The indictments reflect nothing toward the original focus of the investigation, i. e. collusion between Russian and Trump Campaign to pervert the course of the election. Zero.

I would love to have a special counsel (NOT the FBI) appointed to investigate the Clinton Campaign. I bet we would end up with as many or more indictments for money laundering and obstruction of justice as we have in over a year of Mueller. And just as much indication of collusion - zero. Well maybe a little on the dossier purchase.

When the long shot wins the race against the favorite, it is normal to suspect something was out of whack. Did somebody put drugs in his oats? That something was not money laundering. And it was not collusion. Sometimes the unexpected happens. Ask Bob Beamon. Ask Thomas Dewey.

Saying that Manfort would have been subject to blackmail presupposes that nobody in the Clinton Campaign had anything to cover up - yet another demonstration of the "them - dirty, us - clean" thinking that I find so infuriating. You will only find dirt in the places you choose to dig.

(02-24-2018 10:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad - from your post #2697 -

"The funding source of it doesn't matter if the material is true."


From your post #2702

"Ah yes, the wonderful false equivalency of paying for oppo research versus being positively ecstatic when a foreign national offers up dirt on the political opponent."

So if it is true, what's the difference?

Especially if the oppo research info is from the same source as the foreign national - Russia?

Is the material better if you pay for it rather than accept it? Would it then help you to think Trump, Jr. would have been paid if it was good?

Also from #2702

"If you're annoyed about the Steele dossier, I assume you want to ban oppo research?"

Why in the world would you assume that? I want fair oppo research based on facts, not lies and innuendo. When offered lies, Trump, Jr. walked away. When offered lies, the Clinton Campaign paid, gladly and generously.. Which do you think acted more ethically?

Oppo research is important. We cannot expect political candiddates to out themselves. But it seems you think it is more important if the research is commercially paid for rather than offered. What exactly, in your opinion, did Trump, Jr. do that was wrong? If you are running for dogcatcher, and a neighbor of your opponent calls saying she has some juicy stuff on him, do you say, "NO! NO! NO, go away, until such time as we can hire you and pay you to dig up this stuff."?

If it is true that your opponent once starved his dog to death, I don't care if you got the the info from the KKK or the ASPCA, and I don't care if you paid either one or not. I only care if it is the truth.

Looks like Trump, Jr. decided he was going to get no truth from the Russian, and dismissed her without paying her. The Clinton Campaign, on the other hand, paid for the dossier, which apparently has little if any truth. Yet you condemn Trump, Jr, and defend the Clinton Campaign.

And even if Trump, Jr had bought the fake info from the Russian lady, how in the everloving world would that scream collusion to you? Surely if they were really working together, Vlad would just send the info, real or fake, via U. S. Mail. "Dear Trump Campaign, Enclosed you will find info that Hillary once ordered the slaughter of thousands of babies. Looking forward to getting my rockets. sincerely, your friend and partner, Vlad".

I hope lad is OK. Looking forward to getting his responses to this.

(02-26-2018 12:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I will repeat what I've said before. If I were empaneled on a jury trying Hillary Clinton, and if competent evidence to support the facts asserted by Comey were presented, then I would vote guilty on several counts. And I say that as an attorney who held a top secret clearance during my 22 years in the Navy and Naval Reserve, so I have some good understanding of the laws about national security. And yet she walked.

I actually heard the exact same argument from my crazy gun-loving liberal friend I mentioned in the gun thread, based on discussions he had with his father (who worked in the Air Force JAG for a few decades). I don't practice criminal law, but I disagree (and please believe first that I was not and never have been a HRC-lover and that I am the kind of individual who does a better job than most of abandoning partisan leanings about these sorts of things). As Comey described in the statement you refer to, the FBI evaluated the evidence based on two statutes, the first made "it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities." My impression was that HRC was not tech-savvy enough to get over the "intent" hurdle for the felony or the "knowingly" standard for the misdemeanor. That leaves "grossly negligent" as the hurdle. As I understand it (and I admit I only did a couple hours of research at a time when I had some idle curiosity), the "grossly negligent" standard is really just applied when a person didn't do something "intentionally", but really should have known better (something that Clinton didn't seem to have the tech understanding to accomplish).

I saw the Clinton email scandal compared to a number of other criminal cases under the same statute. Each of those I looked at was easily distinguishable. Easily. My other recollection, and something you would likely know better than me, is that some peculiarities of the UCMJ can make prosecution of many offenses easier.

That said, I think it is pretty concerning that HRC, Trump, and plenty of lawmakers on both sides really don't understand the technology that they use and for which they are responsible for writing and enforcing laws. Just IMO, at this point it doesn't really matter.

(02-26-2018 12:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I was actually considering a vote for her until Comey's disclosures, feeling that a less bombastic alternative to Trump might be good, particularly if republicans held control of congress. I like gridlock better than either party. I was really trying to figure out how Hillary could win with republicans keeping both the house and senate, because I figured the would bring Bill's triangulation skills back into play, and I would frankly be happier if we were currently in Bill's seventh term rather than anyone who followed him.

I want the swamp drained, and that means getting rid of every crook on both sides, but I don't see that happening.

An interesting perspective. I think the current level of gridlock and willingness of the minority on both sides to use procedural tactics makes your desire for a functional split government a bit of a pipe dream. I have had similar thoughts. But both parties have too many extremists who don't seem interested in compromise. Ideally, the parties would work together so one side gets 60% of what they want, the other side gets 50% of what they want (or maybe 70/40). Then the country moves forward (notice it isn't zero-sum, as the figures add up to 110%...). Instead, too many on both sides fight for 100% of what they want. The compromise is that the majority sides gets 60% or 70% of what they want, but the minority gets 0%. That isn't a functioning government, and it seems to have gotten worse and worse since I started paying attention.

(02-26-2018 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The indictments reflect nothing toward the original focus of the investigation, i. e. collusion between Russian and Trump Campaign to pervert the course of the election. Zero.

I have no idea how you can think this without knowing how the investigation ends. Maybe you are correct and it is just a few corrupt a--holes who happened to launder tens-of-millions of $$$ that they received from pro-Russia entities and who separately worked for the Trump Campaign and transition team. It could be much more than that, but we just don't know. So again, why can't we let the investigation just run its course? If Mueller comes back with nothing else, then I can live with that (and would be thrilled to hear it). Now if Mueller comes out and makes some crazy statement like Comey did with the Clinton email investigation ... let's just say that I think that would be the wrong way to handle it.

(02-26-2018 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Saying that Manfort would have been subject to blackmail presupposes that nobody in the Clinton Campaign had anything to cover up - yet another demonstration of the "them - dirty, us - clean" thinking that I find so infuriating. You will only find dirt in the places you choose to dig.

I didn't pre-suppose anything, is used the word "could". If someone commits a crime (failing to register as a foreign agent and money laundering) and is working in a sensitive role for the government (or a federal election campaign), that person could be targeted with blackmail. I have to watch a rather boring and obvious training video on this exact kind of situation every year at work. Sounds like 69/70/75 probably watched similar videos.

(02-27-2018 01:40 AM)mrbig Wrote:  but really should have known better

Of course she should have known better, otherwise Obama could have gone down to Leisure Lodge and named any senior citizen as Secretary of State. she had a large staff who should have known better, and a whole State Department that did know better, but did she listen? That was a choice.

Quote:

(02-26-2018 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The indictments reflect nothing toward the original focus of the investigation, i. e. collusion between Russian and Trump Campaign to pervert the course of the election. Zero.

I have no idea how you can think this without knowing how the investigation ends. Maybe you are correct and it is just a few corrupt a--holes who happened to launder tens-of-millions of $$$ that they received from pro-Russia entities and who separately worked for the Trump Campaign and transition team. It could be much more than that, but we just don't know. So again, why can't we let the investigation just run its course? If Mueller comes back with nothing else, then I can live with that (and would be thrilled to hear it). Now if Mueller comes out and makes some crazy statement like Comey did with the Clinton email investigation ... let's just say that I think that would be the wrong way to handle it.

I don't have to wait because I have that intelligence we were talking about earlier. If I see a truck and a car on a collision course at an intersection, I don't need to wait and see to know what is likely to happen happen. If I see a child playing on a cliff, I don't need to wait and see.

If some yahoos in Congress allege that UFO's have dropped a polar bear into the West Wing and Trump is feeding children to it, do I need to await the outcome of an investigation to form an opinion about the likelihood of such a happening? No. And the whole collusion conspiracy theory rests on just such a flimsy foundation. Truthfully, I think the whole wait and see attitude is just a cop out I hear when I ask somebody to give me the narrative of what they think the investigation may uncover. Apparently nobody wants to say they believe in the UFOs, but a lot of people want to wait and if Mueller finds any.

Quote:

(02-26-2018 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Saying that Manfort would have been subject to blackmail presupposes that nobody in the Clinton Campaign had anything to cover up - yet another demonstration of the "them - dirty, us - clean" thinking that I find so infuriating. You will only find dirt in the places you choose to dig.

I didn't pre-suppose anything, is used the word "could". If someone commits a crime (failing to register as a foreign agent and money laundering) and is working in a sensitive role for the government (or a federal election campaign), that person could be targeted with blackmail. I have to watch a rather boring and obvious training video on this exact kind of situation every year at work. Sounds like 69/70/75 probably watched similar videos.

Just sayin', if we had a similar probe into the Clinton campaign (or any other) we would find just as much "lying to the FBI" and "money laundering" indictments as we have with Mueller. Do you disagree? Is there any reason to think those campaign are composed of people who are purer. The only difference is we do not have a special counsel looking into those other campaigns. I bet all of us here have skeletons in our closet, and/or financial deals that could make us subject to balckmail. They go zero of the way to proving collusion. So is the narrative that the russians blackmailed Manafort into talking Trump into collusion? That manafort went to Trump and said, "Hey Don, I have a problem. The Russians found out about my money laundering and are threatening to expose me unless you back off in Syria"? Really?

(02-27-2018 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't have to wait because I have that intelligence we were talking about earlier. If I see a truck and a car on a collision course at an intersection, I don't need to wait and see to know what is likely to happen happen. If I see a child playing on a cliff, I don't need to wait and see.

If some yahoos in Congress allege that UFO's have dropped a polar bear into the West Wing and Trump is feeding children to it, do I need to await the outcome of an investigation to form an opinion about the likelihood of such a happening? No. And the whole collusion conspiracy theory rests on just such a flimsy foundation. Truthfully, I think the whole wait and see attitude is just a cop out I hear when I ask somebody to give me the narrative of what they think the investigation may uncover. Apparently nobody wants to say they believe in the UFOs, but a lot of people want to wait and if Mueller finds any.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...eline-rec/

(02-27-2018 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just sayin', if we had a similar probe into the Clinton campaign (or any other) we would find just as much "lying to the FBI" and "money laundering" indictments as we have with Mueller. Do you disagree? Is there any reason to think those campaign are composed of people who are purer. The only difference is we do not have a special counsel looking into those other campaigns. I bet all of us here have skeletons in our closet, and/or financial deals that could make us subject to balckmail. They go zero of the way to proving collusion. So is the narrative that the russians blackmailed Manafort into talking Trump into collusion? That manafort went to Trump and said, "Hey Don, I have a problem. The Russians found out about my money laundering and are threatening to expose me unless you back off in Syria"? Really?

What the actual F? Sorry, no. I work for the DOJ and I can assure you that there are no such skeletons or "financial deals" in my life. Moreover, I can't imagine that being true for even a vast minority of my co-workers. I don't make enough damn money to have "financial deals" anyway!

(02-27-2018 11:25 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't have to wait because I have that intelligence we were talking about earlier. If I see a truck and a car on a collision course at an intersection, I don't need to wait and see to know what is likely to happen happen. If I see a child playing on a cliff, I don't need to wait and see.

If some yahoos in Congress allege that UFO's have dropped a polar bear into the West Wing and Trump is feeding children to it, do I need to await the outcome of an investigation to form an opinion about the likelihood of such a happening? No. And the whole collusion conspiracy theory rests on just such a flimsy foundation. Truthfully, I think the whole wait and see attitude is just a cop out I hear when I ask somebody to give me the narrative of what they think the investigation may uncover. Apparently nobody wants to say they believe in the UFOs, but a lot of people want to wait and if Mueller finds any.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...eline-rec/

(02-27-2018 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just sayin', if we had a similar probe into the Clinton campaign (or any other) we would find just as much "lying to the FBI" and "money laundering" indictments as we have with Mueller. Do you disagree? Is there any reason to think those campaign are composed of people who are purer. The only difference is we do not have a special counsel looking into those other campaigns. I bet all of us here have skeletons in our closet, and/or financial deals that could make us subject to balckmail. They go zero of the way to proving collusion. So is the narrative that the russians blackmailed Manafort into talking Trump into collusion? That manafort went to Trump and said, "Hey Don, I have a problem. The Russians found out about my money laundering and are threatening to expose me unless you back off in Syria"? Really?

What the actual F? Sorry, no. I work for the DOJ and I can assure you that there are no such skeletons or "financial deals" in my life. Moreover, I can't imagine that being true for even a vast minority of my co-workers. I don't make enough damn money to have "financial deals" anyway!

Really? i have never met anybody that pure. Glad to make your acquantamce. Don't Steok and Page work formthe DOJ too? nothing to hide there.

My financial dealings throughout my life have been legal and correct, but I have little doubt that innuendo could be put on them. all those teips and checks to Mexico? maybe he was involved with drug dealing. we need an investigation to clear the air.

In fact, something like this did happen once. a local Deputy sherriff decided I must be the county drug lingpin. A lways going to Mexico, but in town I didn't seem to work much, but I had plenty of money. ndured this about three years. ood thing I didn't run for office.

but yeah, plenty of stuff I would like to forget and hope mever gets brought up again. A lot of it goes back to my Student days. did you mever ... Oh, never mind, you already said.

as for the Politifact, it is a fatual listing of the innuendo. joe Blow met a russian? Oh dear me. i met a Russian - twice in the last year. a,e russian. my son took themSinerian express theough Russia to St. etersburg. Sure hope we don't get investigated. if my son can't remember the exact dates, or I can't, there is two OOJ charges. i think my son may have brought back some money from Russia and deposited it in a bank. here is your money laundering.

(02-27-2018 12:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 11:25 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't have to wait because I have that intelligence we were talking about earlier. If I see a truck and a car on a collision course at an intersection, I don't need to wait and see to know what is likely to happen happen. If I see a child playing on a cliff, I don't need to wait and see.

If some yahoos in Congress allege that UFO's have dropped a polar bear into the West Wing and Trump is feeding children to it, do I need to await the outcome of an investigation to form an opinion about the likelihood of such a happening? No. And the whole collusion conspiracy theory rests on just such a flimsy foundation. Truthfully, I think the whole wait and see attitude is just a cop out I hear when I ask somebody to give me the narrative of what they think the investigation may uncover. Apparently nobody wants to say they believe in the UFOs, but a lot of people want to wait and if Mueller finds any.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...eline-rec/

(02-27-2018 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just sayin', if we had a similar probe into the Clinton campaign (or any other) we would find just as much "lying to the FBI" and "money laundering" indictments as we have with Mueller. Do you disagree? Is there any reason to think those campaign are composed of people who are purer. The only difference is we do not have a special counsel looking into those other campaigns. I bet all of us here have skeletons in our closet, and/or financial deals that could make us subject to balckmail. They go zero of the way to proving collusion. So is the narrative that the russians blackmailed Manafort into talking Trump into collusion? That manafort went to Trump and said, "Hey Don, I have a problem. The Russians found out about my money laundering and are threatening to expose me unless you back off in Syria"? Really?

What the actual F? Sorry, no. I work for the DOJ and I can assure you that there are no such skeletons or "financial deals" in my life. Moreover, I can't imagine that being true for even a vast minority of my co-workers. I don't make enough damn money to have "financial deals" anyway!

Really? i have never met anybody that pure. Glad to make your acquantamce. Don't Steok and Page work formthe DOJ too? nothing to hide there.

My financial dealings throughout my life have been legal and correct, but I have little doubt that innuendo could be put on them. all those teips and checks to Mexico? maybe he was involved with drug dealing. we need an investigation to clear the air.

In fact, something like this did happen once. a local Deputy sherriff decided I must be the county drug lingpin. A lways going to Mexico, but in town I didn't seem to work much, but I had plenty of money. ndured this about three years. ood thing I didn't run for office.

but yeah, plenty of stuff I would like to forget and hope mever gets brought up again. A lot of it goes back to my Student days. did you mever ... Oh, never mind, you already said.

as for the Politifact, it is a fatual listing of the innuendo. joe Blow met a russian? Oh dear me. i met a Russian - twice in the last year. a,e russian. my son took themSinerian express theough Russia to St. etersburg. Sure hope we don't get investigated. if my son can't remember the exact dates, or I can't, there is two OOJ charges. i think my son may have brought back some money from Russia and deposited it in a bank. here is your money laundering.

I've been to Russia in the last year, and I shared a cab with a director of the Russian Rugby Federation in Hong Kong. Guess I'm a criminal.

(02-27-2018 01:40 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I actually heard the exact same argument from my crazy gun-loving liberal friend I mentioned in the gun thread, based on discussions he had with his father (who worked in the Air Force JAG for a few decades). I don't practice criminal law, but I disagree (and please believe first that I was not and never have been a HRC-lover and that I am the kind of individual who does a better job than most of abandoning partisan leanings about these sorts of things). As Comey described in the statement you refer to, the FBI evaluated the evidence based on two statutes, the first made "it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities." My impression was that HRC was not tech-savvy enough to get over the "intent" hurdle for the felony or the "knowingly" standard for the misdemeanor. That leaves "grossly negligent" as the hurdle. As I understand it (and I admit I only did a couple hours of research at a time when I had some idle curiosity), the "grossly negligent" standard is really just applied when a person didn't do something "intentionally", but really should have known better (something that Clinton didn't seem to have the tech understanding to accomplish).

For Pete's sake, Hillary Clinton has never done anything unintentional or without knowledge in her adult life. EVERYTHING about her server was an obvious, deliberate effort to store data under her personal control instead of under government control -- and what do you know, she got away with it. A defense of "Tee-hee, math class is hard" is absurd. No fact-finder on earth would believe it -- which is why heaven and earth were moved to keep it from going before a fact-finder.

(02-27-2018 12:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 12:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  as for the Politifact, it is a fatual listing of the innuendo. joe Blow met a russian? Oh dear me. i met a Russian - twice in the last year. a,e russian. my son took themSinerian express theough Russia to St. etersburg. Sure hope we don't get investigated. if my son can't remember the exact dates, or I can't, there is two OOJ charges. i think my son may have brought back some money from Russia and deposited it in a bank. here is your money laundering.

I've been to Russia in the last year, and I shared a cab with a director of the Russian Rugby Federation in Hong Kong. Guess I'm a criminal.

Guys, I am trying to have a reasonable conversation about a serious issue. If you don't want to have a reasonable dialogue, just tell me. Because you both know your flippant comments are nothing like the situations with the June 9th meeting at Trump Tower, lying or omitting information about meeting with foreign actors on a federal government form, or lying to the FBI about communications with foreign individuals.

You know what? I don't think I've ever met a Russian. But if I had, and it was time for me to fill out my once-every-five-year DOJ paperwork, and I freaking omitted or lied about meeting with Russians, I know full well that I could be thrown in jail. So I would make damn sure that everything on those forms was 100% accurate. And anyone who didn't take that paperwork seriously shouldn't be working in the government.

Comments like this remind me why I often shy away from engaging in political discourse. In the gun thread, there was a discussion of sincerity. I sincerely believe that you sincerely believe there was no "collusion" between the Trump Campaign and Russia. But comments like the ones I quote are not remotely sincere.

(02-27-2018 01:40 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I actually heard the exact same argument from my crazy gun-loving liberal friend I mentioned in the gun thread, based on discussions he had with his father (who worked in the Air Force JAG for a few decades). I don't practice criminal law, but I disagree (and please believe first that I was not and never have been a HRC-lover and that I am the kind of individual who does a better job than most of abandoning partisan leanings about these sorts of things). As Comey described in the statement you refer to, the FBI evaluated the evidence based on two statutes, the first made "it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities." My impression was that HRC was not tech-savvy enough to get over the "intent" hurdle for the felony or the "knowingly" standard for the misdemeanor. That leaves "grossly negligent" as the hurdle. As I understand it (and I admit I only did a couple hours of research at a time when I had some idle curiosity), the "grossly negligent" standard is really just applied when a person didn't do something "intentionally", but really should have known better (something that Clinton didn't seem to have the tech understanding to accomplish).

I'm sorry, but that's just a load of bullsh.

Hillary was Secretary of State. It was her job to know better than to do this. If she didn't know, then she was derelict in her duty. And the intent required by the statute is not the intent to share it with the Russians, but the intent to put the information into the non-secure environment.

I agree that this is the kind of reasoning in which Comey engaged. I don't agree that doing so was any more appropriate than the kinds of flippant comments that you yourself decried in another recent post.

(02-27-2018 12:57 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 12:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 12:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  as for the Politifact, it is a fatual listing of the innuendo. joe Blow met a russian? Oh dear me. i met a Russian - twice in the last year. a,e russian. my son took themSinerian express theough Russia to St. etersburg. Sure hope we don't get investigated. if my son can't remember the exact dates, or I can't, there is two OOJ charges. i think my son may have brought back some money from Russia and deposited it in a bank. here is your money laundering.

I've been to Russia in the last year, and I shared a cab with a director of the Russian Rugby Federation in Hong Kong. Guess I'm a criminal.

Guys, I am trying to have a reasonable conversation about a serious issue. If you don't want to have a reasonable dialogue, just tell me. Because you both know your flippant comments are nothing like the situations with the June 9th meeting at Trump Tower, lying or omitting information about meeting with foreign actors on a federal government form, or lying to the FBI about communications with foreign individuals.
You know what? I don't think I've ever met a Russian. But if I had, and it was time for me to fill out my once-every-five-year DOJ paperwork, and I freaking omitted or lied about meeting with Russians, I know full well that I could be thrown in jail. So I would make damn sure that everything on those forms was 100% accurate. And anyone who didn't take that paperwork seriously shouldn't be working in the government.
Comments like this remind me why I often shy away from engaging in political discourse. In the gun thread, there was a discussion of sincerity. I sincerely believe that you sincerely believe there was no "collusion" between the Trump Campaign and Russia. But comments like the ones I quote are not remotely sincere.

If you want to have a reasonable conversation, let's. I'm all for that.

If you find these comments flippant, they are in response to many (maybe most) others, who are not interested in reasonable conversation but only wish to make similarly flippant comments.

I don't know what is the environment in which you fill out your forms, but I would guess that this was done in more of a "here is another one of the 1000 forms you have to fill out" environment. I agree that is wrong, I've written at length about it before. We have a problem in that if you want a clearance in the military, it is taken very seriously with lots of training before you get to touch anything, whereas it is way more of a perfunctory process with our political leaders. Hillary did not take the training seriously, and you see what that produced. That's a systemic problem that needs to be addressed that way. It's much bigger than an SF86.

(02-24-2018 02:08 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  I think the best and most succinct explanation I have heard (I now forget where) to explain why evangelical Christians continued to give their votes to the Republican candidate (as they usually do) despite his myriad flaws is that it was an act of self-defense. Clinton and the Democratic platform/agenda were perceived (not without reason, I might add) as actively hostile to the issues evangelicals care about. And, well, if you're under imminent attack, you use whatever is close at hand to neutralize the threat, and you sort the consequences - and misgivings - out later.

Democrats have difficulty understanding how many, many people of good will on the other side could have viewed their task as trying to choose the lesser of two evils, because Democrats only saw one evil on the ballot. For large parts of this country, there were two. FWIW, this Christian Republican personally did find both options highly unfit to be president, and voted for neither, but then again I had the luxury (if you can call it that) of living in a noncompetitive state. I don't find votes for Trump made by those who felt they had to in order to prevent Clinton from becoming president to be immoral or a betrayal of principles. I know lots of Trump voters (along with abstainers like myself) who, while happy Clinton didn't win, are critical of Trump. I think it's quite significant that his approval rating has always been well under water from day one, which wouldn't be the case without significant "support," i.e., disapproval, from people who nevertheless voted for him.

None of this is to excuse the pro-Trump cheerleading, sucking up to power, and glossing over of defects displayed by some evangelical leaders such as Franklin Graham and whoever else. That I do find revolting and a betrayal of principles.

Thanks, this is the most satisfying (if that's the right term) explanation I've read. And certainly this was not the first unsavory alliance in US politics. I will be curious to see if the new developments since the election affect things. (Stormy Daniels, the playmate, the hush money, the Roy Moore accusations, etc.) The incident with Mona Charen at CPAC was surprising to me.

(02-24-2018 02:08 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  As for the racism charge, I'm not inclined to do any water carrying for Trump but Democrats have essentially yelled "racist"" at every Republican candidate, proposal, statement, etc. for the last 20+ years. A racist used to be someone who irrationally felt others were inferior. Now it means someone who wants a slightly lesser percentage growth in entitlement spending, or favors enforcement of existing immigration laws that were passed with bipartisan support, or a white person who makes inauthentic tacos for dinner, or whatever. The left has cried wolf on this issue for so long and so loudly that I'll forgive people who tune them out when they say this time there really is a wolf at the door. Trump, a lifelong Manhattan Democrat and big Democrat donor until about fifteen minutes ago relatively speaking, and who has appointed people of color in his administration, does not strike me as a "racist" as I and lots of other people would sensibly define that term. Democrats are free to disagree but this is not some objective moral fact that they get to cudgel other people for supposedly immorally ignoring. He strikes me as insensitive, not tactful, overbroad, coarse, and all sorts of other things, but the fact is that any Republican who is the opposite of those things (Mitt Romney?) would also be and has been called "racist."

As for the primaries, Trump no doubt attracted some unsavory voters but I'm sure the Democrats always get the Communist vote as well. He rarely won majorities in the primaries, meaning most people voted "other than Trump." But you can win a tennis match without winning a majority of the points and you can apparently win a 17-way primary while hardly ever being anyone's first choice.

I think there's a very real disconnect between Rs and Ds on views of race in this country. (How's that for stating the obvious?) To the point that I think often both sides are being sincere even though they each think the other is being disingenuous. Anyway, that's a discussion that probably deserves its own thread.

Romney's a good example of someone who you can make a case was unfairly accused of racism. But that's part of why his takedown of Trump's racism is so powerful. I can accept that Republicans think Dems are too quick to charge racism. But why have so many *Republicans* accused Trump of racism? Or more to the point, why won't the other Republicans take their charges seriously? Romney was the previous nominee. It's like if Obama said Clinton was not fit to be president. Or perhaps more like if Kerry had said Obama wasn't fit.

As much a rhetorical question as anything...

(02-27-2018 01:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 12:57 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 12:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 12:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  as for the Politifact, it is a fatual listing of the innuendo. joe Blow met a russian? Oh dear me. i met a Russian - twice in the last year. a,e russian. my son took themSinerian express theough Russia to St. etersburg. Sure hope we don't get investigated. if my son can't remember the exact dates, or I can't, there is two OOJ charges. i think my son may have brought back some money from Russia and deposited it in a bank. here is your money laundering.

I've been to Russia in the last year, and I shared a cab with a director of the Russian Rugby Federation in Hong Kong. Guess I'm a criminal.

Guys, I am trying to have a reasonable conversation about a serious issue. If you don't want to have a reasonable dialogue, just tell me. Because you both know your flippant comments are nothing like the situations with the June 9th meeting at Trump Tower, lying or omitting information about meeting with foreign actors on a federal government form, or lying to the FBI about communications with foreign individuals.
You know what? I don't think I've ever met a Russian. But if I had, and it was time for me to fill out my once-every-five-year DOJ paperwork, and I freaking omitted or lied about meeting with Russians, I know full well that I could be thrown in jail. So I would make damn sure that everything on those forms was 100% accurate. And anyone who didn't take that paperwork seriously shouldn't be working in the government.
Comments like this remind me why I often shy away from engaging in political discourse. In the gun thread, there was a discussion of sincerity. I sincerely believe that you sincerely believe there was no "collusion" between the Trump Campaign and Russia. But comments like the ones I quote are not remotely sincere.

If you want to have a reasonable conversation, let's. I'm all for that.

If you find these comments flippant, they are in response to many (maybe most) others, who are not interested in reasonable conversation but only wish to make similarly flippant comments.

I don't know what is the environment in which you fill out your forms, but I would guess that this was done in more of a "here is another one of the 1000 forms you have to fill out" environment. I agree that is wrong, I've written at length about it before. We have a problem in that if you want a clearance in the military, it is taken very seriously with lots of training before you get to touch anything, whereas it is way more of a perfunctory process with our political leaders. Hillary did not take the training seriously, and you see what that produced. That's a systemic problem that needs to be addressed that way. It's much bigger than an SF86.

I just have a really, really hard time believing you and OO would be so dismissive of all these things if we were talking about President Clinton instead of Trump.

Honest questions: Do you all really think that Mueller, a Republican with strong bipartisan support (at least until now) is part of some conspiracy? Why is he involved in the "witch hunt"?

Why is Trump acting like someone who is hiding something?

(02-27-2018 01:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 01:40 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I actually heard the exact same argument from my crazy gun-loving liberal friend I mentioned in the gun thread, based on discussions he had with his father (who worked in the Air Force JAG for a few decades). I don't practice criminal law, but I disagree (and please believe first that I was not and never have been a HRC-lover and that I am the kind of individual who does a better job than most of abandoning partisan leanings about these sorts of things). As Comey described in the statement you refer to, the FBI evaluated the evidence based on two statutes, the first made "it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities." My impression was that HRC was not tech-savvy enough to get over the "intent" hurdle for the felony or the "knowingly" standard for the misdemeanor. That leaves "grossly negligent" as the hurdle. As I understand it (and I admit I only did a couple hours of research at a time when I had some idle curiosity), the "grossly negligent" standard is really just applied when a person didn't do something "intentionally", but really should have known better (something that Clinton didn't seem to have the tech understanding to accomplish).

I'm sorry, but that's just a load of bullsh.

Hillary was Secretary of State. It was her job to know better than to do this. If she didn't know, then she was derelict in her duty. And the intent required by the statute is not the intent to share it with the Russians, but the intent to put the information into the non-secure environment.

I agree that this is the kind of reasoning in which Comey engaged. I don't agree that doing so was any more appropriate than the kinds of flippant comments that you yourself decried in another recent post.

I agree fully with your statement (underlined). My points was that I don't think the DOJ could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she understood the technology well enough to know/intend that the environment was not sufficiently secured. I acknowledge that I just spent a few hours researching this back before the election (to make sure I didn't think like it was a disqualifying factor). So I haven't combed over the publicly available evidence to prove her knowledge/understanding of the technology involved. Different attorneys can come to different analysis. But I don't think there was some DOJ conspiracy to help Clinton or Trump. I trust those involved, knowing people with similar personalities and jobs, to do their honest best. And large investigations like that involve too many people for any kind of conspiracy.

(02-27-2018 01:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We have a problem in that if you want a clearance in the military, it is taken very seriously with lots of training before you get to touch anything, whereas it is way more of a perfunctory process with our political leaders. Hillary did not take the training seriously, and you see what that produced. That's a systemic problem that needs to be addressed that way. It's much bigger than an SF86.

I agree with all this, regardless of party or political leanings. It was easier before the technology and internet revolutions.

(02-27-2018 01:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't know what is the environment in which you fill out your forms, but I would guess that this was done in more of a "here is another one of the 1000 forms you have to fill out" environment.

There are a lot of forms when someone is first hired, but this form is filled out before you are hired (unlike the healthcare, retirement, etc. forms). And this one stands out because it is much longer and requires much more than just a signature. It probably took me 6-8 hours to track down all the information needed when I first filled it out, but has been much easier with resubmissions.

Every 5 years the FBI reviews my security clearance and I have to update a lengthy disclosure. It could be the SF86, perhaps something else (I don't pay attention to form names/numbers). They are thorough, they call anyone I list in the form (neighbors, former colleagues, friends) and ask a bunch of questions about my fitness and whether I might pose a security risk. When I was initially hired, they also talked to some neighbors that I hadn't listed on the form (essentially walking down the street and knocking on a few doors to ask neighbors about me). Pretty sure it says in multiple places that lying on the form is a criminal offense. I took the form super, super seriously.

(02-27-2018 02:18 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 01:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 12:57 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 12:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 12:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  as for the Politifact, it is a fatual listing of the innuendo. joe Blow met a russian? Oh dear me. i met a Russian - twice in the last year. a,e russian. my son took themSinerian express theough Russia to St. etersburg. Sure hope we don't get investigated. if my son can't remember the exact dates, or I can't, there is two OOJ charges. i think my son may have brought back some money from Russia and deposited it in a bank. here is your money laundering.

I've been to Russia in the last year, and I shared a cab with a director of the Russian Rugby Federation in Hong Kong. Guess I'm a criminal.

Guys, I am trying to have a reasonable conversation about a serious issue. If you don't want to have a reasonable dialogue, just tell me. Because you both know your flippant comments are nothing like the situations with the June 9th meeting at Trump Tower, lying or omitting information about meeting with foreign actors on a federal government form, or lying to the FBI about communications with foreign individuals.
You know what? I don't think I've ever met a Russian. But if I had, and it was time for me to fill out my once-every-five-year DOJ paperwork, and I freaking omitted or lied about meeting with Russians, I know full well that I could be thrown in jail. So I would make damn sure that everything on those forms was 100% accurate. And anyone who didn't take that paperwork seriously shouldn't be working in the government.
Comments like this remind me why I often shy away from engaging in political discourse. In the gun thread, there was a discussion of sincerity. I sincerely believe that you sincerely believe there was no "collusion" between the Trump Campaign and Russia. But comments like the ones I quote are not remotely sincere.

If you want to have a reasonable conversation, let's. I'm all for that.

If you find these comments flippant, they are in response to many (maybe most) others, who are not interested in reasonable conversation but only wish to make similarly flippant comments.

I don't know what is the environment in which you fill out your forms, but I would guess that this was done in more of a "here is another one of the 1000 forms you have to fill out" environment. I agree that is wrong, I've written at length about it before. We have a problem in that if you want a clearance in the military, it is taken very seriously with lots of training before you get to touch anything, whereas it is way more of a perfunctory process with our political leaders. Hillary did not take the training seriously, and you see what that produced. That's a systemic problem that needs to be addressed that way. It's much bigger than an SF86.

I just have a really, really hard time believing you and OO would be so dismissive of all these things if we were talking about President Clinton instead of Trump.

Honest questions: Do you all really think that Mueller, a Republican with strong bipartisan support (at least until now) is part of some conspiracy? Why is he involved in the "witch hunt"?

Why is Trump acting like someone who is hiding something?

I think that Mueller at this point is actively engaged in making sure that the organization he has deep ties to will be viewed as 'making an honest investigation'. To that end, I think Mueller wants to defend the investigative decisions made by the FBI and the Justice Department — institutions he served at the highest levels for many years. He may be laying the groundwork to argue that, while political, law-enforcement, and intelligence officials made mistakes, the main culprit was Trump’s judgment in recruiting Manafort and Gates — particularly under circumstances in which the candidate was already publicly flattering Putin in an unseemly way.

Mueller could be contemplating a report that portrays as justifiable the Obama administration’s use of the law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus of government to investigate the presidential campaign of the opposition party. In short, the special counsel may be preparing to argue that the Obama officials were acting on rational suspicions, not partisan politics.


To that end, there needs to be enough of a case (or series of ancillary cases) where the FBI is not tagged as either:

a) promoting (with members of the Obama administration) what *might* be a deeply deceptive (perhaps even criminal) counterintelligence operation focusing on a political rival of the Obama administration; or

b) not carrying water and lifting weights to ensure that ex-Obama administration office holders were not properly prosecuted.

Do I think he is part of a conspiracy? No. But I do believe his loyalties run Marianas Trench levels to his old organization (FBI) and to his former colleagues (Comey). And I think that is driving the investigation at this point for him.

This is *not* a defense of Manafort or Gates. Nor is it a defense for Trump's (apalling?) judgement for choosing such people.

The fact that many on both sides hate Comey tell me he can't have done too horrible of a job

(02-27-2018 02:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 01:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 01:40 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I actually heard the exact same argument from my crazy gun-loving liberal friend I mentioned in the gun thread, based on discussions he had with his father (who worked in the Air Force JAG for a few decades). I don't practice criminal law, but I disagree (and please believe first that I was not and never have been a HRC-lover and that I am the kind of individual who does a better job than most of abandoning partisan leanings about these sorts of things). As Comey described in the statement you refer to, the FBI evaluated the evidence based on two statutes, the first made "it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities." My impression was that HRC was not tech-savvy enough to get over the "intent" hurdle for the felony or the "knowingly" standard for the misdemeanor. That leaves "grossly negligent" as the hurdle. As I understand it (and I admit I only did a couple hours of research at a time when I had some idle curiosity), the "grossly negligent" standard is really just applied when a person didn't do something "intentionally", but really should have known better (something that Clinton didn't seem to have the tech understanding to accomplish).

I'm sorry, but that's just a load of bullsh.

Hillary was Secretary of State. It was her job to know better than to do this. If she didn't know, then she was derelict in her duty. And the intent required by the statute is not the intent to share it with the Russians, but the intent to put the information into the non-secure environment.

I agree that this is the kind of reasoning in which Comey engaged. I don't agree that doing so was any more appropriate than the kinds of flippant comments that you yourself decried in another recent post.

I agree fully with your statement (underlined). My points was that I don't think the DOJ could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she understood the technology well enough to know/intend that the environment was not sufficiently secured. I acknowledge that I just spent a few hours researching this back before the election (to make sure I didn't think like it was a disqualifying factor). So I haven't combed over the publicly available evidence to prove her knowledge/understanding of the technology involved. Different attorneys can come to different analysis. But I don't think there was some DOJ conspiracy to help Clinton or Trump. I trust those involved, knowing people with similar personalities and jobs, to do their honest best. And large investigations like that involve too many people for any kind of conspiracy.

The thing that many people overlook is that if Hillary was indicted for her actions, that would leave Obama himself in a predicament. Consider that Obama probably not only knew about the rogue server, but communicated with that domain using a pseudonym, that puts the Commander in Chief in a wholly untenable situation.

Seems to me under those circumstance the heavy hand would very much be on the scales whether to indict and try or not. But under that filter, much of the 'predisposition' issues (dealing with the lack of pursuing the administrator of the server for potentially destroying evidence under notice, the editing of Comey's remarks, the refusal to put Hillary under oath during her interview, and the the entire circumstances around that interview) make a certain amount of sense.

OO and 69/70/75 - I guess what bothers me is that, with some of your comments, I'm not sure you would accept any evidence of "collusion" to be true. Maybe I am wrong, but that is (to quote the Mighty Mighty Bosstones), "The impression that I get." I base this on you seeming to prejudge certain aspects of the investigation and apparently minimizing the importance of what has already been publicly revealed (including the use of, so far, baseless "whataboutism"). I have believed from the start that I will accept whatever decisions the FBI (pre-Comey firing) or the special counsel make.

(02-27-2018 04:31 PM)mrbig Wrote:  OO and 69/70/75 - I guess what bothers me is that, with some of your comments, I'm not sure you would accept any evidence of "collusion" to be true. Maybe I am wrong, but that is (to quote the Mighty Mighty Bosstones), "The impression that I get." I base this on you seeming to prejudge certain aspects of the investigation and apparently minimizing the importance of what has already been publicly revealed (including the use of, so far, baseless "whataboutism"). I have believed from the start that I will accept whatever decisions the FBI (pre-Comey firing) or the special counsel make.

If there is evidence of collusion I will accept that. Now, feel free to correct me, but "collusion" is not defined as a crime in any criminal statutes of which I am aware. Conspiracy is, and its elements are pretty straightforward: an agreement between two or more parties to commit a crime in the future, plus some tangible step taken in furtherance of that crime. I haven't seen anything yet that meets that test. Have you?