(10-30-2017 01:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 01:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 01:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 09:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  i skimmed through the indictment, and failed to find two words: collusion or Trump.

sounds like tax evasion/money laundering/failure to fill out papers.

so what does this mean for the investigation in Trump/Russia collusion to steal the election?

awaiting the word from qualified lawyers here.

There are connections to Russians trying to influence the election in the indictments (see my recent posts).

I would guess that these are the first, and easiest, chips to fall and that the Feds may be trying to leverage the indictments for information on charges they want to file but need a few more pieces of the puzzle for.

This is definitely closer to the beginning, not the end, of this investigation.

On a side note, I told y'all there would be financial crimes.

Yep, like the DNC enlisting the help of the Ukrainians. Let's all play Six Degrees of any Russian.

lokk back, and you will se that many months ago I predicted no collusion, just a bumch of small fry getting caught in minor technicalities.

so far, nothing looks different from that.

the twelve count indictment is missing two words - Trump and collusion.

It would be shocking if these were the only indictments to come down from the investigation. We should wait and see - it is not clear if you are completely correct.

There are connections, especially with Papodoupolus, to colluding with the Russians to influence the elections. He was informed of stolen emails in April 2016, well before that news was made public. And per the indictment, he covered his tracks after being interviewed by authorities.

I expect more indictments, at least Flynn, for not doing the paperwork properly. I also expect none for "collusion" and none of Trump.

Youse guys say the right is fascinated by the emails, but there is no evidence that the emails chamged a single vote, much less a state...or two...or three. in other words, they had zero effect. What did have effect? hree words..."basket of deplorables".

It appears both side havd some invilvement with RAussians in an effort to get dirt on the other. what is wierd ismthat only the right's efforts were wrong, the left's were OK.

I womder if the dirt they were trying to sell Junior was in fact, a fact.

(10-30-2017 01:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  OO is abolutely correct on a very cogent point -- this indictment has zero to do with Trump and/or collusion. As in zilch, nada.

Current score as follows:

charges related to alleged Trump collusion --- bff goose egg.
fishing expedition finds --- 12 counts.

Awesome start. Kind of reminds me of a Bailiff first quarter offense....

Again, this is the beginning, not the end. It would make sense to rack up testimony from those in the Trump campaign's inner circle before leveling accusations of the magnitude of colluding with a foreign government to subvert an election.

But Manifort and Gates aren't the most interesting outcome of the news this morning. The more I read of the Papadopolous guilty plea, the more I think that this indictment will be the most important. He lied to the FB about the timing of his relationship with a "professor" who reached out to him after Pap. joined the Trump team and who offered him dirt on Clinton.

Quote: "On or about April 26, 2016, defendant PAPADOPOULOS met the Professor for breakfast at a London hotel. During this meeting, the Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS that he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian government officials. The Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained "dirt" on then-candidate Clinton. The Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS, as defendant PAPADOPOULOS later described to the FBI, that "They [the Russians] have dirt on her"; "the Russians had emails of Clinton"; "they have thousands of emails."

Pap. has been cooperating with the special counsel since July. I wonder what has been said.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/politics/g...index.html

(10-30-2017 01:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 01:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 01:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 01:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 09:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  i skimmed through the indictment, and failed to find two words: collusion or Trump.

sounds like tax evasion/money laundering/failure to fill out papers.

so what does this mean for the investigation in Trump/Russia collusion to steal the election?

awaiting the word from qualified lawyers here.

There are connections to Russians trying to influence the election in the indictments (see my recent posts).

I would guess that these are the first, and easiest, chips to fall and that the Feds may be trying to leverage the indictments for information on charges they want to file but need a few more pieces of the puzzle for.

This is definitely closer to the beginning, not the end, of this investigation.

On a side note, I told y'all there would be financial crimes.

Yep, like the DNC enlisting the help of the Ukrainians. Let's all play Six Degrees of any Russian.

lokk back, and you will se that many months ago I predicted no collusion, just a bumch of small fry getting caught in minor technicalities.

so far, nothing looks different from that.

the twelve count indictment is missing two words - Trump and collusion.

It would be shocking if these were the only indictments to come down from the investigation. We should wait and see - it is not clear if you are completely correct.

There are connections, especially with Papodoupolus, to colluding with the Russians to influence the elections. He was informed of stolen emails in April 2016, well before that news was made public. And per the indictment, he covered his tracks after being interviewed by authorities.

I expect more indictments, at least Flynn, for not doing the paperwork properly. I also expect none for "collusion" and none of Trump.

Youse guys say the right is fascinated by the emails, but there is no evidence that the emails chamged a single vote, much less a state...or two...or three. in other words, they had zero effect. What did have effect? hree words..."basket of deplorables".

It appears both side havd some invilvement with RAussians in an effort to get dirt on the other. what is wierd ismthat only the right's efforts were wrong, the left's were OK.

I womder if the dirt they were trying to sell Junior was in fact, a fact.

I've said this many time, intent matters. Just like how there is a charge for attempted murder, even when the person doesn't actually kill someone.

If you're actively trying to leverage the resources of a hostile foreign national to attempt to sway voters, that matters, regardless of how much the opponent shot themselves in the foot.

But look, this story is far from over. I don't think I am right about anything except the financial crimes I predicted. But you certainly aren't correct yet, because these are almost certainly not the last indictments.

(10-30-2017 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 01:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 01:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 01:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 01:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There are connections to Russians trying to influence the election in the indictments (see my recent posts).

I would guess that these are the first, and easiest, chips to fall and that the Feds may be trying to leverage the indictments for information on charges they want to file but need a few more pieces of the puzzle for.

This is definitely closer to the beginning, not the end, of this investigation.

On a side note, I told y'all there would be financial crimes.

Yep, like the DNC enlisting the help of the Ukrainians. Let's all play Six Degrees of any Russian.

lokk back, and you will se that many months ago I predicted no collusion, just a bumch of small fry getting caught in minor technicalities.

so far, nothing looks different from that.

the twelve count indictment is missing two words - Trump and collusion.

It would be shocking if these were the only indictments to come down from the investigation. We should wait and see - it is not clear if you are completely correct.

There are connections, especially with Papodoupolus, to colluding with the Russians to influence the elections. He was informed of stolen emails in April 2016, well before that news was made public. And per the indictment, he covered his tracks after being interviewed by authorities.

I expect more indictments, at least Flynn, for not doing the paperwork properly. I also expect none for "collusion" and none of Trump.

Youse guys say the right is fascinated by the emails, but there is no evidence that the emails chamged a single vote, much less a state...or two...or three. in other words, they had zero effect. What did have effect? hree words..."basket of deplorables".

It appears both side havd some invilvement with RAussians in an effort to get dirt on the other. what is wierd ismthat only the right's efforts were wrong, the left's were OK.

I womder if the dirt they were trying to sell Junior was in fact, a fact.

I've said this many time, intent matters. Just like how there is a charge for attempted murder, even when the person doesn't actually kill someone.

If you're actively trying to leverage the resources of a hostile foreign national to attempt to sway voters, that matters, regardless of how much the opponent shot themselves in the foot.

But look, this story is far from over. I don't think I am right about anything except the financial crimes I predicted. But you certainly aren't correct yet, because these are almost certainly not the last indictments.

I guess you are charging attempted treason.

I am not in a place or with the right equipment to answer, but try googling Ukraine and DNC.


still not seeimg the problem. if the dirt comes from Russia or Montana, Still the same dirt. only a problem if something against the national interst was promised or awarded in exchange for the dirt.

do you find it interesting that what used to be called the collusion investigation is now called the investigation into Russian meddling, even by CNN?

(10-30-2017 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I've said this many time, intent matters. Just like how there is a charge for attempted murder, even when the person doesn't actually kill someone.

And again, you can stick a pin into a doll with the intent to kill the person who is represented by the doll with that pin. Legal and factual impossibility intrude into your analogy.

Speaking of which, is it just me or does the DNC/Perkins Coie/Fusion/Russian thing have the same air about it?

Or, as I will assume our Democrat brethren will say that a direct Jr met with lawyer path is bad, but also say that the chain of DNC - Perkins - Fusion - Russian is good.

If so, I guess their answer of 'just have a fkload of cutouts' is a smashing defense....

(10-30-2017 02:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I've said this many time, intent matters. Just like how there is a charge for attempted murder, even when the person doesn't actually kill someone.

And again, you can stick a pin into a doll with the intent to kill the person who is represented by the doll with that pin. Legal and factual impossibility intrude into your analogy.

Speaking of which, is it just me or does the DNC/Perkins Coie/Fusion/Russian thing have the same air about it?

Or, as I will assume our Democrat brethren will say that a direct Jr met with lawyer path is bad, but also say that the chain of DNC - Perkins - Fusion - Russian is good.

If so, I guess their answer of 'just have a fkload of cutouts' is a smashing defense....

The only thing that is similar is there was an outside source with information.

The Fusion thing is normal oppo research, right? You hire an investigator to understand if your opponent has skeletons in their closet. They use legal methods to obtain that information and then you use it as necessary. That's what they did right?

For Trump, the BIG issue isn't that they were interested in info on Clinton. The big issue is that the info they were interested in was illegally obtained and it was going to be provided by a foreign government. When you talk about illegality and collusion, the quid pro quo isn't clear, but that's why there is an investigation, to figure out if there was one.

Am I missing something in the Fussion business, where it wasn't a straightforward transaction of basically paying a private eye to obtain information legally?

(10-30-2017 02:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 01:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 01:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 01:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yep, like the DNC enlisting the help of the Ukrainians. Let's all play Six Degrees of any Russian.

lokk back, and you will se that many months ago I predicted no collusion, just a bumch of small fry getting caught in minor technicalities.

so far, nothing looks different from that.

the twelve count indictment is missing two words - Trump and collusion.

It would be shocking if these were the only indictments to come down from the investigation. We should wait and see - it is not clear if you are completely correct.

There are connections, especially with Papodoupolus, to colluding with the Russians to influence the elections. He was informed of stolen emails in April 2016, well before that news was made public. And per the indictment, he covered his tracks after being interviewed by authorities.

I expect more indictments, at least Flynn, for not doing the paperwork properly. I also expect none for "collusion" and none of Trump.

Youse guys say the right is fascinated by the emails, but there is no evidence that the emails chamged a single vote, much less a state...or two...or three. in other words, they had zero effect. What did have effect? hree words..."basket of deplorables".

It appears both side havd some invilvement with RAussians in an effort to get dirt on the other. what is wierd ismthat only the right's efforts were wrong, the left's were OK.

I womder if the dirt they were trying to sell Junior was in fact, a fact.

I've said this many time, intent matters. Just like how there is a charge for attempted murder, even when the person doesn't actually kill someone.

If you're actively trying to leverage the resources of a hostile foreign national to attempt to sway voters, that matters, regardless of how much the opponent shot themselves in the foot.

But look, this story is far from over. I don't think I am right about anything except the financial crimes I predicted. But you certainly aren't correct yet, because these are almost certainly not the last indictments.

I guess you are charging attempted treason.

I am not in a place or with the right equipment to answer, but try googling Ukraine and DNC.


still not seeimg the problem. if the dirt comes from Russia or Montana, Still the same dirt. only a problem if something against the national interst was promised or awarded in exchange for the dirt.

do you find it interesting that what used to be called the collusion investigation is now called the investigation into Russian meddling, even by CNN?

That's just it - I'm not charging anything right now. I'm saying that we need to let the investigation come to its own conclusion. And so far, these indictments are not the end of the investigation, so there is no reason to be wrapped up in whether or not they specifically were referencing collusion as a charge.

What I WAS doing by stating that, was countering your argument that it was the "deplorables" comments and not the emails that sunk the Clinton ship. I was explaining how that doesn't matter and is not germane to the question of whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. I was explaining that colluding, regardless of how successful it was, is the problem. That success of failure does not matter.

And to your bolded, I'm glad you are interested in this investigation coming to a conclusion then. That is exactly why it's going on, and the first indictments does not indicate whether or not indictments that will carry those types of charges will be filed.

The reason there is an investigation is that Hillary lost, and the Dems cannot believe it happened naturally.

a secondary reason is to distract Trump amd help the Resistamce.

or maybe, just because they can.

where in the US laws does it matter where the info came from or how it was obtained?

if a burglar sneaks into the Mayor's house and finds kiddie porn on the Mayor's computer, is he ethically constrained from making that info public? if he sells it to the Mayor's opponent, did the opponent do something wrong? What if the burglar was a citizen of Somalia? Does that make the kiddie porn off limits?

(10-30-2017 02:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The reason there is an investigation is that Hillary lost, and the Dems cannot believe it happened naturally.

a secondary reason is to distract Trump amd help the Resistamce.

or maybe, just because they can.

where in the US laws does it matter where the info came from or how it was obtained?

if a burglar sneaks into the Mayor's house and finds kiddie porn on the Mayor's computer, is he ethically constrained from making that info public? if he sells it to the Mayor's opponent, did the opponent do something wrong? What if the burglar was a citizen of Somalia? Does that make the kiddie porn off limits?

Ah yes, the investigation that is still ongoing under a Republican controlled executive and legislative branch is only because Hillary lost. That makes perfect sense.

We'll now ignore the proof that was released that those within the Trump campaign actively wanted dirt on Clinton that would have been provided by the Russian government AND intentionally lied about it and tried to cover up their tracks. If there was nothing wrong about what Papadopoulus did, then why cover it up and lie to federal agents?

This is certainly not the witch hunt without reason that you are making it out to be. But reason does not always equate to guilt or illegal actions, so please don't suggest that me believing that the investigation is warranted is the same as me saying that Trump or his campaign absolutely, 100%, did something wrong.

In your example, the burglar found illegal activity. He would be charged for his crime and then it's likely the mayor would be too. What illegal activities were uncovered in the Clinton emails?

A more apt comparison would be the burglar stealing letters the mayor sent to a mistress and then the mayor's opponent in the next election publishing them. Shouldn't that be off limits? The burglar committed a crime and the opponent basically encouraged it (by being willing to use stolen information).

(10-30-2017 03:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 02:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The reason there is an investigation is that Hillary lost, and the Dems cannot believe it happened naturally.

a secondary reason is to distract Trump amd help the Resistamce.

or maybe, just because they can.

where in the US laws does it matter where the info came from or how it was obtained?

if a burglar sneaks into the Mayor's house and finds kiddie porn on the Mayor's computer, is he ethically constrained from making that info public? if he sells it to the Mayor's opponent, did the opponent do something wrong? What if the burglar was a citizen of Somalia? Does that make the kiddie porn off limits?

Ah yes, the investigation that is still ongoing under a Republican controlled executive and legislative branch is only because Hillary lost. That makes perfect sense.

We'll now ignore the proof that was released that those within the Trump campaign actively wanted dirt on Clinton that would have been provided by the Russian government AND intentionally lied about it and tried to cover up their tracks. If there was nothing wrong about what Papadopoulus did, then why cover it up and lie to federal agents?

This is certainly not the witch hunt without reason that you are making it out to be. But reason does not always equate to guilt or illegal actions, so please don't suggest that me believing that the investigation is warranted is the same as me saying that Trump or his campaign absolutely, 100%, did something wrong.

In your example, the burglar found illegal activity. He would be charged for his crime and then it's likely the mayor would be too. What illegal activities were uncovered in the Clinton emails?

A more apt comparison would be the burglar stealing letters the mayor sent to a mistress and then the mayor's opponent in the next election publishing them. Shouldn't that be off limits? The burglar committed a crime and the opponent basically encouraged it (by being willing to use stolen information).

Get real. The Republicans would kill this if they could.

Buying dirt is not a crime, is it. Doesn't matter who you bought it from.

are we now classifying her emails as dirt?

What we have here is Jack the Ripper pointing fingers at H. H. Holmes, and you are justifying it.

(10-30-2017 03:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 03:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 02:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The reason there is an investigation is that Hillary lost, and the Dems cannot believe it happened naturally.

a secondary reason is to distract Trump amd help the Resistamce.

or maybe, just because they can.

where in the US laws does it matter where the info came from or how it was obtained?

if a burglar sneaks into the Mayor's house and finds kiddie porn on the Mayor's computer, is he ethically constrained from making that info public? if he sells it to the Mayor's opponent, did the opponent do something wrong? What if the burglar was a citizen of Somalia? Does that make the kiddie porn off limits?

Ah yes, the investigation that is still ongoing under a Republican controlled executive and legislative branch is only because Hillary lost. That makes perfect sense.

We'll now ignore the proof that was released that those within the Trump campaign actively wanted dirt on Clinton that would have been provided by the Russian government AND intentionally lied about it and tried to cover up their tracks. If there was nothing wrong about what Papadopoulus did, then why cover it up and lie to federal agents?

This is certainly not the witch hunt without reason that you are making it out to be. But reason does not always equate to guilt or illegal actions, so please don't suggest that me believing that the investigation is warranted is the same as me saying that Trump or his campaign absolutely, 100%, did something wrong.

In your example, the burglar found illegal activity. He would be charged for his crime and then it's likely the mayor would be too. What illegal activities were uncovered in the Clinton emails?

A more apt comparison would be the burglar stealing letters the mayor sent to a mistress and then the mayor's opponent in the next election publishing them. Shouldn't that be off limits? The burglar committed a crime and the opponent basically encouraged it (by being willing to use stolen information).

Get real. The Republicans would kill this if they could.

Buying dirt is not a crime, is it. Doesn't matter who you bought it from.

are we now classifying her emails as dirt?

What we have here is Jack the Ripper pointing fingers at H. H. Holmes, and you are justifying it.

Agreed, buying dirt is not a crime (as I explained in a previous post - opposition research is the norm). I also doubt that buying dirt from the Russians is a crime. I'm not so sure if buying dirt that was illegally obtained is not a crime though.

Regardless, because it is so unusual to both be interested in using a hostile foreign government for "dirt", and be interested in using "dirt" that was stolen, that begs the question - is there something else going on? And because there is a question, there is an investigation.

And why does it matter if we're classifying the Clinton emails as dirt? Literally, explain to me why the phrasing matters to this conversation, at all. We could call then hot fudge sundaes and it wouldn't at all change their relevance to the investigation.

And you bet your butt I am justifying the investigation, because there IS justification. We literally today just found out that someone plead guilty to lying to the investigators about their conversations with someone who was trying to get them the stolen Clinton hot fudge sundaes. And that person then tried to cover their tracks after they lied to investigators. That right there gives credence to the justification of looking into this situation. Why lie to federal officials during an investigation if everything was A-OK?

(10-30-2017 03:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 03:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 03:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 02:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The reason there is an investigation is that Hillary lost, and the Dems cannot believe it happened naturally.

a secondary reason is to distract Trump amd help the Resistamce.

or maybe, just because they can.

where in the US laws does it matter where the info came from or how it was obtained?

if a burglar sneaks into the Mayor's house and finds kiddie porn on the Mayor's computer, is he ethically constrained from making that info public? if he sells it to the Mayor's opponent, did the opponent do something wrong? What if the burglar was a citizen of Somalia? Does that make the kiddie porn off limits?

Ah yes, the investigation that is still ongoing under a Republican controlled executive and legislative branch is only because Hillary lost. That makes perfect sense.

We'll now ignore the proof that was released that those within the Trump campaign actively wanted dirt on Clinton that would have been provided by the Russian government AND intentionally lied about it and tried to cover up their tracks. If there was nothing wrong about what Papadopoulus did, then why cover it up and lie to federal agents?

This is certainly not the witch hunt without reason that you are making it out to be. But reason does not always equate to guilt or illegal actions, so please don't suggest that me believing that the investigation is warranted is the same as me saying that Trump or his campaign absolutely, 100%, did something wrong.

In your example, the burglar found illegal activity. He would be charged for his crime and then it's likely the mayor would be too. What illegal activities were uncovered in the Clinton emails?

A more apt comparison would be the burglar stealing letters the mayor sent to a mistress and then the mayor's opponent in the next election publishing them. Shouldn't that be off limits? The burglar committed a crime and the opponent basically encouraged it (by being willing to use stolen information).

Get real. The Republicans would kill this if they could.

Buying dirt is not a crime, is it. Doesn't matter who you bought it from.

are we now classifying her emails as dirt?

What we have here is Jack the Ripper pointing fingers at H. H. Holmes, and you are justifying it.

Agreed, buying dirt is not a crime (as I explained in a previous post - opposition research is the norm). I also doubt that buying dirt from the Russians is a crime. I'm not so sure if buying dirt that was illegally obtained is not a crime though.

Regardless, because it is so unusual to both be interested in using a hostile foreign government for "dirt", and be interested in using "dirt" that was stolen, that begs the question - is there something else going on? And because there is a question, there is an investigation.

And why does it matter if we're classifying the Clinton emails as dirt? Literally, explain to me why the phrasing matters to this conversation, at all. We could call then hot fudge sundaes and it wouldn't at all change their relevance to the investigation.

And you bet your butt I am justifying the investigation, because there IS justification. We literally today just found out that someone plead guilty to lying to the investigators about their conversations with someone who was trying to get them the stolen Clinton hot fudge sundaes. And that person then tried to cover their tracks after they lied to investigators. That right there gives credence to the justification of looking into this situation. Why lie to federal officials during an investigation if everything was A-OK?

The problem is, the left is saying their hot fudge sundae is just fine, but the right's hot fudge sundae is horrible, because they attempted to get their sundae from a Russian waitress, while the left only got theirs from a Ukrainian waitnrss. ither both are bad or both are good. either amounts to collusion, which takes us back to the ostensible reason for this witch hunt. maybe instead of ostenxible reason I should say excuse. ou don't go looking for jaguars in Minnesota, unless you just want to make trouble for Minnesotans.

suspicious behavior equals guilt? damn, we could do away with so many trials. i can think of lot of reasons for that guy's behavior other than collusion.

In any case, call me when something serious happens. I think all the damcing in the streets is way unwarranted.

(10-30-2017 04:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 03:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 03:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 03:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 02:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The reason there is an investigation is that Hillary lost, and the Dems cannot believe it happened naturally.

a secondary reason is to distract Trump amd help the Resistamce.

or maybe, just because they can.

where in the US laws does it matter where the info came from or how it was obtained?

if a burglar sneaks into the Mayor's house and finds kiddie porn on the Mayor's computer, is he ethically constrained from making that info public? if he sells it to the Mayor's opponent, did the opponent do something wrong? What if the burglar was a citizen of Somalia? Does that make the kiddie porn off limits?

Ah yes, the investigation that is still ongoing under a Republican controlled executive and legislative branch is only because Hillary lost. That makes perfect sense.

We'll now ignore the proof that was released that those within the Trump campaign actively wanted dirt on Clinton that would have been provided by the Russian government AND intentionally lied about it and tried to cover up their tracks. If there was nothing wrong about what Papadopoulus did, then why cover it up and lie to federal agents?

This is certainly not the witch hunt without reason that you are making it out to be. But reason does not always equate to guilt or illegal actions, so please don't suggest that me believing that the investigation is warranted is the same as me saying that Trump or his campaign absolutely, 100%, did something wrong.

In your example, the burglar found illegal activity. He would be charged for his crime and then it's likely the mayor would be too. What illegal activities were uncovered in the Clinton emails?

A more apt comparison would be the burglar stealing letters the mayor sent to a mistress and then the mayor's opponent in the next election publishing them. Shouldn't that be off limits? The burglar committed a crime and the opponent basically encouraged it (by being willing to use stolen information).

Get real. The Republicans would kill this if they could.

Buying dirt is not a crime, is it. Doesn't matter who you bought it from.

are we now classifying her emails as dirt?

What we have here is Jack the Ripper pointing fingers at H. H. Holmes, and you are justifying it.

Agreed, buying dirt is not a crime (as I explained in a previous post - opposition research is the norm). I also doubt that buying dirt from the Russians is a crime. I'm not so sure if buying dirt that was illegally obtained is not a crime though.

Regardless, because it is so unusual to both be interested in using a hostile foreign government for "dirt", and be interested in using "dirt" that was stolen, that begs the question - is there something else going on? And because there is a question, there is an investigation.

And why does it matter if we're classifying the Clinton emails as dirt? Literally, explain to me why the phrasing matters to this conversation, at all. We could call then hot fudge sundaes and it wouldn't at all change their relevance to the investigation.

And you bet your butt I am justifying the investigation, because there IS justification. We literally today just found out that someone plead guilty to lying to the investigators about their conversations with someone who was trying to get them the stolen Clinton hot fudge sundaes. And that person then tried to cover their tracks after they lied to investigators. That right there gives credence to the justification of looking into this situation. Why lie to federal officials during an investigation if everything was A-OK?

The problem is, the left is saying their hot fudge sundae is just fine, but the right's hot fudge sundae is horrible, because they attempted to get their sundae from a Russian waitress, while the left only got theirs from a Ukrainian waitnrss. ither both are bad or both are good. either amounts to collusion, which takes us back to the ostensible reason for this witch hunt. maybe instead of ostenxible reason I should say excuse. ou don't go looking for jaguars in Minnesota, unless you just want to make trouble for Minnesotans.

suspicious behavior equals guilt? damn, we could do away with so many trials. i can think of lot of reasons for that guy's behavior other than collusion.

In any case, call me when something serious happens. I think all the damcing in the streets is way unwarranted.

Provide a clear and succinct explanation of how the Trump campaigns actions and the DNC's actions were the same. Provide an explanation of who was involved in each incident, who reached out to who, who reciprocated, and what the final outcome was of the information.

And to your bold, oh heck no, and I did not suggest it DID equal guilt. Read my bold and explain how you came to that conclusion. I specifically said it gave credence to there being suspicion and therefore a reason to investigate. Deleting potential evidence (e.g. destroying evidence) is what Papadopoulus did, and he also lied to federal investigators. Does that not make you interested in why he did both of those things?

(10-30-2017 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 03:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 03:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 03:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ah yes, the investigation that is still ongoing under a Republican controlled executive and legislative branch is only because Hillary lost. That makes perfect sense.

We'll now ignore the proof that was released that those within the Trump campaign actively wanted dirt on Clinton that would have been provided by the Russian government AND intentionally lied about it and tried to cover up their tracks. If there was nothing wrong about what Papadopoulus did, then why cover it up and lie to federal agents?

This is certainly not the witch hunt without reason that you are making it out to be. But reason does not always equate to guilt or illegal actions, so please don't suggest that me believing that the investigation is warranted is the same as me saying that Trump or his campaign absolutely, 100%, did something wrong.

In your example, the burglar found illegal activity. He would be charged for his crime and then it's likely the mayor would be too. What illegal activities were uncovered in the Clinton emails?

A more apt comparison would be the burglar stealing letters the mayor sent to a mistress and then the mayor's opponent in the next election publishing them. Shouldn't that be off limits? The burglar committed a crime and the opponent basically encouraged it (by being willing to use stolen information).

Get real. The Republicans would kill this if they could.

Buying dirt is not a crime, is it. Doesn't matter who you bought it from.

are we now classifying her emails as dirt?

What we have here is Jack the Ripper pointing fingers at H. H. Holmes, and you are justifying it.

Agreed, buying dirt is not a crime (as I explained in a previous post - opposition research is the norm). I also doubt that buying dirt from the Russians is a crime. I'm not so sure if buying dirt that was illegally obtained is not a crime though.

Regardless, because it is so unusual to both be interested in using a hostile foreign government for "dirt", and be interested in using "dirt" that was stolen, that begs the question - is there something else going on? And because there is a question, there is an investigation.

And why does it matter if we're classifying the Clinton emails as dirt? Literally, explain to me why the phrasing matters to this conversation, at all. We could call then hot fudge sundaes and it wouldn't at all change their relevance to the investigation.

And you bet your butt I am justifying the investigation, because there IS justification. We literally today just found out that someone plead guilty to lying to the investigators about their conversations with someone who was trying to get them the stolen Clinton hot fudge sundaes. And that person then tried to cover their tracks after they lied to investigators. That right there gives credence to the justification of looking into this situation. Why lie to federal officials during an investigation if everything was A-OK?

The problem is, the left is saying their hot fudge sundae is just fine, but the right's hot fudge sundae is horrible, because they attempted to get their sundae from a Russian waitress, while the left only got theirs from a Ukrainian waitnrss. ither both are bad or both are good. either amounts to collusion, which takes us back to the ostensible reason for this witch hunt. maybe instead of ostenxible reason I should say excuse. ou don't go looking for jaguars in Minnesota, unless you just want to make trouble for Minnesotans.

suspicious behavior equals guilt? damn, we could do away with so many trials. i can think of lot of reasons for that guy's behavior other than collusion.

In any case, call me when something serious happens. I think all the damcing in the streets is way unwarranted.

Provide a clear and succinct explanation of how the Trump campaigns actions and the DNC's actions were the same. Provide an explanation of who was involved in each incident, who reached out to who, who reciprocated, and what the final outcome was of the information.

And to your bold, oh heck no, and I did not suggest it DID equal guilt. Read my bold and explain how you came to that conclusion. I specifically said it gave credence to there being suspicion and therefore a reason to investigate. Deleting potential evidence (e.g. destroying evidence) is what Papadopoulus did, and he also lied to federal investigators. Does that not make you interested in why he did both of those things?

To the first, can you wait until tomorrow? i am working from my old IPad from a hospital waiting room, and it is difficult on the POS to look up things. hasta Manana, amigo.

o the second, suspicious behavior gets innocent people shot sometimes. haven't you been following the NFL? but if suspicious behavior on a minor tamgential figure is the cornerstone for your investigation, it is weak.

Lad I'm confused.

In short, DNC, through their cutout Perkins Coie, and through another cutout GPS Fusion, bought oppo research directly from Russians whom are presumably tied to Russian intelligence, in order to move forward against a political opponent.

Further, it is becoming more plausible now that we know of the monetary connections between the DNC and the GPS Fusion dossier, and the originators of the dossier and previous deep ties to the Obama administration, that the basis of the literal explosion of FISA requests relating to Trump may very well be fundamentally connected to this dossier.

But, as many of my liberal colleagues try to say, 'Never mind *that* man behind the curtain there'. To me it is fundamentally scary that a ginned up trash dossier may very well be the basis for a fing government investigation using FISA powers against a political opponent.

Oh, but let's just ignore that crap covered side of the coin..... lolz.

Junior, tried to gain oppo research from a Russian-connected lawyer.

The actions are the same. The intent is the same.

Now that we have equivalent actions from *both* sides in the election, it is somehow all drastically different.

Now what I hear is that Junior, intentionally tried to get knowing illegally-obtained oppo research.

And on the corresponding, the GPS dossier either contains fraudulent items; or stuff that (if true) if it had been obtained in this country would have been as an illegal manner as what Jr. is 'intentionally' seeking.

And the last dodge is "well it was obtained in Russia, therefore not illegal."

The distinctions I have heard all day from from my die hard progressives starts sounding more and more like they are dancing furiously to an Irish jig to justify *their* crappy (and verified, mind you) actions relative to what is being *speculated* about Jrs. intent and supposed specific knowledge.

(10-30-2017 05:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 03:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 03:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Get real. The Republicans would kill this if they could.

Buying dirt is not a crime, is it. Doesn't matter who you bought it from.

are we now classifying her emails as dirt?

What we have here is Jack the Ripper pointing fingers at H. H. Holmes, and you are justifying it.

Agreed, buying dirt is not a crime (as I explained in a previous post - opposition research is the norm). I also doubt that buying dirt from the Russians is a crime. I'm not so sure if buying dirt that was illegally obtained is not a crime though.

Regardless, because it is so unusual to both be interested in using a hostile foreign government for "dirt", and be interested in using "dirt" that was stolen, that begs the question - is there something else going on? And because there is a question, there is an investigation.

And why does it matter if we're classifying the Clinton emails as dirt? Literally, explain to me why the phrasing matters to this conversation, at all. We could call then hot fudge sundaes and it wouldn't at all change their relevance to the investigation.

And you bet your butt I am justifying the investigation, because there IS justification. We literally today just found out that someone plead guilty to lying to the investigators about their conversations with someone who was trying to get them the stolen Clinton hot fudge sundaes. And that person then tried to cover their tracks after they lied to investigators. That right there gives credence to the justification of looking into this situation. Why lie to federal officials during an investigation if everything was A-OK?

The problem is, the left is saying their hot fudge sundae is just fine, but the right's hot fudge sundae is horrible, because they attempted to get their sundae from a Russian waitress, while the left only got theirs from a Ukrainian waitnrss. ither both are bad or both are good. either amounts to collusion, which takes us back to the ostensible reason for this witch hunt. maybe instead of ostenxible reason I should say excuse. ou don't go looking for jaguars in Minnesota, unless you just want to make trouble for Minnesotans.

suspicious behavior equals guilt? damn, we could do away with so many trials. i can think of lot of reasons for that guy's behavior other than collusion.

In any case, call me when something serious happens. I think all the damcing in the streets is way unwarranted.

Provide a clear and succinct explanation of how the Trump campaigns actions and the DNC's actions were the same. Provide an explanation of who was involved in each incident, who reached out to who, who reciprocated, and what the final outcome was of the information.

And to your bold, oh heck no, and I did not suggest it DID equal guilt. Read my bold and explain how you came to that conclusion. I specifically said it gave credence to there being suspicion and therefore a reason to investigate. Deleting potential evidence (e.g. destroying evidence) is what Papadopoulus did, and he also lied to federal investigators. Does that not make you interested in why he did both of those things?

To the first, can you wait until tomorrow? i am working from my old IPad from a hospital waiting room, and it is difficult on the POS to look up things. hasta Manana, amigo.

o the second, suspicious behavior gets innocent people shot sometimes. haven't you been following the NFL? but if suspicious behavior on a minor tamgential figure is the cornerstone for your investigation, it is weak.

Sorry to hear you are in the hospital OO. Best to you. I hope everything is well and turns out well.

(10-30-2017 05:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 03:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 03:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Get real. The Republicans would kill this if they could.

Buying dirt is not a crime, is it. Doesn't matter who you bought it from.

are we now classifying her emails as dirt?

What we have here is Jack the Ripper pointing fingers at H. H. Holmes, and you are justifying it.

Agreed, buying dirt is not a crime (as I explained in a previous post - opposition research is the norm). I also doubt that buying dirt from the Russians is a crime. I'm not so sure if buying dirt that was illegally obtained is not a crime though.

Regardless, because it is so unusual to both be interested in using a hostile foreign government for "dirt", and be interested in using "dirt" that was stolen, that begs the question - is there something else going on? And because there is a question, there is an investigation.

And why does it matter if we're classifying the Clinton emails as dirt? Literally, explain to me why the phrasing matters to this conversation, at all. We could call then hot fudge sundaes and it wouldn't at all change their relevance to the investigation.

And you bet your butt I am justifying the investigation, because there IS justification. We literally today just found out that someone plead guilty to lying to the investigators about their conversations with someone who was trying to get them the stolen Clinton hot fudge sundaes. And that person then tried to cover their tracks after they lied to investigators. That right there gives credence to the justification of looking into this situation. Why lie to federal officials during an investigation if everything was A-OK?

The problem is, the left is saying their hot fudge sundae is just fine, but the right's hot fudge sundae is horrible, because they attempted to get their sundae from a Russian waitress, while the left only got theirs from a Ukrainian waitnrss. ither both are bad or both are good. either amounts to collusion, which takes us back to the ostensible reason for this witch hunt. maybe instead of ostenxible reason I should say excuse. ou don't go looking for jaguars in Minnesota, unless you just want to make trouble for Minnesotans.

suspicious behavior equals guilt? damn, we could do away with so many trials. i can think of lot of reasons for that guy's behavior other than collusion.

In any case, call me when something serious happens. I think all the damcing in the streets is way unwarranted.

Provide a clear and succinct explanation of how the Trump campaigns actions and the DNC's actions were the same. Provide an explanation of who was involved in each incident, who reached out to who, who reciprocated, and what the final outcome was of the information.

And to your bold, oh heck no, and I did not suggest it DID equal guilt. Read my bold and explain how you came to that conclusion. I specifically said it gave credence to there being suspicion and therefore a reason to investigate. Deleting potential evidence (e.g. destroying evidence) is what Papadopoulus did, and he also lied to federal investigators. Does that not make you interested in why he did both of those things?

To the first, can you wait until tomorrow? i am working from my old IPad from a hospital waiting room, and it is difficult on the POS to look up things. hasta Manana, amigo.

o the second, suspicious behavior gets innocent people shot sometimes. haven't you been following the NFL? but if suspicious behavior on a minor tamgential figure is the cornerstone for your investigation, it is weak.

To the second, I don't see why police shootings is connected, but you have helped make my point. Suspicious behavior should not lead to someone being shot, because it does not indicate guilt. However, it does indicate that there is reasonable suspicion and therefore should be investigated. I am not stating that Trump and his campaign officials should be sentenced based on the information available, but I find there to be enough evidence to warrant an investigation.

But also, you're misunderstanding my point grossly. Suspicious behavior of a tangential figure (who is not exactly minor - Papadopoulos worked on developing Trump's foreign policy during the election and participated in national security meetings) is NOT the cornerstone of the investigation.

I was using this as a piece of evidence from the indictments/guilt pleas for why the investigation is warranted.

The thing is, I've provided a lot of reasons over the months as to why an investigation is warranted, but you dismiss them. You've primarily dismissed them because you state that they don't show evidence of collusion, which I've constantly countered by stating that if that evidence was public then an investigation wouldn't be needed.

But you can continue to think that this is entirely a fishing expedition that is built on nothing, but based on the indictments today, the fact that Trump and other Republicans haven't shut down the investigation yet, something tells me there is enough reasonable suspicion preset for the special counsel to continue with the investigation into potential Russian interference/collusion.

I mean, heck, even the example I am providing today shows a figure inside the campaign attempting to connect the Trump campaign with Russian officials in order to set up a meeting between Trump and Putin and pass off illegally obtained information on Clinton/the DNC.

(10-30-2017 05:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 03:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Agreed, buying dirt is not a crime (as I explained in a previous post - opposition research is the norm). I also doubt that buying dirt from the Russians is a crime. I'm not so sure if buying dirt that was illegally obtained is not a crime though.

Regardless, because it is so unusual to both be interested in using a hostile foreign government for "dirt", and be interested in using "dirt" that was stolen, that begs the question - is there something else going on? And because there is a question, there is an investigation.

And why does it matter if we're classifying the Clinton emails as dirt? Literally, explain to me why the phrasing matters to this conversation, at all. We could call then hot fudge sundaes and it wouldn't at all change their relevance to the investigation.

And you bet your butt I am justifying the investigation, because there IS justification. We literally today just found out that someone plead guilty to lying to the investigators about their conversations with someone who was trying to get them the stolen Clinton hot fudge sundaes. And that person then tried to cover their tracks after they lied to investigators. That right there gives credence to the justification of looking into this situation. Why lie to federal officials during an investigation if everything was A-OK?

The problem is, the left is saying their hot fudge sundae is just fine, but the right's hot fudge sundae is horrible, because they attempted to get their sundae from a Russian waitress, while the left only got theirs from a Ukrainian waitnrss. ither both are bad or both are good. either amounts to collusion, which takes us back to the ostensible reason for this witch hunt. maybe instead of ostenxible reason I should say excuse. ou don't go looking for jaguars in Minnesota, unless you just want to make trouble for Minnesotans.

suspicious behavior equals guilt? damn, we could do away with so many trials. i can think of lot of reasons for that guy's behavior other than collusion.

In any case, call me when something serious happens. I think all the damcing in the streets is way unwarranted.

Provide a clear and succinct explanation of how the Trump campaigns actions and the DNC's actions were the same. Provide an explanation of who was involved in each incident, who reached out to who, who reciprocated, and what the final outcome was of the information.

And to your bold, oh heck no, and I did not suggest it DID equal guilt. Read my bold and explain how you came to that conclusion. I specifically said it gave credence to there being suspicion and therefore a reason to investigate. Deleting potential evidence (e.g. destroying evidence) is what Papadopoulus did, and he also lied to federal investigators. Does that not make you interested in why he did both of those things?

To the first, can you wait until tomorrow? i am working from my old IPad from a hospital waiting room, and it is difficult on the POS to look up things. hasta Manana, amigo.

o the second, suspicious behavior gets innocent people shot sometimes. haven't you been following the NFL? but if suspicious behavior on a minor tamgential figure is the cornerstone for your investigation, it is weak.

Sorry to hear you are in the hospital OO. Best to you. I hope everything is well and turns out well.

not me. my sister has mental and physical handicaps and I take care of her. she is in for back surgery. We have been here since 5:00 AM, and I expect to be here till about nine. hard day, but I hope this surgery alleviates some of her pain and allows her to walk normally. thanks for,the thought anyway.

(10-30-2017 05:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad I'm confused.

In short, DNC, through their cutout Perkins Coie, and through another cutout GPS Fusion, bought oppo research directly from Russians whom are presumably tied to Russian intelligence, in order to move forward against a political opponent.

Further, it is becoming more plausible now that we know of the monetary connections between the DNC and the GPS Fusion dossier, and the originators of the dossier and previous deep ties to the Obama administration, that the basis of the literal explosion of FISA requests relating to Trump may very well be fundamentally connected to this dossier.

But, as many of my liberal colleagues try to say, 'Never mind *that* man behind the curtain there'. To me it is fundamentally scary that a ginned up trash dossier may very well be the basis for a fing government investigation using FISA powers against a political opponent.

Oh, but let's just ignore that crap covered side of the coin..... lolz.

Junior, tried to gain oppo research from a Russian-connected lawyer.

The actions are the same. The intent is the same.

Now that we have equivalent actions from *both* sides in the election, it is somehow all drastically different.

Now what I hear is that Junior, intentionally tried to get knowing illegally-obtained oppo research.

And on the corresponding, the GPS dossier either contains fraudulent items; or stuff that (if true) if it had been obtained in this country would have been as an illegal manner as what Jr. is 'intentionally' seeking.

And the last dodge is "well it was obtained in Russia, therefore not illegal."

The distinctions I have heard all day from from my die hard progressives starts sounding more and more like they are dancing furiously to an Irish jig to justify *their* crappy (and verified, mind you) actions relative to what is being *speculated* about Jrs. intent and supposed specific knowledge.

To the bold - what Russians? I was under the impression Fusion GPS was an American firm and they hired Michael Steele, a Brit, to do the investigations.

Even this Fox News article doesn't mention ties back to Russia: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/...-know.html

You're ranting a bit here, and seem very, very angry over your liberal friends at the moment. Perhaps take a break and maybe provide a bit more or a clear explanation as why you think the dossier opposition research is equal to potentially working with a hostile foreign government and trading in stolen information.

Who do you think was the ultimate payee for sourcing the dossier? A Sri Lankan perhaps?

Hmmmm..... lets think about this..... Steele == British intelligence with good contacts to Russian counterparts. Dossier filled to the brim with issues on Russian soil. Things that had to be 'verified' by people that had the supposed means to verify on the ground in Russia.

Yep, must be that Steele *had* to pay Sri Lankans to get all that stuff kind of inherently tied to the exact stuff that Russian spooks would do. Sri Lankans are the *best* at doing what Russian intelligence does on a daily basis.

Put your thinking cap on Lad. Do you really think Steele played junior G-man and originally sourced all this stuff himself? You cannot be that naive.

It is crystal clear that the DNC, in essence, in the end paid or solicited Russians for the info. Albeit with a number of cutouts. Nothing acts like a good cutout like a politically connected law firm and political information farm added to boot.

Lad -- each campaign interacted with foreign nationals for 'dirt'. More than likely, the DNC through its agents engaged Russians themselves in the end to supply 'dirt' (i.e. the dossier). Each campaign did pretty much the same exact actions (tried to get dirt from foreign nationals, most likely each supplier was Russians in the end), for the same exact end. One was smart enough to put more than one strawman/cutout in the middle of the transaction (or in case of Trump, attempted transaction instead of ostensibly completed transaction).

But progressives seem to bend over backwards to ignore the equivalent mess sitting on their side of the fing pigsty that is the Fusion dossier.