(02-03-2018 10:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Ah, that must have been an accidental auto-complete on my phone.

I don’t buy the politicization of the DOJ/FBI. That was the same argument many Dems used with Guliani and the NY office and even Comey’s reopening of the Clinton investigation. It a trope at this point.

I don't think they become politicalized in the traditional D or R status. Their loyalty is to the agency and their careers--not necessarily in that order, although the two are usually synonymous. As I've said, confidential, secret, top secret, and embarrassing to the agency--and there's only one of those hills they'll die on.

(02-04-2018 12:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't think they become politicalized in the traditional D or R status. Their loyalty is to the agency and their careers--not necessarily in that order, although the two are usually synonymous. As I've said, confidential, secret, top secret, and embarrassing to the agency--and there's only one of those hills they'll die on.

I can get behind that thought a lot more than the other. Problem right now is that pretty much every legitimate concern proffered by the Nunes memo is quickly refuted by the other side. Plus, the underlying concern is about a FISA warrant continuation, not an initial application, right? So there had already been concernts about Page well before Trump was in the running.

(02-03-2018 11:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 10:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

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

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

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

Ah, that must have been an accidental auto-complete on my phone.

I don’t buy the politicization of the DOJ/FBI. That was the same argument many Dems used with Guliani and the NY office and even Comey’s reopening of the Clinton investigation. It a trope at this point.

Apology accepted, if that’s what that was.

Whether it is due to political bias or just bureaucrats protecting their agency, it still remains that actions were taken for one candidate and against another, not strictly in accordance with law, and this sort of uneven action should be investigated and rooted out.

(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.

Not exactly what he said

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina, one of the four authors of the GOP memo released Friday, told CBS News' "Face the Nation" that he believes a surveillance warrant for former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page would not have ever been authorized without the existence of the controversial "Steele dossier."

Question for the lawyers: If the FISA application is shown to be deficient or fraudulent, does stuff that followed from it become "fruit of the poisoned tree"?

There is a Russian investigation without the dossier. Tying it to Trump may not be possible without it.

(02-04-2018 02:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There is a Russian investigation without the dossier. Tying it to Trump may not be possible without it.

So THAT is why they are so desperate to legitimize it.

I think there WAS a Russian attempt to meddle with our elections, and the investigation makes that attempt a success. The investigation is the gift to Russia that just keeps giving.

As for the issues surrounding the FBI, DOJ, and the memo.

If all this is not a scandal — then the following protocols are now considered permissible in American electoral practice and constitutional jurisprudence: An incumbent administration can freely use the FBI and the DOJ to favor one side in a presidential election, by buying its opposition research against the other candidate, using its own prestige to authenticate such a third-party oppositional dossier, and then using it to obtain court-ordered wiretaps on American citizens employed by a candidate’s campaign — and do so by deliberately misleading the court about the origins and authors of the dossier that was used to obtain the warrants.

If this is not what happened, then it very heavily warrants a special prosecutor to say that it has not.
If this is what happened, then it very heavily warrants a special prosecutor to make sure it does not happen again.

Per the people on the left, the smoke around: the Clinton investigation (may have been a prejudged finding based on the texts *and* the fact that Obama not only condoned the actions, but supported them knowingly through usage), the ties between the actors of the Clinton/DOJ/FBI/DNC, the usage of the Steele memo, the rash of unmaskings per cabinet level requests, etc. should all be brought into the light.

This 'smoke' implicates not just a politicization of the DOJ/FBI/national security apparatus, but a potential weaponization for political purposes.

Again, in a manner akin to the Trump (Russia, obstruction, collusion, reason de jour) investigation, if there is nothing there, it should be put to rest one way or the other. To say that it should not would be a true case of 'let's bury our heads in the sand'.

In all the "mays" and "mights" and "ifs" and "maybes," I come down to what I know to be factually correct.

I know that James Comey recited a list of actions by Hillary Clinton that would have landed me in Leavenworth for 40 years had I done them, but he then recommend that she not be prosecuted because of difficulty proving "intent," when 1) intent is not an element of the respective crimes, and 2) two primary indicia of intent were present--repeated acts and destruction of evidence.

That's it. That's all I know as a matter of fact. The rest is he said/she said at this point. And I'm not comfortable with that fact.

Owl #s,

there was no way that Hillary was going to be charged. Preordained. Simply because to charge Hillary would cause serious problems for the commander-in-chief that actually communicated with that system.

(02-04-2018 04:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In all the "mays" and "mights" and "ifs" and "maybes," I come down to what I know to be factually correct.

I know that James Comey recited a list of actions by Hillary Clinton that would have landed me in Leavenworth for 40 years had I done them, but he then recommend that she not be prosecuted because of difficulty proving "intent," when 1) intent is not an element of the respective crimes, and 2) two primary indicia of intent were present--repeated acts and destruction of evidence.

That's it. That's all I know as a matter of fact. The rest is he said/she said at this point. And I'm not comfortable with that fact.

Any opinion on the editing of Comey's presentation from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless"?

(02-04-2018 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 04:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In all the "mays" and "mights" and "ifs" and "maybes," I come down to what I know to be factually correct.
I know that James Comey recited a list of actions by Hillary Clinton that would have landed me in Leavenworth for 40 years had I done them, but he then recommend that she not be prosecuted because of difficulty proving "intent," when 1) intent is not an element of the respective crimes, and 2) two primary indicia of intent were present--repeated acts and destruction of evidence.
That's it. That's all I know as a matter of fact. The rest is he said/she said at this point. And I'm not comfortable with that fact.

Any opinion on the editing of Comey's presentation from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless"?

I would include that as part of my fact.

(02-04-2018 07:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 04:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In all the "mays" and "mights" and "ifs" and "maybes," I come down to what I know to be factually correct.
I know that James Comey recited a list of actions by Hillary Clinton that would have landed me in Leavenworth for 40 years had I done them, but he then recommend that she not be prosecuted because of difficulty proving "intent," when 1) intent is not an element of the respective crimes, and 2) two primary indicia of intent were present--repeated acts and destruction of evidence.
That's it. That's all I know as a matter of fact. The rest is he said/she said at this point. And I'm not comfortable with that fact.

Any opinion on the editing of Comey's presentation from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless"?

I would include that as part of my fact.

Other fact: Comey made the reopening of the investigation into the emails on Weiner's computer public before the election and before there was any evidence about them being new or old.

I want to say it was the NYTimes, but regardless, a detailed article was written about Comey. All signs point to Comey being a person who was put between a rock and a hard and place in the situation, and that in the situation he attempted to do what he felt was least partisan and was the most fair - which is why he felt the need to inform the public of those emails. Those actions both helped/hurt Clinton in the election.

(02-05-2018 03:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 07:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 04:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In all the "mays" and "mights" and "ifs" and "maybes," I come down to what I know to be factually correct.
I know that James Comey recited a list of actions by Hillary Clinton that would have landed me in Leavenworth for 40 years had I done them, but he then recommend that she not be prosecuted because of difficulty proving "intent," when 1) intent is not an element of the respective crimes, and 2) two primary indicia of intent were present--repeated acts and destruction of evidence.
That's it. That's all I know as a matter of fact. The rest is he said/she said at this point. And I'm not comfortable with that fact.

Any opinion on the editing of Comey's presentation from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless"?

I would include that as part of my fact.

Other fact: Comey made the reopening of the investigation into the emails on Weiner's computer public before the election and before there was any evidence about them being new or old.

I want to say it was the NYTimes, but regardless, a detailed article was written about Comey. All signs point to Comey being a person who was put between a rock and a hard and place in the situation, and that in the situation he attempted to do what he felt was least partisan and was the most fair - which is why he felt the need to inform the public of those emails. Those actions both helped/hurt Clinton in the election.

Was this back when the Democrats hated Comey and wanted him fired?

(02-05-2018 05:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 03:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 07:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 04:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In all the "mays" and "mights" and "ifs" and "maybes," I come down to what I know to be factually correct.
I know that James Comey recited a list of actions by Hillary Clinton that would have landed me in Leavenworth for 40 years had I done them, but he then recommend that she not be prosecuted because of difficulty proving "intent," when 1) intent is not an element of the respective crimes, and 2) two primary indicia of intent were present--repeated acts and destruction of evidence.
That's it. That's all I know as a matter of fact. The rest is he said/she said at this point. And I'm not comfortable with that fact.

Any opinion on the editing of Comey's presentation from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless"?

I would include that as part of my fact.

Other fact: Comey made the reopening of the investigation into the emails on Weiner's computer public before the election and before there was any evidence about them being new or old.

I want to say it was the NYTimes, but regardless, a detailed article was written about Comey. All signs point to Comey being a person who was put between a rock and a hard and place in the situation, and that in the situation he attempted to do what he felt was least partisan and was the most fair - which is why he felt the need to inform the public of those emails. Those actions both helped/hurt Clinton in the election.

Was this back when the Democrats hated Comey and wanted him fired?

Yep - this was back when the Dems were up in arms over his perceived bias against Clinton. They thought that Comey was siding with his fellow Republicans.

I think time has proven that this was as incorrect of a picture as the one you are suggesting. Comey, like plenty of other working men and women, appears to be someone who could put away their feelings/opinions about topics that their job requires them to deal with, and be as objective as possible.

(02-05-2018 06:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 05:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 03:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 07:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Any opinion on the editing of Comey's presentation from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless"?

I would include that as part of my fact.

Other fact: Comey made the reopening of the investigation into the emails on Weiner's computer public before the election and before there was any evidence about them being new or old.

I want to say it was the NYTimes, but regardless, a detailed article was written about Comey. All signs point to Comey being a person who was put between a rock and a hard and place in the situation, and that in the situation he attempted to do what he felt was least partisan and was the most fair - which is why he felt the need to inform the public of those emails. Those actions both helped/hurt Clinton in the election.

Was this back when the Democrats hated Comey and wanted him fired?

Yep - this was back when the Dems were up in arms over his perceived bias against Clinton. They thought that Comey was siding with his fellow Republicans.

I think time has proven that this was as incorrect of a picture as the one you are suggesting. Comey, like plenty of other working men and women, appears to be someone who could put away their feelings/opinions about topics that their job requires them to deal with, and be as objective as possible.

I think the picture with which you disagree is mine. With what part or parts do you specifically disagree?

(02-05-2018 07:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 06:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 05:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 03:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 07:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would include that as part of my fact.

Other fact: Comey made the reopening of the investigation into the emails on Weiner's computer public before the election and before there was any evidence about them being new or old.

I want to say it was the NYTimes, but regardless, a detailed article was written about Comey. All signs point to Comey being a person who was put between a rock and a hard and place in the situation, and that in the situation he attempted to do what he felt was least partisan and was the most fair - which is why he felt the need to inform the public of those emails. Those actions both helped/hurt Clinton in the election.

Was this back when the Democrats hated Comey and wanted him fired?

Yep - this was back when the Dems were up in arms over his perceived bias against Clinton. They thought that Comey was siding with his fellow Republicans.

I think time has proven that this was as incorrect of a picture as the one you are suggesting. Comey, like plenty of other working men and women, appears to be someone who could put away their feelings/opinions about topics that their job requires them to deal with, and be as objective as possible.

I think the picture with which you disagree is mine. With what part or parts do you specifically disagree?

Not particularly. I was referring to the edited memo that’s been brought up. I think the edits were not part of any funny business - just a decision people disagree with.

can you tell me the difference between 'grossly negligent' and 'extremely careless', Lad?

FWIW, in my line of work "gross negligence" includes intent to violate or circumvent rules, regulations, or procedures; while carelessness does not necessarily include intent.

(02-05-2018 10:23 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  FWIW, in my line of work "gross negligence" includes intent to violate or circumvent rules, regulations, or procedures; while carelessness does not necessarily include intent.

I have been taught to think of gross negligence as requiring recklessness, whereas the same acts performed with intent would be willful misconduct.

Black's Law Dictionary uses the language, "a conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party."

FWIW, with respect to Hillary's conduct, I think intent to violate or circumvent rules, regulations, or procedures was clearly present.