(02-27-2018 02:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 01:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  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 think that's what Comey would say. And if I were her defense counsel, that's what I would argue. But I think that's a load of hogwash. Hillary was Secretary of State, it was her job to know this. If you apply a subjective knowledge standard, maybe this flies. But if the standard is an objective "knew or should have known," no way it works.

And as Trey Gowdy pointed out, two primary indicia of intent are repeated occurrence and destruction of evidence, and both are present on these facts.

Quote: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.

I don't.

I would like to think there's no way, and I would hope so. But off the facts I've seen, and as noted by tanq and OO, that's not an easy conclusion to reach. Among other things, I would need a lot more assurance about Strzok and his lover's emails/texts before I can get there. Now, I don't buy the "secret society" crap, I think that was probably a reference to their little tryst. But then again, that tryst was itself a no-no and security violation, but it was tolerated. What am I supposed to make of that?

Quote:And large investigations like that involve too many people for any kind of conspiracy.

As far as number of people, bureaucracies have immense powers to circle the wagons when there is a problem. As I've said before, they see four categories of classified information--the usual confidential, secret, and top secret, plus embarrassing to the agency. And there's only one of those hills that they will die on.

And the way this is done, you really didn't need that many people in on it. I have a real problem with the heavily democrat lean on Mueller's top staff. Not that such lean automatically colors the investigation, but that it really wouldn't have been hard to have provided some balance to remove even the appearance of impropriety.

(02-27-2018 05:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 02:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 01:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  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 think that's what Comey would say. And if I were her defense counsel, that's what I would argue. But I think that's a load of hogwash. Hillary was Secretary of State, it was her job to know this. If you apply a subjective knowledge standard, maybe this flies. But if the standard is an objective "knew or should have known," no way it works.

And as Trey Gowdy pointed out, two primary indicia of intent are repeated occurrence and destruction of evidence, and both are present on these facts.

It's absolutely hogwash. Again, we are talking about Hillary Clinton -- one of the most thoroughly calculating people in modern history. As I stated earlier, there is no fact-finder in the world who would conclude that Hillary Clinton did not have the requisite intent -- which is why such extreme contortions were made to prevent it from going to a fact-finder.

In the 'gross negligence' version of the statute in question, the *only* issue as to 'knowledge of' would be whether she was aware that the items were in fact classified and/or labeled as having such a classification. The issue as to 'how she treated' that information was a 'gross negligence' standard, which, should she be aware of the level, then sending and forwarding those materials to a fing jury-rigged server set up in the fing bathroom of a condo sure as sh-t seems to fit the very essence of 'gross negligence'.

If she in fact *had* no knowledge that the items were classified and *had* no knowledge that the markings indicated a top secret classification (about 16 of which indicated the top-most level thereof), then why the f--k did we have such an utter moron sitting at the head of the State Department and directly handling communication with the President himself?

So, one way you slice it is she sure seems guilty of of (at a minimum) the gross negligence prong. The other way to slice it is that she was utterly fing unable to understand and ineptly incompetent to handle basic high level secret communication, which, is not such a great endorsement for her to be the SoS, let alone the fing President of the United States.

Neither path here makes her look in any way capable of being professional at that level. But, I am a deplorable for pointing that bifurcation out, I guess.....

(02-27-2018 12:57 PM)mrbig Wrote:  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.

OK, you want to have a reasonable discussion. I thought we already were. Agreement is not the defining characteristic of a reasonable discussion. Facts and logic are. Present your case.

So, in that vein, tell me what exactly is so heinous about the June 9th meeting in Trump tower. A Russian met with Trump,Jr. under false pretenses, and was dismissed summarily. How is that collusion, or treason, or whatever people is trying to make of it? So he wanted dirt on Hillary. Didn't they want dirt on Trump? Isn't that why they hired Steele to get it from RUSSIANS? WHAT IS WRONG WITH WANTING DIRT ON THE OTHER SIDE, AS LONG AS IT IS TRUE AND NOT MADE UP STUFF? So why do the lefties keep harping on that meeting? Especially in the light of the Clinton campaign doing even worse, actually paying for made up stuff from Russians instead of dismissing them as TJ did? What did TJ do wrong in that meeting?

Lying or omitting about meeting with foreign government actors? Like I said, I cannot remember how many times I went to Mexico, or when or who I spoke to,, and so I better just stay away from government forms. I cannot even tell you the year I last went out of the country, and I dadgum sure cannot tell the date of the last phone call.

But if I did fill out those forms, and forgot a trip or a phone call or got a date wrong, dies that mean I am in collusion with Mexico? Heck I could not tell you what I had for breakfast yesterday for sure. But I guess you got me. I went to mexico, had dinner with some, shook hands with some, and cannot confirm the dates and times. Pretty suspicious. Leavenworth, here I come.

As for the Russian lady I have met twice, I cannot give you dates and times, and you have only my word that I did not pass anything under the table to her. I don't remember her name. Really. The other Russian, the guy sitting next to me at a poker tournament at the Mirage, I have no idea what date that was other than June 2017.

edit; F0orgot the Russian taxi cab driver. really, I wasn't trying to hide that contact. Damn fool couldn't find my hotel anyway. i guess to a Russian spy, Harrah's sounds like Paris.

All these itsy-bitsy things - perfectly normal handshakes with ambassadors at dinners , etc. - being seen as nefarious contacts is exactly why I think this investigation is built on a web of innuendo and imagination. Not facts, not reasonable inferences. A classic witch hunt. Feel free to reasonably explain to me why they are so damning.

(02-27-2018 05:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  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?

That is my understanding as well ("collusion" is not a crime, "conspiracy" is a crime). I'm not a criminal attorney and am content to see what the special counsel's investigation turns up. I think, based on what we know publicly, it is certainly worth investigating whether there was a conspiracy (not tinfoil hat, but actual legal conspiracy) related to the June 9th meeting:

Quote:Federal law prohibits a foreign national from giving anything of value to a campaign engaged in a U.S. election. It’s also a crime to solicit a foreign national to do so, or even to "knowingly provide substantial assistance" in receiving something of value.

While illegal foreign contributions typically take the form of money, legal experts told us it’s possible a court could find that "information" satisfies the legal requirement if it’s considered valuable to a campaign.

Separately, but not unrelatedly, I think it is worth looking at whether there has been obstruction of justice (and a conspiracy related to that). So even if there was no collusion/conspiracy, there could have been obstruction.

(02-28-2018 12:02 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 05:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  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?

That is my understanding as well ("collusion" is not a crime, "conspiracy" is a crime). I'm not a criminal attorney and am content to see what the special counsel's investigation turns up. I think, based on what we know publicly, it is certainly worth investigating whether there was a conspiracy (not tinfoil hat, but actual legal conspiracy) related to the June 9th meeting:

Quote:Federal law prohibits a foreign national from giving anything of value to a campaign engaged in a U.S. election. It’s also a crime to solicit a foreign national to do so, or even to "knowingly provide substantial assistance" in receiving something of value.
While illegal foreign contributions typically take the form of money, legal experts told us it’s possible a court could find that "information" satisfies the legal requirement if it’s considered valuable to a campaign.

Separately, but not unrelatedly, I think it is worth looking at whether there has been obstruction of justice (and a conspiracy related to that). So even if there was no collusion/conspiracy, there could have been obstruction.

I find the idea that there can be obstruction where there is no underlying crime to be, quite frankly, morally and intellectually reprehensible. If tat's where we are with Big Brother, then we are in a world of hurt.

Listen, I can't remember why we got off on the Hillary Clinton email tangent. It isn't worth the time to debate. She isn't president and she never will be. She took her shots and fell short. I can think of a million things I care more about at this point that Hillary Clinton. My final comment on the topic is that I am very smart, reasonably tech-savvy, and have no idea what makes a server sufficiently protected so that classified information and documents can be passed through the server without violating and statutes, regulations, or department policies. I doubt most federal employees know or understand this, including Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State. The best practice would be to do whatever the IT folks in your department tell you to do. Can we give it a rest?

(02-28-2018 12:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 12:02 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 05:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  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?

That is my understanding as well ("collusion" is not a crime, "conspiracy" is a crime). I'm not a criminal attorney and am content to see what the special counsel's investigation turns up. I think, based on what we know publicly, it is certainly worth investigating whether there was a conspiracy (not tinfoil hat, but actual legal conspiracy) related to the June 9th meeting:

Quote:Federal law prohibits a foreign national from giving anything of value to a campaign engaged in a U.S. election. It’s also a crime to solicit a foreign national to do so, or even to "knowingly provide substantial assistance" in receiving something of value.
While illegal foreign contributions typically take the form of money, legal experts told us it’s possible a court could find that "information" satisfies the legal requirement if it’s considered valuable to a campaign.

Separately, but not unrelatedly, I think it is worth looking at whether there has been obstruction of justice (and a conspiracy related to that). So even if there was no collusion/conspiracy, there could have been obstruction.

I find the idea that there can be obstruction where there is no underlying crime to be, quite frankly, morally and intellectually reprehensible. If tat's where we are with Big Brother, then we are in a world of hurt.

I disagree. Obstruction is similar to the charges for lying to the FBI. The entire criminal justice system starts to collapse if you can lie to law enforcement officers or obstruct a criminal investigation (in ways that are prohibited) without consequence. I think it would be supremely stupid for an individual to obstruct an investigation if there was no underlying crime (though perhaps it would be done for political reasons, or because the individuals involved did not realize there wasn't an underlying crime). But there are plenty of stupid people in the world, as well as plenty of smart people who sometimes do stupid things.

While I am content to see what the special counsel's investigation determines, it wouldn't surprise me at all if no one is indicted for "collusion" type crimes but a few people (including possibly Trump) get hit for obstruction of justice for trying to stop the investigation into the "collusion" that wasn't even there. And while I was not old enough to really be following the Bill Clinton scandal at the time, I absolutely believe he should have been impeached if he committed perjury or obstruction of justice.

(02-28-2018 12:09 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Listen, I can't remember why we got off on the Hillary Clinton email tangent. It isn't worth the time to debate. She isn't president and she never will be. She took her shots and fell short. I can think of a million things I care more about at this point that Hillary Clinton. My final comment on the topic is that I am very smart, reasonably tech-savvy, and have no idea what makes a server sufficiently protected so that classified information and documents can be passed through the server without violating and statutes, regulations, or department policies. I doubt most federal employees know or understand this, including Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State. The best practice would be to do whatever the IT folks in your department tell you to do. Can we give it a rest?

No, I'm sorry, that's not good enough. As a former holder of a TS clearance, I find the idea that we are searching to the ends of the earth to find some security violation by the Trump administration, but giving Hillary a pass because she lost the election, to be quite honestly offensive. In reality, we are probably at a point where statutes of limitation would prohibit conviction. But I'm sorry, we the American citizenry deserve a better explanation than the obvious hogwash that we have been fed. If you don't want to discuss further, that's fine, don't.

We're going nuts over an SF86, but turning a blind eye to obvious illegal security violations. I find that very troubling.

You don't get to be Secretary of State without understanding those things. You just don't. Unless you are willfully ignorant, working in an administration that doesn't care. There may not be many federal employees who know that, but among those who hold a TS clearance, I doubt there are many, if any, who don't. I can see the attitude very easily being, we've got enough nukes to destroy civilization 100 times over, so why do we care if a few bits of classified information leak out, my comfort is more important than that. That is an incredibly dangerous, but very believable, situation.

(02-27-2018 05:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 02:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  And large investigations like that involve too many people for any kind of conspiracy.

As far as number of people, bureaucracies have immense powers to circle the wagons when there is a problem. As I've said before, they see four categories of classified information--the usual confidential, secret, and top secret, plus embarrassing to the agency. And there's only one of those hills that they will die on.

I agree that a small group of individuals in an agency might have a "circle the wagons" mentality to protect the agency itself. But again, that only works if the group is really small. These investigations involve attorneys, agents, paralegals, legal assistants, and secretaries (at the very least), plus possibly contractors, Court personnel, grand juries, opposing counsel, etc. For a small case, maybe you could get this. But it would be hard (not impossible) for this to happen in a larger investigation. And I write this as someone who has, on occasion, been accused by pro se plaintiffs of being part of a conspiracy...

(02-28-2018 12:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 12:09 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Listen, I can't remember why we got off on the Hillary Clinton email tangent. It isn't worth the time to debate. She isn't president and she never will be. She took her shots and fell short. I can think of a million things I care more about at this point that Hillary Clinton. My final comment on the topic is that I am very smart, reasonably tech-savvy, and have no idea what makes a server sufficiently protected so that classified information and documents can be passed through the server without violating and statutes, regulations, or department policies. I doubt most federal employees know or understand this, including Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State. The best practice would be to do whatever the IT folks in your department tell you to do. Can we give it a rest?

No, I'm sorry, that's not good enough. As a former holder of a TS clearance, I find the idea that we are searching to the ends of the earth to find some security violation by the Trump administration, but giving Hillary a pass because she lost the election, to be quite honestly offensive. In reality, we are probably at a point where statutes of limitation would prohibit conviction. But I'm sorry, we the American citizenry deserve a better explanation than the obvious hogwash that we have been fed. If you don't want to discuss further, that's fine, don't.

We're going nuts over an SF86, but turning a blind eye to obvious illegal security violations. I find that very troubling.

You don't get to be Secretary of State without understanding those things. You just don't. Unless you are willfully ignorant, working in an administration that doesn't care. There may not be many federal employees who know that, but among those who hold a TS clearance, I doubt there are many, if any, who don't. I can see the attitude very easily being, we've got enough nukes to destroy civilization 100 times over, so why do we care if a few bits of classified information leak out, my comfort is more important than that. That is an incredibly dangerous, but very believable, situation.

We are in agreement regarding the importance of the issue (information security). I'm not saying it should be dropped from a legal standpoint. If they find something chargeable, by all means, charge her. I'm just saying the I trust "them" (FBI/DOJ) to make the proper determination on that. At least more than I trust you or OO or me or RiceLad15. I understand that you don't trust "them" as much as I do. That's fine. But we won't change each other's minds on how much to trust the FBI/DOJ, and the discussion about Clinton's email server is as much a discussion about how much someone trusts FBI/DOJ's evaluation in that specific investigation as it is about the email server and information security itself. I know plenty of criminal prosecutors. They aren't perfect, but on the whole, I can't imagine any of the ones I know letting their personal political preference affect an investigation. That just isn't how they are wired. That doesn't mean all of them are that way, but the vast majority are (especially at the federal level).

(02-28-2018 12:25 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 05:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 02:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  And large investigations like that involve too many people for any kind of conspiracy.

As far as number of people, bureaucracies have immense powers to circle the wagons when there is a problem. As I've said before, they see four categories of classified information--the usual confidential, secret, and top secret, plus embarrassing to the agency. And there's only one of those hills that they will die on.

I agree that a small group of individuals in an agency might have a "circle the wagons" mentality to protect the agency itself. But again, that only works if the group is really small. These investigations involve attorneys, agents, paralegals, legal assistants, and secretaries (at the very least), plus possibly contractors, Court personnel, grand juries, opposing counsel, etc. For a small case, maybe you could get this. But it would be hard (not impossible) for this to happen in a larger investigation. And I write this as someone who has, on occasion, been accused by pro se plaintiffs of being part of a conspiracy...

You hold those bureaucrats in higher regard than I do.

(02-27-2018 06:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Present your case.

So, in that vein, tell me what exactly is so heinous about the June 9th meeting in Trump tower. A Russian met with Trump,Jr. under false pretenses, and was dismissed summarily. How is that collusion, or treason, or whatever people is trying to make of it? So he wanted dirt on Hillary. Didn't they want dirt on Trump? Isn't that why they hired Steele to get it from RUSSIANS? WHAT IS WRONG WITH WANTING DIRT ON THE OTHER SIDE, AS LONG AS IT IS TRUE AND NOT MADE UP STUFF? So why do the lefties keep harping on that meeting? Especially in the light of the Clinton campaign doing even worse, actually paying for made up stuff from Russians instead of dismissing them as TJ did? What did TJ do wrong in that meeting?

Nothing wrong for wanting dirt on the other side, the problem is how you get the dirt and who you get the dirt from. Some things are legal, some things aren't. You can't break-and-enter, you can't hack the other side, you can't get things from foreign nationals, etc.

I'll try to keep it short. As I quoted in post #2745:

Quote:Federal law prohibits a foreign national from giving anything of value to a campaign engaged in a U.S. election. It’s also a crime to solicit a foreign national to do so, or even to "knowingly provide substantial assistance" in receiving something of value.

While illegal foreign contributions typically take the form of money, legal experts told us it’s possible a court could find that "information" satisfies the legal requirement if it’s considered valuable to a campaign.

Trump Jr. gets email saying that the Russian government has damaging information on Hillary Clinton. Not his fault they sent him the email, so no problem. But when he agrees to the meeting, then he (and Kushner and Manafort, if they knew that a foreign national was offering "something of value" to the Trump campaign) start getting close to the line of what is illegal. If the same meeting had been with US Citizens with the same information, maybe no problem (putting aside the issue of whether the information was illegally obtained, which would maybe still make it a crime). But from agents for a foreign government? Problem. So then you need to evaluate whether that "something of value" was accepted (if so, "TJ" would have conspiracy issues even though the crime itself would be against the foreign nationals) or whether he solicited them (which he has denied). I don't think there is enough public info to charge anyone, but it is certainly worthy of investigation (IMO). And the changing of stories going through the White House brings in potential obstruction of justice issues. So again, plenty to investigate, even if there are not ultimately charges.

(02-27-2018 06:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lying or omitting about meeting with foreign government actors? Like I said, I cannot remember how many times I went to Mexico, or when or who I spoke to,, and so I better just stay away from government forms. I cannot even tell you the year I last went out of the country, and I dadgum sure cannot tell the date of the last phone call.

But if I did fill out those forms, and forgot a trip or a phone call or got a date wrong, dies that mean I am in collusion with Mexico? Heck I could not tell you what I had for breakfast yesterday for sure. But I guess you got me. I went to mexico, had dinner with some, shook hands with some, and cannot confirm the dates and times. Pretty suspicious. Leavenworth, here I come.

As for the Russian lady I have met twice, I cannot give you dates and times, and you have only my word that I did not pass anything under the table to her. I don't remember her name. Really. The other Russian, the guy sitting next to me at a poker tournament at the Mirage, I have no idea what date that was other than June 2017.

edit; F0orgot the Russian taxi cab driver. really, I wasn't trying to hide that contact. Damn fool couldn't find my hotel anyway. i guess to a Russian spy, Harrah's sounds like Paris.

All these itsy-bitsy things - perfectly normal handshakes with ambassadors at dinners , etc. - being seen as nefarious contacts is exactly why I think this investigation is built on a web of innuendo and imagination. Not facts, not reasonable inferences. A classic witch hunt. Feel free to reasonably explain to me why they are so damning.

If you get the kind of job that requires gathering this information, then you sit down and spend a shitload of time getting the stuff as straight as you can. When you don't know exact dates, you make sure and provide the information you do have and estimate everything else. I suggest you not apply for any of these types of jobs. Your flippant attitude will get you in serious trouble. As Hillary Clinton's email security is a serious issue, so is failing to disclose foreign travel and meetings with certain kinds of foreign nationals (I doubt sitting next to someone at a bar or a cab driver counts).

(02-28-2018 12:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 12:25 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 05:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 02:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  And large investigations like that involve too many people for any kind of conspiracy.

As far as number of people, bureaucracies have immense powers to circle the wagons when there is a problem. As I've said before, they see four categories of classified information--the usual confidential, secret, and top secret, plus embarrassing to the agency. And there's only one of those hills that they will die on.

I agree that a small group of individuals in an agency might have a "circle the wagons" mentality to protect the agency itself. But again, that only works if the group is really small. These investigations involve attorneys, agents, paralegals, legal assistants, and secretaries (at the very least), plus possibly contractors, Court personnel, grand juries, opposing counsel, etc. For a small case, maybe you could get this. But it would be hard (not impossible) for this to happen in a larger investigation. And I write this as someone who has, on occasion, been accused by pro se plaintiffs of being part of a conspiracy...

You hold those bureaucrats in higher regard than I do.

Not really, I just don't consider the people doing this kind of work to be "bureaucrats". Have you known many federal investigators or prosecutors, and it is upon them that you base your distrust? I have lesser opinions of employees in other federal agencies (some of whom I would consider bureaucrats) based on my interactions with them. I won't throw those agencies under the bus in a public forum.

(02-28-2018 12:59 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 06:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Present your case.

So, in that vein, tell me what exactly is so heinous about the June 9th meeting in Trump tower. A Russian met with Trump,Jr. under false pretenses, and was dismissed summarily. How is that collusion, or treason, or whatever people is trying to make of it? So he wanted dirt on Hillary. Didn't they want dirt on Trump? Isn't that why they hired Steele to get it from RUSSIANS? WHAT IS WRONG WITH WANTING DIRT ON THE OTHER SIDE, AS LONG AS IT IS TRUE AND NOT MADE UP STUFF? So why do the lefties keep harping on that meeting? Especially in the light of the Clinton campaign doing even worse, actually paying for made up stuff from Russians instead of dismissing them as TJ did? What did TJ do wrong in that meeting?

Nothing wrong for wanting dirt on the other side, the problem is how you get the dirt and who you get the dirt from. Some things are legal, some things aren't. You can't break-and-enter, you can't hack the other side, you can't get things from foreign nationals, etc.

I'll try to keep it short. As I quoted in post #2745:

Quote:Federal law prohibits a foreign national from giving anything of value to a campaign engaged in a U.S. election. It’s also a crime to solicit a foreign national to do so, or even to "knowingly provide substantial assistance" in receiving something of value.

While illegal foreign contributions typically take the form of money, legal experts told us it’s possible a court could find that "information" satisfies the legal requirement if it’s considered valuable to a campaign.

Trump Jr. gets email saying that the Russian government has damaging information on Hillary Clinton. Not his fault they sent him the email, so no problem. But when he agrees to the meeting, then he (and Kushner and Manafort, if they knew that a foreign national was offering "something of value" to the Trump campaign) start getting close to the line of what is illegal. If the same meeting had been with US Citizens with the same information, maybe no problem (putting aside the issue of whether the information was illegally obtained, which would maybe still make it a crime). But from agents for a foreign government? Problem. So then you need to evaluate whether that "something of value" was accepted (if so, "TJ" would have conspiracy issues even though the crime itself would be against the foreign nationals) or whether he solicited them (which he has denied). I don't think there is enough public info to charge anyone, but it is certainly worthy of investigation (IMO). And the changing of stories going through the White House brings in potential obstruction of justice issues. So again, plenty to investigate, even if there are not ultimately charges.

Thanks for the explanation.

Did the email identify her as an "agent of a foreign government"? Or is every Russian considered an agent of a foreign government?

How does this imply collusion?

Do the layers of separation in the Clinton's campaign of hiring a company to hire a Brit to ask the Russians for dirt absolve them? It seems the Clinton campaign was cagier about getting their russian dirt than was the Trump campaign. I would expect the professional politicians to know better how to evade the safeguards than the amateurs.

Quote:

(02-27-2018 06:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lying or omitting about meeting with foreign government actors? Like I said, I cannot remember how many times I went to Mexico, or when or who I spoke to,, and so I better just stay away from government forms. I cannot even tell you the year I last went out of the country, and I dadgum sure cannot tell the date of the last phone call.

But if I did fill out those forms, and forgot a trip or a phone call or got a date wrong, dies that mean I am in collusion with Mexico? Heck I could not tell you what I had for breakfast yesterday for sure. But I guess you got me. I went to mexico, had dinner with some, shook hands with some, and cannot confirm the dates and times. Pretty suspicious. Leavenworth, here I come.

As for the Russian lady I have met twice, I cannot give you dates and times, and you have only my word that I did not pass anything under the table to her. I don't remember her name. Really. The other Russian, the guy sitting next to me at a poker tournament at the Mirage, I have no idea what date that was other than June 2017.

edit; F0orgot the Russian taxi cab driver. really, I wasn't trying to hide that contact. Damn fool couldn't find my hotel anyway. i guess to a Russian spy, Harrah's sounds like Paris.

All these itsy-bitsy things - perfectly normal handshakes with ambassadors at dinners , etc. - being seen as nefarious contacts is exactly why I think this investigation is built on a web of innuendo and imagination. Not facts, not reasonable inferences. A classic witch hunt. Feel free to reasonably explain to me why they are so damning.

If you get the kind of job that requires gathering this information, then you sit down and spend a shitload of time getting the stuff as straight as you can. When you don't know exact dates, you make sure and provide the information you do have and estimate everything else. I suggest you not apply for any of these types of jobs. Your flippant attitude will get you in serious trouble. As Hillary Clinton's email security is a serious issue, so is failing to disclose foreign travel and meetings with certain kinds of foreign nationals (I doubt sitting next to someone at a bar or a cab driver counts).

Well, if I were a spy, cab driver would be a great cover. Pick up a guy, drop him off ten minutes later, nobody knows what was said or passed in the cab...


Flippant attitude? I have been traveling to Mexico since I was a week old, (now 72)
and have made thousands, maybe tens of thousands (cannot quantify it closer than that) trips across the border, for business and social purposes. I flew privately, I flew commercially, I drove, and sometimes my companions were mexican citizens. Some lasted two hours, some several weeks. I cannot begin to list those trips, nor to list the individuals I met with, some of whom were in fact government officials. Sometimes I took them to dinner, sometimes they took me. Once I went deep sea fishing. I also bought Mexican silver and gold coins and brought them back, openly and legally through customs, but I bet that could get stretched into money laundering by a bright attorney.

so you are right, as you so reasonably and unflippantly said, I should not apply for those kinds of jobs. The point I have been trying to make to you et al is that just because one forgets a trip or a meeting, or gets the dates wrong, or even forgets the names, it does not show collusion. Isn't that what the probe is about, collusion, or is it just a memory test?

For that matter, I cannot give you the dates I was in Canada or any other foreign country, or name the people I spoke to. But if you can, more power to to you.

Everybody, can you list all the people you spoke to in Cancun or St. Maarten?

Collusion isn’t a crime. Conspiracy is. And as I wrote, conspiracy to commit the following would also be a crime.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

I have no idea whether the Steele dossier falls within the definition. Republicans hire an American firm to do opponresearch, that firm hires a Brit contractor, then Democrats take over the oppo research effort. I have no idea. But was anything from the Steele dossier actually used in the election?

Maybe flippant isn’t the right word. Cavalier? You obviously don’t think it is a big deal or that it matters much. Good for you! And it isn’t remembering every foreign national you spoke to, that is ridiculous.

(02-28-2018 01:04 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 12:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 12:25 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 05:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 02:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  And large investigations like that involve too many people for any kind of conspiracy.

As far as number of people, bureaucracies have immense powers to circle the wagons when there is a problem. As I've said before, they see four categories of classified information--the usual confidential, secret, and top secret, plus embarrassing to the agency. And there's only one of those hills that they will die on.

I agree that a small group of individuals in an agency might have a "circle the wagons" mentality to protect the agency itself. But again, that only works if the group is really small. These investigations involve attorneys, agents, paralegals, legal assistants, and secretaries (at the very least), plus possibly contractors, Court personnel, grand juries, opposing counsel, etc. For a small case, maybe you could get this. But it would be hard (not impossible) for this to happen in a larger investigation. And I write this as someone who has, on occasion, been accused by pro se plaintiffs of being part of a conspiracy...

You hold those bureaucrats in higher regard than I do.

Not really, I just don't consider the people doing this kind of work to be "bureaucrats". Have you known many federal investigators or prosecutors, and it is upon them that you base your distrust? I have lesser opinions of employees in other federal agencies (some of whom I would consider bureaucrats) based on my interactions with them. I won't throw those agencies under the bus in a public forum.

I've known several FBI agents, don't know exact number. My brother used to live next door to one, have been to neighbor's house when he had friends over socially, no idea how many of them might have worked for FBI. Worked with a number of them regarding port security during Desert Storm. I would describe all of them as professional and I would think reliable--and not on Mueller's investigation team. And most of them at one time or another expressed frustration with the top. I know a number of guys in the field used to call Muller "Bobby Three Sticks" because he always signed things "Robert Mueller III" and they resented his blue blood Ivy League holier than thou attitude. I have heard but cannot confirm that Comey faced close to an open revolt from many in the rank and file over the free pass he gave Hillary. So I have reason to believe there is at least some disconnect between field agents and the guys at the top, and Mueller's team appears to be composed predominantly of the latter.

I would nave a much higher regard for federal investigators than prosecutors. And no, I did not practice criminal law, but did interact with a number of federal agencies over the years. My impression of federal prosecutors is if they don't like you, they will go out of their way to find trumped up process crimes to trip you with, and if they like you they'll look the other way a lot. I've heard more than once, behind closed doors, "He's an *******, so let's screw him."

(02-28-2018 02:40 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Collusion isn’t a crime. Conspiracy is. And as I wrote, conspiracy to commit the following would also be a crime.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

I have no idea whether the Steele dossier falls within the definition. Republicans hire an American firm to do opponresearch, that firm hires a Brit contractor, then Democrats take over the oppo research effort. I have no idea. But was anything from the Steele dossier actually used in the election?

Maybe flippant isn’t the right word. Cavalier? You obviously don’t think it is a big deal or that it matters much. Good for you! And it isn’t remembering every foreign national you spoke to, that is ridiculous.

What you have demonstrated in the Trump Tower situation seems akin to me to demonstrating that somebody stepped off the curb a foot outside the white lines of the crosswalk, then immediately got into the designated walking area. It goes nowhere in demonstrating collusion/conspiracy. Didn't somebody here publish the actual instructions to Mueller? What word does it use?

As for the remembering of every foreign national I spoke to, I am just going by what I have seen in the Jeff Sessions case and what other lawyers have told me about both OOJ and money laundering.

I am very tired of every contact with a Russian being hailed as evidence that this conspiracy exists, while at the same time the Clinton Campaign actually pays for somebody to gather dirt from Russians and is given a free pass because they craftily placed three degrees of separation between them.

Seems the whole case hangs on a mass of technicalities and gotchas. Does it show a collusion conspiracy? No. wWll it? No, unless you come up with something much more concrete, like a transcript of a phone call in which somebody makes an quid pro quo offer to Putin or a cancelled check. The whole proposal is ridiculous, and the political origin and goal of it cannot be denied.

My opinion is that it is, was, and will be a witch hunt. I don't have to wait for the final say-so to have that opinion, just as some of the people out there are firmly of the belief that trump called Vlad and had him steal the emails and publish in the foreknowledge that that would be enough to tip the election to him. Some people still think the moon landings were filmed in Utah. I think the moon landing theories and the Russian-Trump collusion theories belong in the same wastebasket.

I guess at some point, this will be over. I think at that time I can give a hearty "I told you so" to the conspiracy theorists, who will answer, "No, I told you so - see the eleven indictments for anything but collusion/conspiracy."

Until then, I guess y'all will just have to put up with this American giving his opinion, and not waiting meekly for the authorities to tell me what to think.

The Special Counsel's appointment is here. In pertinent part:

Quote:The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

So it did not use the word collusion or conspiracy, it used the phrase "links and/or coordination." I would say that is intentionally broad, and the second clause is intentionally broad to allow for things like the current indictments against Manafort, Gates, Flynn, and Papadopoulos, as well as charges like lying to the FBI and obstruction.

(02-28-2018 09:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Seems the whole case hangs on a mass of technicalities and gotchas. Does it show a collusion conspiracy? No. wWll it? No, unless you come up with something much more concrete, like a transcript of a phone call in which somebody makes an quid pro quo offer to Putin or a cancelled check. The whole proposal is ridiculous, and the political origin and goal of it cannot be denied.

Stephen Miller, is that you?!? I deny it, so apparently it can be denied. I mean, the special counsel is a Republican who was universally praised by both sides when appointed. He was chosen by a Republican Deputy Attorney General who received praise from both sides when appointed and who was appointed by a Republican President and confirmed by a Republican-controlled Senate 94-6. So maybe the Trump Russia investigation is of political origin ... but you mean it a different way than I initially interpreted?

(02-28-2018 09:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My opinion is that it is, was, and will be a witch hunt. I don't have to wait for the final say-so to have that opinion, just as some of the people out there are firmly of the belief that trump called Vlad and had him steal the emails and publish in the foreknowledge that that would be enough to tip the election to him. Some people still think the moon landings were filmed in Utah. I think the moon landing theories and the Russian-Trump collusion theories belong in the same wastebasket.

My takeaway is that you will not really pay attention to the evidence, regardless of what it shows. You, unlike me, have made up your mind. That is your prerogative, but it isn't worth having a discussion with someone who acknowledges that they have already made up their mind and indicated that they are unlikely to listen to or believe evidence that might change their mind.