Found this when googling on trump corruption, but since my comment/question is about populism vs elitism, I thought I'd post it here.

Dems are supposedly "elitists" and Hillary was specifically criticized for making speeches to Wall Street. But has there ever been a cabinet with more wall street tycoons than this? And there are tons of examples of them saying and doing extremely elitist things but Republicans don't seem to care. One might almost thing the "elitist" jibe in disingenuous....

Seriously how does this episode show that the admin is looking out for the common people?

http://theweek.com/articles/724870/steve...se-history
-------------
This is something of a pattern for the secretary. Before this latest revelation, Mnuchin got in trouble for the exact same reason, when he took his wife Louise Linton on a government plane to Fort Knox, Kentucky, during the solar eclipse. Linton posted a shockingly gauche picture of the trip on Instagram, showing her and Mnuchin descending from a government plane, carefully noting the names of all the hyper-expensive designer clothing she was wearing with hashtags (#valentino).

Then when someone commented about the taxpayer expense, Linton came unglued in typical elitist fashion, as Jia Tolentino notes:

In a few aggrieved sentences, Linton managed to frame her husband’s $300 million net worth as a burden, her six months in Washington as harrowing public servitude, and an ordinary American as a contemptible member of the economic underclass. She punctuated this bit with two emoji, a flexed bicep, and a kissy face, which were meant to convey nonchalance but instead communicated a type of strained, hierarchical female fury that I have not witnessed in person since cheerleading camp, in 2005. [The New Yorker]

Then on Thursday last week, Mnuchin dug himself in even deeper. At a Politico conference, he managed to strain credulity to the breaking point while also scoffing that only stupid country rubes (e.g. Trump voters) could care about an eclipse anyway. "Being a New Yorker and [also from] California, I was like, the eclipse? Really?" he said. "I don't have any interest in watching the eclipse." Yeah, sure Steve. It was merest coincidence that you took your wife to within a few dozen miles of the eclipse totality zone during the 45 minutes that it passed by.
----------------

(01-03-2018 05:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 04:17 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  I think the most important issue currently is probably whether Trump is going to start a nuclear war via twitter with his "Nuclear Button," but these quotes from noted leftist Steve Bannon are too good to pass up:


“The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor — with no lawyers. They didn’t have any lawyers. Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad ****, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”

“The chance that Don Jr did not walk these jumos up to his father’s office on the twenty-sixth floor is zero.”

“You realize where this is going. “This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to ******* Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner. … It’s as plain as a hair on your face.”

“It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner ****. The Kushner **** is greasy. They’re going to go right through that. They’re going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me.”

“They’re going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV.”

[Edit: Sorry for all the bad language. Seems like many in the party of family values have potty mouths.]

Bazinga!

"If the Trump Organization has been running the spin cycle for dirty Russian money, the quid and the quo would be so close as to be
completely indistinguishable from one another. It always has been about the money...."

Charles Pierce

(01-05-2018 10:41 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 05:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 04:17 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  I think the most important issue currently is probably whether Trump is going to start a nuclear war via twitter with his "Nuclear Button," but these quotes from noted leftist Steve Bannon are too good to pass up:


“The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor — with no lawyers. They didn’t have any lawyers. Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad ****, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”

“The chance that Don Jr did not walk these jumos up to his father’s office on the twenty-sixth floor is zero.”

“You realize where this is going. “This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to ******* Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner. … It’s as plain as a hair on your face.”

“It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner ****. The Kushner **** is greasy. They’re going to go right through that. They’re going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me.”

“They’re going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV.”

[Edit: Sorry for all the bad language. Seems like many in the party of family values have potty mouths.]

Bazinga!

"If the Trump Organization has been running the spin cycle for dirty Russian money, the quid and the quo would be so close as to be
completely indistinguishable from one another. It always has been about the money...."

Charles Pierce

who is Charles Pierce? any relation to Franklin Pierce? Why should I listen to him? why should you listen to him?

Never mind. I looked it up:

Charles Patrick Pierce[1] (born December 28, 1953) is an American sportswriter, political blogger, liberal pundit[2] author, and game show panelist.[3]

And you guys make fun of Trump as a TV personality.


Regardless of if they can recognize it, no quid pro quo has been found, nor will it be. The investigation has turned to obstruction of itself. Ironic that all the investigation will find is that some people tried to keep it from finding nothing.

(01-05-2018 11:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:41 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 05:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 04:17 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  I think the most important issue currently is probably whether Trump is going to start a nuclear war via twitter with his "Nuclear Button," but these quotes from noted leftist Steve Bannon are too good to pass up:


“The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor — with no lawyers. They didn’t have any lawyers. Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad ****, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”

“The chance that Don Jr did not walk these jumos up to his father’s office on the twenty-sixth floor is zero.”

“You realize where this is going. “This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to ******* Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner. … It’s as plain as a hair on your face.”

“It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner ****. The Kushner **** is greasy. They’re going to go right through that. They’re going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me.”

“They’re going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV.”

[Edit: Sorry for all the bad language. Seems like many in the party of family values have potty mouths.]

Bazinga!

"If the Trump Organization has been running the spin cycle for dirty Russian money, the quid and the quo would be so close as to be
completely indistinguishable from one another. It always has been about the money...."

Charles Pierce

who is Charles Pierce? any relation to Franklin Pierce? Why should I listen to him? why should you listen to him?

Never mind. I looked it up:

Charles Patrick Pierce[1] (born December 28, 1953) is an American sportswriter, political blogger, liberal pundit[2] author, and game show panelist.[3]

And you guys make fun of Trump as a TV personality.


Regardless of if they can recognize it, no quid pro quo has been found, nor will it be. The investigation has turned to obstruction of itself. Ironic that all the investigation will find is that some people tried to keep it from finding nothing.

And the holidays are over.

(01-05-2018 11:28 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:41 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 05:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 04:17 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  I think the most important issue currently is probably whether Trump is going to start a nuclear war via twitter with his "Nuclear Button," but these quotes from noted leftist Steve Bannon are too good to pass up:


“The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor — with no lawyers. They didn’t have any lawyers. Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad ****, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”

“The chance that Don Jr did not walk these jumos up to his father’s office on the twenty-sixth floor is zero.”

“You realize where this is going. “This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to ******* Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner. … It’s as plain as a hair on your face.”

“It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner ****. The Kushner **** is greasy. They’re going to go right through that. They’re going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me.”

“They’re going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV.”

[Edit: Sorry for all the bad language. Seems like many in the party of family values have potty mouths.]

Bazinga!

"If the Trump Organization has been running the spin cycle for dirty Russian money, the quid and the quo would be so close as to be
completely indistinguishable from one another. It always has been about the money...."

Charles Pierce

who is Charles Pierce? any relation to Franklin Pierce? Why should I listen to him? why should you listen to him?

Never mind. I looked it up:

Charles Patrick Pierce[1] (born December 28, 1953) is an American sportswriter, political blogger, liberal pundit[2] author, and game show panelist.[3]

And you guys make fun of Trump as a TV personality.


Regardless of if they can recognize it, no quid pro quo has been found, nor will it be. The investigation has turned to obstruction of itself. Ironic that all the investigation will find is that some people tried to keep it from finding nothing.

And the holidays are over.

You mean the Christmas holidays? They end today, right. It's the twelfth of never today, er, i mean the Twelfth Day of Christmas. All I want is my five Golden rings. You can keep the geese. Amazon must have lost them.

(01-05-2018 10:25 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Found this when googling on trump corruption, but since my comment/question is about populism vs elitism, I thought I'd post it here.

Dems are supposedly "elitists" and Hillary was specifically criticized for making speeches to Wall Street. But has there ever been a cabinet with more wall street tycoons than this?

Reminds of me of those heady days of 1993 when newly-elected Bill Clinton promised a Cabinet that "looks like America" -- and promptly appointed one consisting consisting almost entirely (and to an unprecedented degree) of lawyers.

(01-05-2018 10:25 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  In a few aggrieved sentences, Linton managed to frame her husband’s $300 million net worth as a burden, her six months in Washington as harrowing public servitude, and an ordinary American as a contemptible member of the economic underclass. [The New Yorker]

Likewise, Hillary Clinton managed to frame (and millions upon millions of suckers bought into it) being female as a hindrance to her political career, despite the fact that being female (specifically, being Mrs Bill Clinton) is the overwhelming reason why that career existed in the form it did.

(01-05-2018 10:25 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  She punctuated this bit with two emoji, a flexed bicep, and a kissy face, which were meant to convey nonchalance but instead communicated a type of strained, hierarchical female fury that I have not witnessed in person since cheerleading camp, in 2005. [The New Yorker]

Haven't we been told that female anger is always supposed to be considered credible, and never to be dismissed or discounted? One would think the New Yorker would know better.

Trump admin declines to impose sanctions on Russia that the House and Senate passed by overwhelming margined.

Somewhere, way back on this thread, somebody said that there was enough "smoke" to warrant the independent counsel investigation. Smoke was all that needed to require an investigation to clear it up.

Do we now have enough "smoke" to warrant an independent counsel investigation into the FBI?

(02-03-2018 02:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Somewhere, way back on this thread, somebody said that there was enough "smoke" to warrant the independent counsel investigation. Smoke was all that needed to require an investigation to clear it up.

Do we now have enough "smoke" to warrant an independent counsel investigation into the FBI?

It’s fascinating that whatever partisan lense one views politics through generally dictates how one feels about the Nunes memo. With the exception it seems of Trey Gowdy - shocked that he agreed it was a whole bunch of nothing.

(02-03-2018 04:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It’s fascinating that whatever partisan lense one views politics through generally dictates how one feels about the Nunes memo. With the exception it seems of Trey Gowdy - shocked that he agreed it was a whole bunch of nothing.

Gowdy is one of the few people on either side of the aisle capable of putting country above team. Certainly none of the leaders can.

That being said, rumors are that he is angling for some kind of DOJ position when he gets back to SC, so he may be currying favor a bit. He's not going to make any friends there by attacking their tactics.

As I've said before, the bigger problem to me is the whole FISA court system. It is easily abused and this is quite possibly one example.

(02-03-2018 04:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 02:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Somewhere, way back on this thread, somebody said that there was enough "smoke" to warrant the independent counsel investigation. Smoke was all that needed to require an investigation to clear it up.

Do we now have enough "smoke" to warrant an independent counsel investigation into the FBI?

It’s fascinating that whatever partisan lense one views politics through generally dictates how one feels about the Nunes memo. With the exception it seems of Trey Gowdy - shocked that he agreed it was a whole bunch of nothing.

You act as though the Nunez memo were the only bit of smoke. Maybe it is that partisan lens you were speaking of.

But your answer is clear, and it is definitely a partisan no. Is your blind eye the one on the left?

maybe a few things to jar your memory.

Tarmac meeting.

Change in the wording of the conclusion of the Hillary investigation from negligernt to careless

Strok-Page texts.

Russian sources for the Steele dossier, paid for by the Hillary campaign.

The Nunez memo is not the only bit of smoke regarding the handling of Trump and Clinton by the FBI.

Nor is it the last memo. Nunez said they wanted to keep the memo(s) focused, and there is another in the works. perhaps unmasking?

I would think we would want a president who was so wise and foreseeing as to realize months before even being nominated that he needed DNC emails stolen and published without change in order to win Wisconsin and Michigan. Pretty dad gum foresighted, I think. But, on the other hand, if he didn't realize there were Americans talented enough to do that job for him, maybe not.

But all that smoke.

(02-03-2018 05:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 04:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 02:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Somewhere, way back on this thread, somebody said that there was enough "smoke" to warrant the independent counsel investigation. Smoke was all that needed to require an investigation to clear it up.

Do we now have enough "smoke" to warrant an independent counsel investigation into the FBI?

It’s fascinating that whatever partisan lense one views politics through generally dictates how one feels about the Nunes memo. With the exception it seems of Trey Gowdy - shocked that he agreed it was a whole bunch of nothing.

You act as though the Nunez memo were the only bit of smoke. Maybe it is that partisan lens you were speaking of.

But your answer is clear, and it is definitely a partisan no. Is your blind eye the one on the left?

maybe a few things to jar your memory.

Tarmac meeting.

Change in the wording of the conclusion of the Hillary investigation from negligernt to careless

Strok-Page texts.

Russian sources for the Steele dossier, paid for by the Hillary campaign.

The Nunez memo is not the only bit of smoke regarding the handling of Trump and Clinton by the FBI.

Nor is it the last memo. Nunez said they wanted to keep the memo(s) focused, and there is another in the works. perhaps unmasking?

I would think we would want a president who was so wise and foreseeing as to realize months before even being nominated that he needed DNC emails stolen and published without change in order to win Wisconsin and Michigan. Pretty dad gum foresighted, I think. But, on the other hand, if he didn't realize there were Americans talented enough to do that job for him, maybe not.

But all that smoke.

Tarmac meeting was the previous admins DOJ, not FBI, right? The meeting was bad, for sure, but wrong agency.

Not sure what’s there to investigate in the changing of text - should we now investigate every draft of every report ever written?

Texts resulted in the agent being removed and the missing ones were recovered. Unless those indicate otherwise, it’s likely that we’ll just find more jokes about secret societies and criticisms of both parties.

The Steele dossier has likely already been scrutinized by the intelligence agencies, but I think either those conclusions being made public or a Senate/House dive into it would be warranted at this point. But the use of Russian sources on its face isn’t smoke, and neither is the DNC being the second funders.

I don’t think the FBI or DOJ are without their faults, but at the moment, I don’t see enough smoke to warrant an investigation into either agency. But as I’ve said before, investigating the Steele dossier - including its production and use - would be good.

(02-03-2018 06:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 05:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 04:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 02:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Somewhere, way back on this thread, somebody said that there was enough "smoke" to warrant the independent counsel investigation. Smoke was all that needed to require an investigation to clear it up.

Do we now have enough "smoke" to warrant an independent counsel investigation into the FBI?

It’s fascinating that whatever partisan lense one views politics through generally dictates how one feels about the Nunes memo. With the exception it seems of Trey Gowdy - shocked that he agreed it was a whole bunch of nothing.

You act as though the Nunez memo were the only bit of smoke. Maybe it is that partisan lens you were speaking of.

But your answer is clear, and it is definitely a partisan no. Is your blind eye the one on the left?

maybe a few things to jar your memory.

Tarmac meeting.

Change in the wording of the conclusion of the Hillary investigation from negligernt to careless

Strok-Page texts.

Russian sources for the Steele dossier, paid for by the Hillary campaign.

The Nunez memo is not the only bit of smoke regarding the handling of Trump and Clinton by the FBI.

Nor is it the last memo. Nunez said they wanted to keep the memo(s) focused, and there is another in the works. perhaps unmasking?

I would think we would want a president who was so wise and foreseeing as to realize months before even being nominated that he needed DNC emails stolen and published without change in order to win Wisconsin and Michigan. Pretty dad gum foresighted, I think. But, on the other hand, if he didn't realize there were Americans talented enough to do that job for him, maybe not.

But all that smoke.

Tarmac meeting was the previous admins DOJ, not FBI, right? The meeting was bad, for sure, but wrong agency.

Not sure what’s there to investigate in the changing of text - should we now investigate every draft of every report ever written?

Texts resulted in the agent being removed and the missing ones were recovered. Unless those indicate otherwise, it’s likely that we’ll just find more jokes about secret societies and criticisms of both parties.

The Steele dossier has likely already been scrutinized by the intelligence agencies, but I think either those conclusions being made public or a Senate/House dive into it would be warranted at this point. But the use of Russian sources on its face isn’t smoke, and neither is the DNC being the second funders.

I don’t think the FBI or DOJ are without their faults, but at the moment, I don’t see enough smoke to warrant an investigation into either agency. But as I’ve said before, investigating the Steele dossier - including its production and use - would be good.

Tarmac meeting was Comey's boss, and happened while the investigation was active. One result was that she asked Comey to refer to it as a "matter", not an investigation.

The changing of text took it from a criminal matter, to not a criminal matter. negligence is a crime.

Every contact between a Trump campaign operative or Trump appointee is taken as smoke. Now the investigation is called the investigation into Russian meddling. What better way to meddle than passing false information to a Trump enemy working for the Clinton campaign in oppo research? Almost a direct pipeline from Russia to the MSM. Easy peasy, and they got paid for it too.

My point is that the entire collusion Russian meddling investigation is based on much weaker points of smoke than are emerging in the FBI/DOJ matter. If the first one merits a special counsel, so does the second one.

(02-03-2018 06:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 06:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 05:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 04:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 02:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Somewhere, way back on this thread, somebody said that there was enough "smoke" to warrant the independent counsel investigation. Smoke was all that needed to require an investigation to clear it up.

Do we now have enough "smoke" to warrant an independent counsel investigation into the FBI?

It’s fascinating that whatever partisan lense one views politics through generally dictates how one feels about the Nunes memo. With the exception it seems of Trey Gowdy - shocked that he agreed it was a whole bunch of nothing.

You act as though the Nunez memo were the only bit of smoke. Maybe it is that partisan lens you were speaking of.

But your answer is clear, and it is definitely a partisan no. Is your blind eye the one on the left?

maybe a few things to jar your memory.

Tarmac meeting.

Change in the wording of the conclusion of the Hillary investigation from negligernt to careless

Strok-Page texts.

Russian sources for the Steele dossier, paid for by the Hillary campaign.

The Nunez memo is not the only bit of smoke regarding the handling of Trump and Clinton by the FBI.

Nor is it the last memo. Nunez said they wanted to keep the memo(s) focused, and there is another in the works. perhaps unmasking?

I would think we would want a president who was so wise and foreseeing as to realize months before even being nominated that he needed DNC emails stolen and published without change in order to win Wisconsin and Michigan. Pretty dad gum foresighted, I think. But, on the other hand, if he didn't realize there were Americans talented enough to do that job for him, maybe not.

But all that smoke.

Tarmac meeting was the previous admins DOJ, not FBI, right? The meeting was bad, for sure, but wrong agency.

Not sure what’s there to investigate in the changing of text - should we now investigate every draft of every report ever written?

Texts resulted in the agent being removed and the missing ones were recovered. Unless those indicate otherwise, it’s likely that we’ll just find more jokes about secret societies and criticisms of both parties.

The Steele dossier has likely already been scrutinized by the intelligence agencies, but I think either those conclusions being made public or a Senate/House dive into it would be warranted at this point. But the use of Russian sources on its face isn’t smoke, and neither is the DNC being the second funders.

I don’t think the FBI or DOJ are without their faults, but at the moment, I don’t see enough smoke to warrant an investigation into either agency. But as I’ve said before, investigating the Steele dossier - including its production and use - would be good.

Tarmac meeting was Comey's boss, and happened while the investigation was active. One result was that she asked Comey to refer to it as a "matter", not an investigation.

The changing of text took it from a criminal matter, to not a criminal matter. negligence is a crime.

Every contact between a Trump campaign operative or Trump appointee is taken as smoke. Now the investigation is called the investigation into Russian meddling. What better way to meddle than passing false information to a Trump enemy working for the Clinton campaign in oppo research? Almost a direct pipeline from Russia to the MSM. Easy peasy, and they got paid for it too.

My point is that the entire collusion Russian meddling investigation is based on much weaker points of smoke than are emerging in the FBI/DOJ matter. If the first one merits a special counsel, so does the second one.

The only reason the text change is smoke to you is because the change in language resulted in a result you disagree with. How does editing a memo, which was then signed off on by the FBI, constitute smoke? Oh right, cus you disagree with the outcome.

I mean, the guy who changed the text has now been shown to have written a memo advocating for reopening the Clinton investigation based on the Weiner computer emails. That decision was definitely not a pro-Clinton one.

And for the Russian meetings, the smoke for Trump came from the frequency of meetings, the types of conversations, and most importantly, the desire to lie about them or cover them up.

(02-03-2018 06:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 06:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 06:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 05:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 04:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It’s fascinating that whatever partisan lense one views politics through generally dictates how one feels about the Nunes memo. With the exception it seems of Trey Gowdy - shocked that he agreed it was a whole bunch of nothing.

You act as though the Nunez memo were the only bit of smoke. Maybe it is that partisan lens you were speaking of.

But your answer is clear, and it is definitely a partisan no. Is your blind eye the one on the left?

maybe a few things to jar your memory.

Tarmac meeting.

Change in the wording of the conclusion of the Hillary investigation from negligernt to careless

Strok-Page texts.

Russian sources for the Steele dossier, paid for by the Hillary campaign.

The Nunez memo is not the only bit of smoke regarding the handling of Trump and Clinton by the FBI.

Nor is it the last memo. Nunez said they wanted to keep the memo(s) focused, and there is another in the works. perhaps unmasking?

I would think we would want a president who was so wise and foreseeing as to realize months before even being nominated that he needed DNC emails stolen and published without change in order to win Wisconsin and Michigan. Pretty dad gum foresighted, I think. But, on the other hand, if he didn't realize there were Americans talented enough to do that job for him, maybe not.

But all that smoke.

Tarmac meeting was the previous admins DOJ, not FBI, right? The meeting was bad, for sure, but wrong agency.

Not sure what’s there to investigate in the changing of text - should we now investigate every draft of every report ever written?

Texts resulted in the agent being removed and the missing ones were recovered. Unless those indicate otherwise, it’s likely that we’ll just find more jokes about secret societies and criticisms of both parties.

The Steele dossier has likely already been scrutinized by the intelligence agencies, but I think either those conclusions being made public or a Senate/House dive into it would be warranted at this point. But the use of Russian sources on its face isn’t smoke, and neither is the DNC being the second funders.

I don’t think the FBI or DOJ are without their faults, but at the moment, I don’t see enough smoke to warrant an investigation into either agency. But as I’ve said before, investigating the Steele dossier - including its production and use - would be good.

Tarmac meeting was Comey's boss, and happened while the investigation was active. One result was that she asked Comey to refer to it as a "matter", not an investigation.

The changing of text took it from a criminal matter, to not a criminal matter. negligence is a crime.

Every contact between a Trump campaign operative or Trump appointee is taken as smoke. Now the investigation is called the investigation into Russian meddling. What better way to meddle than passing false information to a Trump enemy working for the Clinton campaign in oppo research? Almost a direct pipeline from Russia to the MSM. Easy peasy, and they got paid for it too.

My point is that the entire collusion Russian meddling investigation is based on much weaker points of smoke than are emerging in the FBI/DOJ matter. If the first one merits a special counsel, so does the second one.

The only reason the text change is smoke to you is because the change in language resulted in a result you disagree with. How does editing a memo, which was then signed off on by the FBI, constitute smoke? Oh right, cus you disagree with the outcome.

I mean, the guy who changed the text has now been shown to have written a memo advocating for reopening the Clinton investigation based on the Weiner computer emails. That decision was definitely not a pro-Clinton one.

And for the Russian meetings, the smoke for Trump came from the frequency of meetings, the types of conversations, and most importantly, the desire to lie about them or cover them up.

The editing changed the whole thrust of the conclusion. THAT is why it is smoke, however much you want it to be something else.

But never mind. Clearing we need more smoke, maybe a smoking gun, before you will be able to see clearly. I think that will be forthcoming.

(02-03-2018 06:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 06:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 06:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 06:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 05:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You act as though the Nunez memo were the only bit of smoke. Maybe it is that partisan lens you were speaking of.

But your answer is clear, and it is definitely a partisan no. Is your blind eye the one on the left?

maybe a few things to jar your memory.

Tarmac meeting.

Change in the wording of the conclusion of the Hillary investigation from negligernt to careless

Strok-Page texts.

Russian sources for the Steele dossier, paid for by the Hillary campaign.

The Nunez memo is not the only bit of smoke regarding the handling of Trump and Clinton by the FBI.

Nor is it the last memo. Nunez said they wanted to keep the memo(s) focused, and there is another in the works. perhaps unmasking?

I would think we would want a president who was so wise and foreseeing as to realize months before even being nominated that he needed DNC emails stolen and published without change in order to win Wisconsin and Michigan. Pretty dad gum foresighted, I think. But, on the other hand, if he didn't realize there were Americans talented enough to do that job for him, maybe not.

But all that smoke.

Tarmac meeting was the previous admins DOJ, not FBI, right? The meeting was bad, for sure, but wrong agency.

Not sure what’s there to investigate in the changing of text - should we now investigate every draft of every report ever written?

Texts resulted in the agent being removed and the missing ones were recovered. Unless those indicate otherwise, it’s likely that we’ll just find more jokes about secret societies and criticisms of both parties.

The Steele dossier has likely already been scrutinized by the intelligence agencies, but I think either those conclusions being made public or a Senate/House dive into it would be warranted at this point. But the use of Russian sources on its face isn’t smoke, and neither is the DNC being the second funders.

I don’t think the FBI or DOJ are without their faults, but at the moment, I don’t see enough smoke to warrant an investigation into either agency. But as I’ve said before, investigating the Steele dossier - including its production and use - would be good.

Tarmac meeting was Comey's boss, and happened while the investigation was active. One result was that she asked Comey to refer to it as a "matter", not an investigation.

The changing of text took it from a criminal matter, to not a criminal matter. negligence is a crime.

Every contact between a Trump campaign operative or Trump appointee is taken as smoke. Now the investigation is called the investigation into Russian meddling. What better way to meddle than passing false information to a Trump enemy working for the Clinton campaign in oppo research? Almost a direct pipeline from Russia to the MSM. Easy peasy, and they got paid for it too.

My point is that the entire collusion Russian meddling investigation is based on much weaker points of smoke than are emerging in the FBI/DOJ matter. If the first one merits a special counsel, so does the second one.

The only reason the text change is smoke to you is because the change in language resulted in a result you disagree with. How does editing a memo, which was then signed off on by the FBI, constitute smoke? Oh right, cus you disagree with the outcome.

I mean, the guy who changed the text has now been shown to have written a memo advocating for reopening the Clinton investigation based on the Weiner computer emails. That decision was definitely not a pro-Clinton one.

And for the Russian meetings, the smoke for Trump came from the frequency of meetings, the types of conversations, and most importantly, the desire to lie about them or cover them up.

The editing changed the whole thrust of the conclusion. THAT is why it is smoke, however much you want it to be something else.

But never mind. Clearing we need more smoke, maybe a smoking gun, before you will be able to see clearly. I think that will be forthcoming.

Again, you only see smoke because you disagree with the outcome! No one has suggested that those edits were snuck in at the last minute and done over extreme objections by others. It’s almost as if the FBI decided that those edits were, um, appropriate?

The only thing you’ve brought up that has any semblance of needing an investigation is the Steele dossier because of the potential role it may have played in the current situation. And I’ve been forward about how that wouldn’t be warranted...

(02-03-2018 04:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 04:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It’s fascinating that whatever partisan lense one views politics through generally dictates how one feels about the Nunes memo. With the exception it seems of Trey Gowdy - shocked that he agreed it was a whole bunch of nothing.

Gowdy is one of the few people on either side of the aisle capable of putting country above team. Certainly none of the leaders can.

That being said, rumors are that he is angling for some kind of DOJ position when he gets back to SC, so he may be currying favor a bit. He's not going to make any friends there by attacking their tactics.

As I've said before, the bigger problem to me is the whole FISA court system. It is easily abused and this is quite possibly one example.

Disagree about Gowdy - which is why I was shocked.

(02-03-2018 07:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 06:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 06:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 06:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 06:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tarmac meeting was the previous admins DOJ, not FBI, right? The meeting was bad, for sure, but wrong agency.

Not sure what’s there to investigate in the changing of text - should we now investigate every draft of every report ever written?

Texts resulted in the agent being removed and the missing ones were recovered. Unless those indicate otherwise, it’s likely that we’ll just find more jokes about secret societies and criticisms of both parties.

The Steele dossier has likely already been scrutinized by the intelligence agencies, but I think either those conclusions being made public or a Senate/House dive into it would be warranted at this point. But the use of Russian sources on its face isn’t smoke, and neither is the DNC being the second funders.

I don’t think the FBI or DOJ are without their faults, but at the moment, I don’t see enough smoke to warrant an investigation into either agency. But as I’ve said before, investigating the Steele dossier - including its production and use - would be good.

Tarmac meeting was Comey's boss, and happened while the investigation was active. One result was that she asked Comey to refer to it as a "matter", not an investigation.

The changing of text took it from a criminal matter, to not a criminal matter. negligence is a crime.

Every contact between a Trump campaign operative or Trump appointee is taken as smoke. Now the investigation is called the investigation into Russian meddling. What better way to meddle than passing false information to a Trump enemy working for the Clinton campaign in oppo research? Almost a direct pipeline from Russia to the MSM. Easy peasy, and they got paid for it too.

My point is that the entire collusion Russian meddling investigation is based on much weaker points of smoke than are emerging in the FBI/DOJ matter. If the first one merits a special counsel, so does the second one.

The only reason the text change is smoke to you is because the change in language resulted in a result you disagree with. How does editing a memo, which was then signed off on by the FBI, constitute smoke? Oh right, cus you disagree with the outcome.

I mean, the guy who changed the text has now been shown to have written a memo advocating for reopening the Clinton investigation based on the Weiner computer emails. That decision was definitely not a pro-Clinton one.

And for the Russian meetings, the smoke for Trump came from the frequency of meetings, the types of conversations, and most importantly, the desire to lie about them or cover them up.

The editing changed the whole thrust of the conclusion. THAT is why it is smoke, however much you want it to be something else.

But never mind. Clearing we need more smoke, maybe a smoking gun, before you will be able to see clearly. I think that will be forthcoming.

Again, you only see smoke because you disagree with the outcome! No one has suggested that those edits were snuck in at the last minute and done over extreme objections by others. It’s almost as if the FBI decided that those edits were, um, appropriate?

The only thing you’ve brought up that has any semblance of needing an investigation is the Steele dossier because of the potential role it may have played in the current situation. And I’ve been forward about how that wouldn’t be warranted...

I am getting a little miffed at your continual suggestions that the only reason I see smoke there is because I disagree with the outcome. I guess I could return the favor and say the only reason you don't see any smoke is because you agree with the outcome.

Actually, when were these edits put in? If this conclusion was written months before, that would be a problem in itself. So i am guessing the editing was done fairly close to the presentation. But if you have knowledge otherwise, please present it. You seem to know a lot about the timing.

And if there were no objections, that could be as bad. I have never heard of conspirators objecting to the actions of other conspirators.

The FISA thing is just one point of smoke, and believe me, the short list I presented is nowhere near exhaustive. But of course, nothing smoky about Russians feeding info to a Trump enemy working for a company hired by the Clinton campaign to do oppo research. Nowhere near as bad as meeting with a Russian lawyer for 15 minutes to get oppo research, and failing to get any. I can see why you think one is smoky, and one is pure. Just cannot understand why you chose that one and not this one.

(02-03-2018 07:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 07:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 06:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 06:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 06:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Tarmac meeting was Comey's boss, and happened while the investigation was active. One result was that she asked Comey to refer to it as a "matter", not an investigation.

The changing of text took it from a criminal matter, to not a criminal matter. negligence is a crime.

Every contact between a Trump campaign operative or Trump appointee is taken as smoke. Now the investigation is called the investigation into Russian meddling. What better way to meddle than passing false information to a Trump enemy working for the Clinton campaign in oppo research? Almost a direct pipeline from Russia to the MSM. Easy peasy, and they got paid for it too.

My point is that the entire collusion Russian meddling investigation is based on much weaker points of smoke than are emerging in the FBI/DOJ matter. If the first one merits a special counsel, so does the second one.

The only reason the text change is smoke to you is because the change in language resulted in a result you disagree with. How does editing a memo, which was then signed off on by the FBI, constitute smoke? Oh right, cus you disagree with the outcome.

I mean, the guy who changed the text has now been shown to have written a memo advocating for reopening the Clinton investigation based on the Weiner computer emails. That decision was definitely not a pro-Clinton one.

And for the Russian meetings, the smoke for Trump came from the frequency of meetings, the types of conversations, and most importantly, the desire to lie about them or cover them up.

The editing changed the whole thrust of the conclusion. THAT is why it is smoke, however much you want it to be something else.

But never mind. Clearing we need more smoke, maybe a smoking gun, before you will be able to see clearly. I think that will be forthcoming.

Again, you only see smoke because you disagree with the outcome! No one has suggested that those edits were snuck in at the last minute and done over extreme objections by others. It’s almost as if the FBI decided that those edits were, um, appropriate?

The only thing you’ve brought up that has any semblance of needing an investigation is the Steele dossier because of the potential role it may have played in the current situation. And I’ve been forward about how that wouldn’t be warranted...

I am getting a little miffed at your continual suggestions that the only reason I see smoke there is because I disagree with the outcome. I guess I could return the favor and say the only reason you don't see any smoke is because you agree with the outcome.

Actually, when were these edits put in? If this conclusion was written months before, that would be a problem in itself. So i am guessing the editing was done fairly close to the presentation. But if you have knowledge otherwise, please present it. You seem to know a lot about the timing.

And if there were no objections, that could be as bad. I have never heard of conspirators objecting to the actions of other conspirators.

The FISA thing is just one point of smoke, and believe me, the short list I presented is nowhere near exhaustive. But of course, nothing smoky about Russians feeding info to a Trump enemy working for a company hired by the Clinton campaign to do oppo research. Nowhere near as bad as meeting with a Russian lawyer for 15 minutes to get oppo research, and failing to get any. I can see why you think one is smoky, and one is pure. Just cannot understand why you chose that one and not this one.

Have I not routinely said I would support looking into the Steele Dossier? The last comment appears to suggest otherwise...

(02-03-2018 10:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 07:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 07:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 06:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 06:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The only reason the text change is smoke to you is because the change in language resulted in a result you disagree with. How does editing a memo, which was then signed off on by the FBI, constitute smoke? Oh right, cus you disagree with the outcome.

I mean, the guy who changed the text has now been shown to have written a memo advocating for reopening the Clinton investigation based on the Weiner computer emails. That decision was definitely not a pro-Clinton one.

And for the Russian meetings, the smoke for Trump came from the frequency of meetings, the types of conversations, and most importantly, the desire to lie about them or cover them up.

The editing changed the whole thrust of the conclusion. THAT is why it is smoke, however much you want it to be something else.

But never mind. Clearing we need more smoke, maybe a smoking gun, before you will be able to see clearly. I think that will be forthcoming.

Again, you only see smoke because you disagree with the outcome! No one has suggested that those edits were snuck in at the last minute and done over extreme objections by others. It’s almost as if the FBI decided that those edits were, um, appropriate?

The only thing you’ve brought up that has any semblance of needing an investigation is the Steele dossier because of the potential role it may have played in the current situation. And I’ve been forward about how that wouldn’t be warranted...

I am getting a little miffed at your continual suggestions that the only reason I see smoke there is because I disagree with the outcome. I guess I could return the favor and say the only reason you don't see any smoke is because you agree with the outcome.

Actually, when were these edits put in? If this conclusion was written months before, that would be a problem in itself. So i am guessing the editing was done fairly close to the presentation. But if you have knowledge otherwise, please present it. You seem to know a lot about the timing.

And if there were no objections, that could be as bad. I have never heard of conspirators objecting to the actions of other conspirators.

The FISA thing is just one point of smoke, and believe me, the short list I presented is nowhere near exhaustive. But of course, nothing smoky about Russians feeding info to a Trump enemy working for a company hired by the Clinton campaign to do oppo research. Nowhere near as bad as meeting with a Russian lawyer for 15 minutes to get oppo research, and failing to get any. I can see why you think one is smoky, and one is pure. Just cannot understand why you chose that one and not this one.

Have I not routinely said I would support looking into the Steele Dossier? The last comment appears to suggest otherwise...

I guess it was this statement that confused me:

“The only thing you’ve brought up that has any semblance of needing an investigation is the Steele dossier because of the potential role it may have played in the current situation. And I’ve been forward about how that wouldn’t be warranted...”

The part about “that wouldn’t be warranted”, I took to mean you thought an investigation into the Steele dossier would not be warranted.

In any case, an investigation into the Steele dossier should just be a part of an investigation into the politicization of the DOJ/FBI.