump, a candidate for president, so he tells him to utilize the information Russia has (emails) as well as act in a way that will de divisive and play into Russia’s goal of destabilizing the US (see all of the weird Russian backed social media groups being uncovered).

Let’s assume no pee tape. Putin realizes he can attempt to hurt Clinton, whom he hates, by supporting Trump’s efforts. He communicates with the campaign about activities like the emails being released and again, the Russian backed social media groups.

Let’s assume some financial transactions. Putin identified Trump as a candidate who can cause chaos in the election, devaluing our democracy. Putin funnels money to Manafort to bribe him to put people who are Kremlin friendly in Trump’s inner circle and push Trump to change his stances on Russia (see the change in the RNC platform regarding Crimea).

Or, Putin directly transfers money to Trump for the same reasons above. And then Russia uses their resources to help Trump get elected (see the Podesta emails being released hours after the Access Hollywood tapes were released).

Now, there is also the chance that there was no collusion and Russia just attempted to help Trump without his or without his campaign’s knowledge. But I’m more suspicious of that because of the contact between Trump jr. and the Russian lawyer that was specifically about giving the Trump campaign Russian sources opposition research.

Do you hold the same suspicion as to the contacts between the DNC and the Ukrainian embassy where the DNC was trying to 'get information' on Trump? Or do we just ignore that little episode? (I guess we should ignore it as it is a 'whatabout', albeit a rather on point one.)

For the record, I fail to see any wrongdoing by the DNC or mini-Trump is trying to 'get info'. Info is free; trying to get access is a natural act of any political individual, and it seems ludicrous to say "Info from US == good; info from Bulgogestan == bad" and illegal under these circumstances.

Huge difference between tangible goods (and cash) vs ephemeral 'stuff' like info. But I guess if your predilection is to be anti-Trump, the 'attempted transfer of ephemeral ideas and info' is as good a string to yank on as any.

My thought on these is especially reinforced since in both cases (DNC/Ukraine and MiniTrump/Russia meeting) nothing of substance was in the meetings (unless you count Russian adoption issues as being red hot political fodder, but still 'info' and I guess any crapola info is still 'something of value' to some). But heavens to Betsy, I guess I'm being 'ignorant of one side' *and* being 'ignorant of the other' in this case..... The horrors!!!!

(10-14-2017 07:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-14-2017 05:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  (iv) how it appears how you always try to be above the line of party politics, but yet quickly attack the actions of those on the left side of the spectrum, while ignoring similar actions of those on the right side.

So I guess we are devolving into the "Jane you ignorant slut" side of conversational etiquette. Got it.

By the way, had you read closely, even in my last post there was a sharp attack on the right when it came to the Solyndra accusations. I guess I should have "ignored" those issues, being the blatant partisan hack that I supposedly am.....

I guess your "always" is a little short in the accuracy department there, to be honest. Ill shut up here before this devolves any further.

I mean, I don't think the always is inaccurate, unless you are admitting that you don't always try and stay above party politics...

Sorry for going down the road of name calling, I let my frustration of the misunderstanding or mischaracterization of my comments get the best of me. I'm just not sure how many more times I have to explain myself before the responses actually address what I am saying sometimes.

(10-14-2017 07:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-14-2017 06:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-14-2017 06:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-14-2017 05:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  However, I don't think investigating the campaign team's finances (especially Trump's) is well beyond the legal scope of the investigation. I think it's rationale and within the scope because an investigation into possible collusion with a foreign adversary would need to understand if there was either potential blackmail material/leverage on POTUS, which could have been used to coerce someone into colluding, or if there were payments made in a quid pro quo. That's why I don't think investigation into the campaign's main players is not tangential, but in-line with the collusion investigation.

Months ago, I harped on this thread about the silliness of the mythical collusion, asking what was the quid pro quo. No answer. I was told then by *somebody* here that a QPQ was not needed.

But let's explore this theory. sometime in 2015, Trump called Putin, and said Vlad, do me a favor. Steal the DNC emails and publish them without any editing. My campaign team tell me that is all I need to win Wisconsin. In return, I will__________________________.

What fills in the blank there? Seems like the Russians are mad at us all the time now. Is that an act?

No liberal can concoct a theory or narrative of what they are trying to prove without sounding like a complete idiot. I have asked and asked, and nary a response. It's almost as if they know it is a smoke screen.

But yeah, it sounds better if Manafort called and asked for the email theft and in return promised....again, what? To accept a lot of money?

You’re not actually interested in this, because by nature any act of collusion is going to sound kind of out there. But I’ll humor you and take you at your word.

Let’s assume pee tape is real (the Steele dossier has a lot of information that is turning out to be true). Putin realizes he has leverage over Trump, a candidate for president, so he tells him to utilize the information Russia has (emails) as well as act in a way that will de divisive and play into Russia’s goal of destabilizing the US (see all of the weird Russian backed social media groups being uncovered).

Let’s assume no pee tape. Putin realizes he can attempt to hurt Clinton, whom he hates, by supporting Trump’s efforts. He communicates with the campaign about activities like the emails being released and again, the Russian backed social media groups.

Let’s assume some financial transactions. Putin identified Trump as a candidate who can cause chaos in the election, devaluing our democracy. Putin funnels money to Manafort to bribe him to put people who are Kremlin friendly in Trump’s inner circle and push Trump to change his stances on Russia (see the change in the RNC platform regarding Crimea).

Or, Putin directly transfers money to Trump for the same reasons above. And then Russia uses their resources to help Trump get elected (see the Podesta emails being released hours after the Access Hollywood tapes were released).

Now, there is also the chance that there was no collusion and Russia just attempted to help Trump without his or without his campaign’s knowledge. But I’m more suspicious of that because of the contact between Trump jr. and the Russian lawyer that was specifically about giving the Trump campaign Russian sources opposition research.

Do you hold the same suspicion as to the contacts between the DNC and the Ukrainian embassy where the DNC was trying to 'get information' on Trump? Or do we just ignore that little episode? (I guess we should ignore it as it is a 'whatabout', albeit a rather on point one.)

For the record, I fail to see any wrongdoing by the DNC or mini-Trump is trying to 'get info'. Info is free; trying to get access is a natural act of any political individual, and it seems ludicrous to say "Info from US == good; info from Bulgogestan == bad" and illegal under these circumstances.

Huge difference between tangible goods (and cash) vs ephemeral 'stuff' like info. But I guess if your predilection is to be anti-Trump, the 'attempted transfer of ephemeral ideas and info' is as good a string to yank on as any.

My thought on these is especially reinforced since in both cases (DNC/Ukraine and MiniTrump/Russia meeting) nothing of substance was in the meetings (unless you count Russian adoption issues as being red hot political fodder, but still 'info' and I guess any crapola info is still 'something of value' to some). But heavens to Betsy, I guess I'm being 'ignorant of one side' *and* being 'ignorant of the other' in this case..... The horrors!!!!

First, the DNC-Ukraine episode being compared to the Trump Jr.-Russia episode is a perfect example of the non-apples to apples comparisons Antarius was talking about. Ironically, you suggest that it is an on-point comparison, when it only is on a very superficial level. If you actually look at the details of who was involved and directing the work on the foreign side and what the US side's role in the campaign was, you'd see that the situations were very different.

But, if there was a congressional investigation into the DNC colluding with Ukraine to undermine a candidate, then yeah, I would be suspicious of the DNC and think that charges may be filed because of that Politico story. But I have not seen any other lines of evidence or articles to suggest that the DNC did anything with information gleaned, attempted other times to try and get more information, or more importantly, involved the Clinton campaign structure, so I'm not suspicious of it in the same way as Trump Jr's meeting (especially given how many times the story changed from Jr.).

And I'm glad you feel like it doesn't matter where information comes from, that information is just information, regardless of how it was gathered or who gathered it. But people have motives that aren't always stated, and relying on your geopolitical enemy for help isn't exactly a smart move (and I've never suggested anywhere that the Trump Jr. meeting was illegal).

And there is a big difference between information and cash, when did I suggest otherwise?

This response is a prime example of the mischaracterization I mentioned in the other response to you I just posted. Everything you keep typing is responding to a situation where you think I am discussing what I WANT to happen, not what I think will happen.

You're attacking me as if I am yelling from the rooftops, "String him up!" Like I am stating "This meeting with Trump Jr. is illegal and definitive proof that Donal Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election!" I have not done either of those. I have only been providing lines of evidence for why I think either Trump will be charged with financial crimes or, in this case, why there is an investigation into collusion and someone within the campaign will be found to have colluded with Russia.

I'll give you my thoughts on what I want to happen, since Im sick and tired of you and OO responding to my comments as if that is what I am giving. I don't want Trump to get thrown out of office - I think it would be absolutely horrible for the country because it would only reinforce a lot of ideas that those on the right have right now. That everyone hates Trump for no reason at all and they wanted to do whatever possible to get him out of office. It's true that I think Trump is completely unfit for office and shouldn't be president, but I hope to God that he leaves on his own accord or is not reelected in 2020.

And finally, how do you fall for the Russian line about adoptions? The meeting was 100% not about adoptions - that is such an obvious ruse that I can't believe you actually typed that out. It was almost certainly about the Magnitsky Act and trying to get it repealed (which is connected to adoptions because the Kremlin blocked adoptions in response to the Magntisky Act).

(10-14-2017 12:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  First, I originally used the word bungled when describing Maria for a reason. Notice I chose not to use mismanage, which was intentional, because I believed the issues were more than just management, yet that is all you're focusing on. I gave very specific examples for the issues Trump caused himself in the public relations department where he was not leading in an appropriate manner. I notice you have not responded to any of the public relations issues I brought up - which were definitely bungles on Trump's part.
So to mismanagement, you make a lot of points I agree with, and I have never once suggested that all of the heartache and despair the people of PR are dealing with are due to mismanagement of the disaster. I've grown up dealing with hurricanes my entire life, and I understand all of the work and coordination that goes into proper responses. And because of that, I very much understand why response on an island is much more difficult than in the continental US, and why it is that much more important to be moving at the fastest pace possible and to not shift focus from response and recovery efforts.
So let's talk about recovery issues I see. I will fully admit that my thoughts on this come from a person who is not an experienced disaster responder, so there is a good chance that I am overly optimistic about what responses are possible, and perhaps I may even think that some things could be done that aren't possible.

I think this last paragraph is the crux. You admit that you are not experienced in disaster recovery. There is more than a chance that you may be overly optimistic--I am flat out telling you that you are absurdly optimistic. Basically, your expectations bear no resemblance to reality.

My comments about Comfort were not to suggest that it was the only ship available, but to give an idea of some of the real world concerns that go into a recovery effort. Every other ship that could be sent has similar issues. As far as your comments about Pensacola and Jacksonville (Mayport), there are no ships based in Pensacola, and there are only three in Mayport that would be useful--Fort McHenry, Iwo Jima, and New York. New York is there, Fort McHenry is engaged in other operational commitments, and Iwo Jima has engineering plant problems so it cannot sail. There just aren't that many assets, and they are deployed around the globe. Right now, the navy doesn't have enough ships to meet its existing peacetime commitments, much less respond to a crisis on top of that. That's largely the navy's own fault, as its fascination with overpriced new ships means that the ship construction budget doesn't buy as many hulls as it used to. But it's a very real constraint at a time like this. This is an example of the kinds of unrealistic expectations that persist throughout your comments.

As far as the PR stuff, it's pretty clear that Trump is not going to get a fair or objective shake from the media, and that most mainstream outlets are going to put the worst possible spin on everything he does or says. So I'm not sure how much of his PR issues are really mistakes on his part, and how many come from media biases. What I see is an operation that is being handled about as well as reasonably possible, but with media coverage picking at every molehill and trying to turn it into a mountain.

To reiterate, there just aren't enough resources to deal with these situations faster and more comprehensively. And measuring performance against a standard that is totally unrealistic. Maybe the answer is that we need more resources. I won't disagree with that. But can we really afford--or should we--the billions if not trillions required to create and maintain those resources? The answer has historically been no.

(10-14-2017 10:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-14-2017 07:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-14-2017 06:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-14-2017 06:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-14-2017 05:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  However, I don't think investigating the campaign team's finances (especially Trump's) is well beyond the legal scope of the investigation. I think it's rationale and within the scope because an investigation into possible collusion with a foreign adversary would need to understand if there was either potential blackmail material/leverage on POTUS, which could have been used to coerce someone into colluding, or if there were payments made in a quid pro quo. That's why I don't think investigation into the campaign's main players is not tangential, but in-line with the collusion investigation.

Months ago, I harped on this thread about the silliness of the mythical collusion, asking what was the quid pro quo. No answer. I was told then by *somebody* here that a QPQ was not needed.

But let's explore this theory. sometime in 2015, Trump called Putin, and said Vlad, do me a favor. Steal the DNC emails and publish them without any editing. My campaign team tell me that is all I need to win Wisconsin. In return, I will__________________________.

What fills in the blank there? Seems like the Russians are mad at us all the time now. Is that an act?

No liberal can concoct a theory or narrative of what they are trying to prove without sounding like a complete idiot. I have asked and asked, and nary a response. It's almost as if they know it is a smoke screen.

But yeah, it sounds better if Manafort called and asked for the email theft and in return promised....again, what? To accept a lot of money?

You’re not actually interested in this, because by nature any act of collusion is going to sound kind of out there. But I’ll humor you and take you at your word.

Let’s assume pee tape is real (the Steele dossier has a lot of information that is turning out to be true). Putin realizes he has leverage over Trump, a candidate for president, so he tells him to utilize the information Russia has (emails) as well as act in a way that will de divisive and play into Russia’s goal of destabilizing the US (see all of the weird Russian backed social media groups being uncovered).

Let’s assume no pee tape. Putin realizes he can attempt to hurt Clinton, whom he hates, by supporting Trump’s efforts. He communicates with the campaign about activities like the emails being released and again, the Russian backed social media groups.

Let’s assume some financial transactions. Putin identified Trump as a candidate who can cause chaos in the election, devaluing our democracy. Putin funnels money to Manafort to bribe him to put people who are Kremlin friendly in Trump’s inner circle and push Trump to change his stances on Russia (see the change in the RNC platform regarding Crimea).

Or, Putin directly transfers money to Trump for the same reasons above. And then Russia uses their resources to help Trump get elected (see the Podesta emails being released hours after the Access Hollywood tapes were released).

Now, there is also the chance that there was no collusion and Russia just attempted to help Trump without his or without his campaign’s knowledge. But I’m more suspicious of that because of the contact between Trump jr. and the Russian lawyer that was specifically about giving the Trump campaign Russian sources opposition research.

Do you hold the same suspicion as to the contacts between the DNC and the Ukrainian embassy where the DNC was trying to 'get information' on Trump? Or do we just ignore that little episode? (I guess we should ignore it as it is a 'whatabout', albeit a rather on point one.)

For the record, I fail to see any wrongdoing by the DNC or mini-Trump is trying to 'get info'. Info is free; trying to get access is a natural act of any political individual, and it seems ludicrous to say "Info from US == good; info from Bulgogestan == bad" and illegal under these circumstances.

Huge difference between tangible goods (and cash) vs ephemeral 'stuff' like info. But I guess if your predilection is to be anti-Trump, the 'attempted transfer of ephemeral ideas and info' is as good a string to yank on as any.

My thought on these is especially reinforced since in both cases (DNC/Ukraine and MiniTrump/Russia meeting) nothing of substance was in the meetings (unless you count Russian adoption issues as being red hot political fodder, but still 'info' and I guess any crapola info is still 'something of value' to some). But heavens to Betsy, I guess I'm being 'ignorant of one side' *and* being 'ignorant of the other' in this case..... The horrors!!!!

First, the DNC-Ukraine episode being compared to the Trump Jr.-Russia episode is a perfect example of the non-apples to apples comparisons Antarius was talking about. Ironically, you suggest that it is an on-point comparison, when it only is on a very superficial level. If you actually look at the details of who was involved and directing the work on the foreign side and what the US side's role in the campaign was, you'd see that the situations were very different.

But, if there was a congressional investigation into the DNC colluding with Ukraine to undermine a candidate, then yeah, I would be suspicious of the DNC and think that charges may be filed because of that Politico story. But I have not seen any other lines of evidence or articles to suggest that the DNC did anything with information gleaned, attempted other times to try and get more information, or more importantly, involved the Clinton campaign structure, so I'm not suspicious of it in the same way as Trump Jr's meeting (especially given how many times the story changed from Jr.).

And I'm glad you feel like it doesn't matter where information comes from, that information is just information, regardless of how it was gathered or who gathered it. But people have motives that aren't always stated, and relying on your geopolitical enemy for help isn't exactly a smart move (and I've never suggested anywhere that the Trump Jr. meeting was illegal).

And there is a big difference between information and cash, when did I suggest otherwise?

This response is a prime example of the mischaracterization I mentioned in the other response to you I just posted. Everything you keep typing is responding to a situation where you think I am discussing what I WANT to happen, not what I think will happen.

You're attacking me as if I am yelling from the rooftops, "String him up!" Like I am stating "This meeting with Trump Jr. is illegal and definitive proof that Donal Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election!" I have not done either of those. I have only been providing lines of evidence for why I think either Trump will be charged with financial crimes or, in this case, why there is an investigation into collusion and someone within the campaign will be found to have colluded with Russia.

I'll give you my thoughts on what I want to happen, since Im sick and tired of you and OO responding to my comments as if that is what I am giving. I don't want Trump to get thrown out of office - I think it would be absolutely horrible for the country because it would only reinforce a lot of ideas that those on the right have right now. That everyone hates Trump for no reason at all and they wanted to do whatever possible to get him out of office. It's true that I think Trump is completely unfit for office and shouldn't be president, but I hope to God that he leaves on his own accord or is not reelected in 2020.

And finally, how do you fall for the Russian line about adoptions? The meeting was 100% not about adoptions - that is such an obvious ruse that I can't believe you actually typed that out. It was almost certainly about the Magnitsky Act and trying to get it repealed (which is connected to adoptions because the Kremlin blocked adoptions in response to the Magntisky Act).

Actually the "crux" that I am using pertains to basic and fundamental First Amendment issues that I take with an enormously expansive view. That same expansive view that you and I sharply disagreed upon in the context of portions of Charlottesville.

The collusion issue has fundamental problems associated with the basic rights of association when distinguishing foreign nationals and rights of free speech when applied to "information". Accordingly, the Ukraine/Russia meeting comparison *is* a perfect apples to apples comparison of my position of 'information' being equated to 'a thing of value' for purposes of Federal Election law.

I guess, if you want me to, I could come up with a hypo of an Andorran cross-dressing standup comic doing a pantomime act at RNC headquarters, and bringing a moment of levity to the staff should be considered a 'thing of value' following the reasoning that seems permeate the Resistance thought on this subject, but I am happy that you see the issue in your response.

And yes I agree with your statement that asking your geopolitical foe for political help in winning an election is not a bright idea. Obama's comment of "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for [Putin] to give me space....... After my election I have more flexibility" to the outgoing puppet President Medvedev comes immediately to mind as a wonderful counterpoint to the awesome and enlightened judgement of the Trump campaign in this light.

And Lad, to be honest, this ignorant partisan hack also does not wish Trump to be re-elected. I guess that makes me an incredibly stupid and short sighted ignorant partisan hack, but --- hell I've been called worse a whole bunch of times.... Hopefully one party or the other will nominate someone other than the dumpster fire level candidates that each party ended up nominating.

(10-14-2017 11:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To reiterate, there just aren't enough resources to deal with these situations faster and more comprehensively. And measuring performance against a standard that is totally unrealistic. Maybe the answer is that we need more resources. I won't disagree with that. But can we really afford--or should we--the billions if not trillions required to create and maintain those resources? The answer has historically been no.

To try to quantify the resources issue a bit, the most useful assets are probably the navy's amphibious ships. These can operate a number of helicopters, they have berthing for a number of personnel to assist, they have cargo carrying capacity, and they have substantial medical facilities. The navy currently has 1 LHA, 8 LHD's, and 10 LPD's, total 19. Half of those are in the Pacific Fleet and thus unavailable. A couple of the others are deployed overseas and similarly unavailable. A couple will normally be in maintenance status and thus not available to sail. That leaves something like 5 potentially available. My understanding is that one is on a multinational training exercise and three are in the immediate area. That's about as strong a response as is possible. I don't know where all these ships that should have been sent would come from.

Aircraft carriers can also be useful as helicopter platforms, although they typically operate fewer helos and they don't have the cargo or berthing spaces available. We have 10 right now, half Atlantic and half Pacific, 4 deployed overseas, a couple in extended maintenance, so we are looking at maybe 2 or 3 at most, and one is in the area. Again, that's about as many as we could send.

Same for hospital ships. We have two, one each coast, and the east coast ship is there.

These ships don't spend 24/7/365 sitting on hair-trigger readiness to go. Most take a few days to get ready for sea. Given that many were in Norfolk, which was in the path of Maria, that process would have been complicated significantly.

All these ships have other ongoing commitments that cannot be ignored either. We don't have enough ships for the tasks assigned. This is partly the navy's fault. They have gone for putting too many eggs into to few and too costly baskets IMO. This was, also IMO, one of the contributing factors to Benghazi. Adequate security forces were not available because the small number of huge super-expensive amphibs (we had 50ish smaller and cheaper ones in my day) meant that nothing was available to position such forces. The smaller number of ships is leading to overworked crews, which is cited as one reason for the Fitzgerald and McCain collisions.

A more flexible force consisting of a larger number of smaller ships would be more useful in many events. This is one of them. But you have to go with what you have.

(10-14-2017 06:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-14-2017 06:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-14-2017 05:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  However, I don't think investigating the campaign team's finances (especially Trump's) is well beyond the legal scope of the investigation. I think it's rationale and within the scope because an investigation into possible collusion with a foreign adversary would need to understand if there was either potential blackmail material/leverage on POTUS, which could have been used to coerce someone into colluding, or if there were payments made in a quid pro quo. That's why I don't think investigation into the campaign's main players is not tangential, but in-line with the collusion investigation.

Months ago, I harped on this thread about the silliness of the mythical collusion, asking what was the quid pro quo. No answer. I was told then by *somebody* here that a QPQ was not needed.

But let's explore this theory. sometime in 2015, Trump called Putin, and said Vlad, do me a favor. Steal the DNC emails and publish them without any editing. My campaign team tell me that is all I need to win Wisconsin. In return, I will__________________________.

What fills in the blank there? Seems like the Russians are mad at us all the time now. Is that an act?

No liberal can concoct a theory or narrative of what they are trying to prove without sounding like a complete idiot. I have asked and asked, and nary a response. It's almost as if they know it is a smoke screen.

But yeah, it sounds better if Manafort called and asked for the email theft and in return promised....again, what? To accept a lot of money?

You’re not actually interested in this, because by nature any act of collusion is going to sound kind of out there. But I’ll humor you and take you at your word.

Let’s assume pee tape is real (the Steele dossier has a lot of information that is turning out to be true). Putin realizes he has leverage over Trump, a candidate for president, so he tells him to utilize the information Russia has (emails) as well as act in a way that will de divisive and play into Russia’s goal of destabilizing the US (see all of the weird Russian backed social media groups being uncovered).

Let’s assume no pee tape. Putin realizes he can attempt to hurt Clinton, whom he hates, by supporting Trump’s efforts. He communicates with the campaign about activities like the emails being released and again, the Russian backed social media groups.

Let’s assume some financial transactions. Putin identified Trump as a candidate who can cause chaos in the election, devaluing our democracy. Putin funnels money to Manafort to bribe him to put people who are Kremlin friendly in Trump’s inner circle and push Trump to change his stances on Russia (see the change in the RNC platform regarding Crimea).

Or, Putin directly transfers money to Trump for the same reasons above. And then Russia uses their resources to help Trump get elected (see the Podesta emails being released hours after the Access Hollywood tapes were released).

Now, there is also the chance that there was no collusion and Russia just attempted to help Trump without his or without his campaign’s knowledge. But I’m more suspicious of that because of the contact between Trump jr. and the Russian lawyer that was specifically about giving the Trump campaign Russian sources opposition research.

First, before we continue to disagree, let me compliment you on being the only liberal to ever have the guts to take a stab at even a skeleton of a narrative of collusion. I have asked this question on numerous forums for many months, and you stand alone.

pee tape, real of not, is not leverage. First of all, it is out there, and Trump is still president. But even if it wasn't, it is easily deniable and incredible (as in not credible). It's as if I said I had a tape of you saying racist things, and threaten to release it if you don't something, something.

As for Putin seeing Trump as a candidate who can cause chaos in the election, doesn't that imply that Putin is so smart that he saw what you, me, and millions of others didn't - that Trump could win - and acted on this even before Trump was nominated. What a seer!!!

I can believe the Russians just wanted to cause chaos. i can believe Putin hated Hillary. None of which shows collusion in the slightest. I believe the Facebook ads show they went both ways.

Yep, any collusion theory is going to sound out there, just as any theory of extraterrestrial control is going to sound out there. That has kind of been my point.

Is there any evidence of Russia/Putin getting something they wanted and shouldn't have gotten since 11-8-16? if so, what? To have a quid pro quo, you need more than just a quid.

And, IMO, the stolen emails had nearly zero effect. If you want to find something that swayed the election, I can sum it up in one word: "deplorables".

I don't see where Putin was trying to help Trump, or why he would have done so. I think he may well have been trying to hurt Hillary. But I see no love between Trump and Putin.

I agree that "deplorables" probably hurt her worse than the leaked emails. But what I think hurt more than anything was Comey's recommendation not to prosecute. Basically what he said was, "She has done X, Y, and Z, which constitute all you need to prove to convict for several crimes, but I recommend not prosecuting." That sent a very strong message that there is a double standard. I listened to Comey and thought, "Wow, if I'd done what she did, I'd be dong 40 in Leavenworth." I think a lot of other people--pretty much anybody who had served in the military and had access to classified information--had to have the same thought.

(10-15-2017 10:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I can believe the Russians just wanted to cause chaos. i can believe Putin hated Hillary. None of which shows collusion in the slightest. I believe the Facebook ads show they went both ways.

Interesting (and somewhat terrifying) game-theory case here:

If the "Resistance" is correct and Putin *wanted* Trump to win and the Trump campaign in fact colluded, then it is somewhat of a marginal 'victory' for the Resistance, an enormous loss for Trump, and a huge win for Putin.

If Putin rather just wished to 'create confusion and chaos' and there was no 'collusion', the continued chant and push of the "Resistance" has been an enormous time and force multiplier for Putin's goals. In short, in this case the "Resistance" would be an enormous dupe in Putin's favor. In short, if there was no collusion, the continued "Resistance" message would essentially be an enormous ongoing political Viagra for Putin overall.

Given that loss/reward ratio, does one think that the "Resistance" will ever tone down the message for collusion? Seems to me the "Resistance" will be forced to play this card to the absolute Berlin-bunker bitter end, since if not true they have been an absolutely enormous stooge player that has massively increased Putin's original goals. The scorecard would read as the "Resistance" having an utterly enormous loss, Trump a solid win, and Putin a stupendously enormous win.

Terrible three player hand in all cases for the United States as a whole. Utterly devastating loss for the United States in the case that the "Resistance" version is one that is 'concocted to cover up the reasons for a loss'.

This endgame situation (for both cases) is like the layman's translation of the laws of thermodynamics: 1) you can't win; 2) you can't break even; and 3) you can't get out of the game.

(10-15-2017 11:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't see where Putin was trying to help Trump, or why he would have done so. I think he may well have been trying to hurt Hillary. But I see no love between Trump and Putin.

I agree that "deplorables" probably hurt her worse than the leaked emails. But what I think hurt more than anything was Comey's recommendation not to prosecute. Basically what he said was, "She has done X, Y, and Z, which constitute all you need to prove to convict for several crimes, but I recommend not prosecuting." That sent a very strong message that there is a double standard. I listened to Comey and thought, "Wow, if I'd done what she did, I'd be dong 40 in Leavenworth." I think a lot of other people--pretty much anybody who had served in the military and had access to classified information--had to have the same thought.

Your comment hits in two different points that seem to have significant overlap.

Had a conversation with a group of friends of a friend yesterday on this exact subject.

There is still a huge portion of the population that see no wrong with Hillary's actions and/or believe all the server emails were about yoga.

When I expressed my reservations on both points, I was explicitly and directly called out as 'ignorant'.

But then again, yesterday seems to have been the day to use that term or verb relating to me, I guess...

(10-15-2017 11:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't see where Putin was trying to help Trump, or why he would have done so. I think he may well have been trying to hurt Hillary. But I see no love between Trump and Putin.

I agree that "deplorables" probably hurt her worse than the leaked emails. But what I think hurt more than anything was Comey's recommendation not to prosecute. Basically what he said was, "She has done X, Y, and Z, which constitute all you need to prove to convict for several crimes, but I recommend not prosecuting." That sent a very strong message that there is a double standard. I listened to Comey and thought, "Wow, if I'd done what she did, I'd be dong 40 in Leavenworth." I think a lot of other people--pretty much anybody who had served in the military and had access to classified information--had to have the same thought.

I see one very obvious, potential act that could have been Putin trying to help Trump. Within hours of the Access Hollywood tape released about Trump, the Podesta emails were leaked by Wikileaks.

That very easily could have been an attempt to change the narrative and deflect the attention away from Trump and towards Hillary for those on the right.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...hour-afte/

There is no reason to rehash what did or didn't help Clinton/Trump. What is important is what actions were taken to try and help. For example, just because you try and murder someone, but don't succeed, doesn't mean that you aren't going to be charged with attempted murder. Intent matters.

(10-15-2017 11:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 10:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I can believe the Russians just wanted to cause chaos. i can believe Putin hated Hillary. None of which shows collusion in the slightest. I believe the Facebook ads show they went both ways.

Interesting (and somewhat terrifying) game-theory case here:

If the "Resistance" is correct and Putin *wanted* Trump to win and the Trump campaign in fact colluded, then it is somewhat of a marginal 'victory' for the Resistance, an enormous loss for Trump, and a huge win for Putin.

If Putin rather just wished to 'create confusion and chaos' and there was no 'collusion', the continued chant and push of the "Resistance" has been an enormous time and force multiplier for Putin's goals. In short, in this case the "Resistance" would be an enormous dupe in Putin's favor. In short, if there was no collusion, the continued "Resistance" message would essentially be an enormous ongoing political Viagra for Putin overall.

Given that loss/reward ratio, does one think that the "Resistance" will ever tone down the message for collusion? Seems to me the "Resistance" will be forced to play this card to the absolute Berlin-bunker bitter end, since if not true they have been an absolutely enormous stooge player that has massively increased Putin's original goals. The scorecard would read as the "Resistance" having an utterly enormous loss, Trump a solid win, and Putin a stupendously enormous win.

Terrible three player hand in all cases for the United States as a whole. Utterly devastating loss for the United States in the case that the "Resistance" version is one that is 'concocted to cover up the reasons for a loss'.

This endgame situation (for both cases) is like the layman's translation of the laws of thermodynamics: 1) you can't win; 2) you can't break even; and 3) you can't get out of the game.

My hope is that, whatever the outcome of Mueller's investigation is, that everyone on all sides accepts it as fact and moves on. So if that means they find 0 evidence of collusion, the "Resistance" moves on. If that means they find ample evidence of collusion, the anti-"Resistance" accepts that and whatever charges come with that, and moves on.

That will be key - accepting the results of the investigation are crucial.

Your description of the scenarios above is why I believe the intelligence communities assessment that Russia attempted to interfere with the election using various methods (Wikileaks, fake social media accounts, etc). They pretty much had a win-win situation when they found that the Republican candidate's campaign was willing to meet with Russian operatives about dirt. Had they had an unwilling candidate who perhaps immediately went to the press about the contact and didn't try to lie about and obscure meetings with Russian officials, the potential beneficial outcomes for Russia start decreasing. But they've thrown enough red meat to the left that it has caused an us vs. them situation between the left and right.

(10-15-2017 11:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I see one very obvious, potential act that could have been Putin trying to help Trump. Within hours of the Access Hollywood tape released about Trump, the Podesta emails were leaked by Wikileaks.
That very easily could have been an attempt to change the narrative and deflect the attention away from Trump and towards Hillary for those on the right.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...hour-afte/
There is no reason to rehash what did or didn't help Clinton/Trump. What is important is what actions were taken to try and help. For example, just because you try and murder someone, but don't succeed, doesn't mean that you aren't going to be charged with attempted murder. Intent matters.

That release could have just as easily been coincidental--there would have been some lead time to release things--or done simply to hurt Hillary--she may be scoring some points, so let's hit her now. And the connection between Russia and Wikileaks has not been established, certainly not to the stage supporting a collusion theory.

You're taking a dot here and a dot there, and trying to connect them with very speculative, and very likely non-existent, lines.

And, of course, to you there is no need to determine what did or did not help or hurt anyone, because you've already got your mind made up about who was the boogeyman. You're just waiting for proof to come in.

(10-15-2017 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My hope is that, whatever the outcome of Mueller's investigation is, that everyone on all sides accepts it as fact and moves on.

My hope is that Rice wins the rest of it's games this season, including the CCG and the Bowl.

I think your hope and mine have equal probability of happening.

(10-15-2017 12:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 11:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I see one very obvious, potential act that could have been Putin trying to help Trump. Within hours of the Access Hollywood tape released about Trump, the Podesta emails were leaked by Wikileaks.
That very easily could have been an attempt to change the narrative and deflect the attention away from Trump and towards Hillary for those on the right.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...hour-afte/
There is no reason to rehash what did or didn't help Clinton/Trump. What is important is what actions were taken to try and help. For example, just because you try and murder someone, but don't succeed, doesn't mean that you aren't going to be charged with attempted murder. Intent matters.

That release could have just as easily been coincidental--there would have been some lead time to release things--or done simply to hurt Hillary--she may be scoring some points, so let's hit her now. And the connection between Russia and Wikileaks has not been established, certainly not to the stage supporting a collusion theory.

You're taking a dot here and a dot there, and trying to connect them with very speculative, and very likely non-existent, lines.

And, of course, to you there is no need to determine what did or did not help or hurt anyone, because you've already got your mind made up about who was the boogeyman. You're just waiting for proof to come in.

And you’re doing the exact opposite - saying there are absolutely no dots and no connections. All that means I more apt to believe that Russia was actively trying to hurt Clinton by helping Trump and you aren’t. The investigation is still ongoing so neither of us know who is right.

And I am not saying that the theory I posted is, 100% what happened. I proposed a series of events that could be evidence of a direct Russian attempt to help Donal Trump, if those dots connect. And they connect easily if you believe Wikileaks has just become a wing of the Russian propaganda machine.

You’re not wrong that the timing could have been a coincidence, but I’m not wrong that it could have been intentional - we don’t have all of the facts in the public forum yet.

(10-15-2017 12:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My hope is that, whatever the outcome of Mueller's investigation is, that everyone on all sides accepts it as fact and moves on.

My hope is that Rice wins the rest of it's games this season, including the CCG and the Bowl.

I think your hope and mine have equal probability of happening.

I agree. I doubt some liberals will let it go if no evidence is foundation. And I doubt some conservatives will do the sameness if evidence is found. At the moment, the outcomes of the Benghazi investigations and Comey’s testimony, and the continued rabbling about them lead me to have those doubts.