(08-03-2018 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 02:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 09:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 04:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The idea that the information about Steele was "hidden" in the FISA app is laughable. There is literally an ENTIRE page (16 of 412) that is the continuation of the footnote that starts 1/3 of the way down the previous page (15 of 412). If the FBI was trying hard to bury that information, they sure did a bad job going into a lengthy discussion about who Steele was and where is funding came from. Also, a good half of that footnote is redacted, making it hard to know other information about Steele, his sources, the veracity of the information, etc. was provided.

There's no way this footnote, which was provide near the beginning of the document and at a length that makes it impossible to miss, was missed. Plus, as you see throughout the application, footnotes are used extensively to provide background on the case at hand.

And the provenance that this was 'paid for opposition research' is limited to one sentence. And that sentence doesnt even bother to note the parties by name.

Yeah, one sentence in a 'footnote', where the 'footnote' truly cannot be 'missed' (since it is a fing page long', and the sentence doesnt even botgher to directly name the actors.)

Real fing awesome job of being being honest there, Lad.

And no offense, if you bury that pertinent disclosure to a court that deep in a civil matter (pertinent to the fact that it is a 'contra' ruling or the like) -- yeah, the other side has every basis to ask for sanctions. And that is for the lesser threshold of a contested matter.

When you bury that type of information so fing deep in a ex parte matter (i.e. uncontested), yes, it is fing grotesque Lad.

But please keep dancing that 'Resistance jig' on that pinhead Lad like there is no issue.

Considering the ramifications of this procedure is literally the stripping of civil rights, and dealing with 'all levels' of everyday communication that are amazingly sancrosanct, I guess it is fine to hide 'info bad for you' deep in the bowels of page long footnotes and never directly identifying the people. Nice paradigm you buy into there Lad.

Is it so fing bad to simply ask for the standard of 'since this is literally the *most* fing intrusive a surveillance can be, is it really too fing hard to show the issues that cut against your application directly and obviously'? I guess that is a standard that you dont buy into. Bummer. I would have thought the lefties on this board would actually like **** that tends to protect civil liberties to the largest extent. Guess Im wrong on that account, again.

The applicants could have said in one sentence in the main body: The target of the investigation has been part of the Trump campaign, and this information came to light as a result of the Clinton campaign's 'paid for' opposition research, and all references to Steele are such paid-for products.

See? Direct, on point, and full disclosure. One fing sentence. Seems to be a minimal request, but apparently you prefer the contortionistic and far less visible means of implying that, but without directly doing so. Got it.

If the judge has any fing questions as to the depth of the material, he can certainly fing ask. And if the judge gets the question asked, or doesnt ask, the statement is plain as fing day. Too much to ask here?

To the bold, my understanding is that the FISA court goes to great lengths not to name any American by name. Notice how Trump was never named, even though he was not the target of the application and it was obvious who Candidate #1 was? So your hypothetical about naming names wouldn't fly because they don't do that.

And I am being honest Tanq, but go ahead, besmirch me all you want if it makes you feel better. I'm not dancing on any pinhead - actually reading through the FISA app, it makes it clear that footnotes that provide background on information used in the app is normal and par for the course. So no pinhead or dancing needed.

You're the one dancing on the pinhead and trying to suggest that the information you deem so awful was hidden. If you have two eyeballs and a 7th grade reading comprehension, it's incredibly obvious that the information was not hidden as you keep suggesting it was. An no amount of repetition of that line will make it true - the info wasn't hidden - it was produced and explained in a way that was clear, concise, and could not be missed.

Owl#s has a much more compelling argument about whether or not the information was vetted ahead of time, and I've seen people on both sides of the aisle argue about whether or not each claim used needed to be independently verified. I would lean towards there needing to be some sort of verification, but since so much language is redacted, it's hard to get up in arms about the potential possibility that some of the information provided by Steele was not independently verified because we don't have the full picture.

Lad, "two eyeballs and a 7th grade education" isnt the fing legal standard.

Im not the one trying to say very relevant information is to be had --- buried in a page long footnote.

At the very least it was an utter horseshit move. And one that smacks amazingly of internal bias to make sure the information was not presented with the full candor that it should have.

But please, keep moving forward and making up your own willy fing nilly legal rules and standards that you are so adept at continuously doing.

You're certainly entitled to the opinion that the information was "hidden" or that it was a "horseshit move" to put the explanation in a footnote, but that also is not a fing legal standard. Can you provide me the legal statute that says putting relevant information in a footnote is a "horseshit move"?

Tanq, I'm giving my opinion on what I read and providing background as to why I have said opinion. I'm sorry that you seem to adept at confusing that with me making up my own legal rules and standards, but it's not my fault that you can't seem to separate the two. I never suggested that having two eyeballs and a 7th grade education was a legal standard - it was pointedly clear that I was suggesting that the information was not hidden.

If you want to play that game, as I asked above, what legal standard indicates that the information was hidden by being in a footnote?

Not everything is a statute, Lad. I suggest you look up some caselaw on the ethical obligations for this type of proceeding.

Upon reflection, I have decided comparing CNN to broccoli is unfair to broccoli. Jimson weed would be a more apt comparison.

Lol.... el loco weed.... hadnt thought about that stuff in years.

(08-03-2018 11:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 02:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 09:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And the provenance that this was 'paid for opposition research' is limited to one sentence. And that sentence doesnt even bother to note the parties by name.

Yeah, one sentence in a 'footnote', where the 'footnote' truly cannot be 'missed' (since it is a fing page long', and the sentence doesnt even botgher to directly name the actors.)

Real fing awesome job of being being honest there, Lad.

And no offense, if you bury that pertinent disclosure to a court that deep in a civil matter (pertinent to the fact that it is a 'contra' ruling or the like) -- yeah, the other side has every basis to ask for sanctions. And that is for the lesser threshold of a contested matter.

When you bury that type of information so fing deep in a ex parte matter (i.e. uncontested), yes, it is fing grotesque Lad.

But please keep dancing that 'Resistance jig' on that pinhead Lad like there is no issue.

Considering the ramifications of this procedure is literally the stripping of civil rights, and dealing with 'all levels' of everyday communication that are amazingly sancrosanct, I guess it is fine to hide 'info bad for you' deep in the bowels of page long footnotes and never directly identifying the people. Nice paradigm you buy into there Lad.

Is it so fing bad to simply ask for the standard of 'since this is literally the *most* fing intrusive a surveillance can be, is it really too fing hard to show the issues that cut against your application directly and obviously'? I guess that is a standard that you dont buy into. Bummer. I would have thought the lefties on this board would actually like **** that tends to protect civil liberties to the largest extent. Guess Im wrong on that account, again.

The applicants could have said in one sentence in the main body: The target of the investigation has been part of the Trump campaign, and this information came to light as a result of the Clinton campaign's 'paid for' opposition research, and all references to Steele are such paid-for products.

See? Direct, on point, and full disclosure. One fing sentence. Seems to be a minimal request, but apparently you prefer the contortionistic and far less visible means of implying that, but without directly doing so. Got it.

If the judge has any fing questions as to the depth of the material, he can certainly fing ask. And if the judge gets the question asked, or doesnt ask, the statement is plain as fing day. Too much to ask here?

To the bold, my understanding is that the FISA court goes to great lengths not to name any American by name. Notice how Trump was never named, even though he was not the target of the application and it was obvious who Candidate #1 was? So your hypothetical about naming names wouldn't fly because they don't do that.

And I am being honest Tanq, but go ahead, besmirch me all you want if it makes you feel better. I'm not dancing on any pinhead - actually reading through the FISA app, it makes it clear that footnotes that provide background on information used in the app is normal and par for the course. So no pinhead or dancing needed.

You're the one dancing on the pinhead and trying to suggest that the information you deem so awful was hidden. If you have two eyeballs and a 7th grade reading comprehension, it's incredibly obvious that the information was not hidden as you keep suggesting it was. An no amount of repetition of that line will make it true - the info wasn't hidden - it was produced and explained in a way that was clear, concise, and could not be missed.

Owl#s has a much more compelling argument about whether or not the information was vetted ahead of time, and I've seen people on both sides of the aisle argue about whether or not each claim used needed to be independently verified. I would lean towards there needing to be some sort of verification, but since so much language is redacted, it's hard to get up in arms about the potential possibility that some of the information provided by Steele was not independently verified because we don't have the full picture.

Lad, "two eyeballs and a 7th grade education" isnt the fing legal standard.

Im not the one trying to say very relevant information is to be had --- buried in a page long footnote.

At the very least it was an utter horseshit move. And one that smacks amazingly of internal bias to make sure the information was not presented with the full candor that it should have.

But please, keep moving forward and making up your own willy fing nilly legal rules and standards that you are so adept at continuously doing.

You're certainly entitled to the opinion that the information was "hidden" or that it was a "horseshit move" to put the explanation in a footnote, but that also is not a fing legal standard. Can you provide me the legal statute that says putting relevant information in a footnote is a "horseshit move"?

Tanq, I'm giving my opinion on what I read and providing background as to why I have said opinion. I'm sorry that you seem to adept at confusing that with me making up my own legal rules and standards, but it's not my fault that you can't seem to separate the two. I never suggested that having two eyeballs and a 7th grade education was a legal standard - it was pointedly clear that I was suggesting that the information was not hidden.

If you want to play that game, as I asked above, what legal standard indicates that the information was hidden by being in a footnote?

Not everything is a statute, Lad. I suggest you look up some caselaw on the ethical obligations for this type of proceeding.

Yet you chide me because something I said wasn’t a statute?

Double standard much?

No chiding -- a direct response. You asked for "the legal statute that says putting relevant information in a footnote is a "horseshit move" ".

There is no 'statute'. Most of these interactions are defined by ethical obligations with corresponding caselaw.

Not 'chiding you' -- a direct fing response.

Quit yelping about a 'double standard' or somefink......

(08-04-2018 02:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  No chiding -- a direct response. You asked for "the legal statute that says putting relevant information in a footnote is a "horseshit move" ".

There is no 'statute'. Most of these interactions are defined by ethical obligations with corresponding caselaw.

Not 'chiding you' -- a direct fing response.

Quit yelping about a 'double standard' or somefink......

Ah, my mistake. I thought you were still trying to yelp at me elbecause I suggested that the footnote’s use was obvious.

So there is caselaw that dictates that footnotes should not contain relevant information?

(08-04-2018 03:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 02:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  No chiding -- a direct response. You asked for "the legal statute that says putting relevant information in a footnote is a "horseshit move" ".

There is no 'statute'. Most of these interactions are defined by ethical obligations with corresponding caselaw.

Not 'chiding you' -- a direct fing response.

Quit yelping about a 'double standard' or somefink......

Ah, my mistake. I thought you were still trying to yelp at me elbecause I suggested that the footnote’s use was obvious.

So there is caselaw that dictates that footnotes should not contain relevant information?

In constitutional law, there have been a few famous footnotes that are still debated today. Here is an article about one of those; footnote 2 of the article compares it two other famous footnotes (I am not making this up):

https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/view...xt=concomm

Linzer, Peter, "The Carolene Products Footnote and the Preferred Position of Individual Rights: Louis Lusky and John Hart Ely Vs. Harlan Fiske Stone." (1995). Constitutional Commentary. 844 n.2

Caselaw and ethical obligations deal with an attorney's obligations to a court.

That notwithstanding, I am surprised that a bright guy like you cant see the level of horseshit employed here. Kind of blindingly obvious. The guys who drafted this really deliberately went out of their way to hide and obfuscate from the court the quality of of the source of information.

And, Lad, this is coming from someone who in a much, much earlier part of my career was fing pro and hiding stuff in plain sight in filings, interrogatory answers, and discovery production. At least in that arena one had a counter-party who kept one from crossing the horseshit line too far. This arena doesnt have that counter-party counterweight, does it?

If you dont see the effort to obfuscate that from the court, well, NMFP, is it? But believe whatever the hell you want to Lad, I doubt much if anything will dog you off of your inherent belief in this.

What I want to know now, given the level of problems in the warrant application, and the dogged determination to get this through, is who is the application's signer?

My guess is Strzok.

I'll let the lawyers discuss the use or misuse of the dossier.

I am more interested right now in the differences of the provenance of the dossier vis-a-vis the Trump Tower meeting.

There has been much hysteria over the meeting in Trump Tower (TT). It has been called treasonous, and indicative of collusion between Trump and Russia.

The Steele dossier, OTOH, is a wonderful piece of investigative work that should be the foundation for the entire investigation.

Checking some of the similarities/differences:

Both campaigns want dirt on the other candidate.

One campaign did not buy any dirt. The other one did.

One campaign dismissed a Russian who want to inform. The other sought Russians out and probably paid them.

One was in New York. The other sent a paid employee to Russia.

So why is the one that bought nothing, published nothing the bad guy? Or more importantly, why is the one that paid a small fortune to sen an employee to Russia and then bought some dirt the good guy?

I don't blame either campaign for wanting to find dirt on the other, although that activity properly belongs to the free press. I don't care if they pay for it or not, if it is true. But why is one organization evil for that and the other wonderful?

The only difference I can see it the target. Evil to look for dirt on Clinton, great to look for dirt on Trump.

(08-04-2018 04:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I'll let the lawyers discuss the use or misuse of the dossier.

I am more interested right now in the differences of the provenance of the dossier vis-a-vis the Trump Tower meeting.

There has been much hysteria over the meeting in Trump Tower (TT). It has been called treasonous, and indicative of collusion between Trump and Russia.

The Steele dossier, OTOH, is a wonderful piece of investigative work that should be the foundation for the entire investigation.

Checking some of the similarities/differences:

Both campaigns want dirt on the other candidate.

One campaign did not buy any dirt. The other one did.

One campaign dismissed a Russian who want to inform. The other sought Russians out and probably paid them.

One was in New York. The other sent a paid employee to Russia.

So why is the one that bought nothing, published nothing the bad guy? Or more importantly, why is the one that paid a small fortune to sen an employee to Russia and then bought some dirt the good guy?

I don't blame either campaign for wanting to find dirt on the other, although that activity properly belongs to the free press. I don't care if they pay for it or not, if it is true. But why is one organization evil for that and the other wonderful?

The only difference I can see it the target. Evil to look for dirt on Clinton, great to look for dirt on Trump.

But remember that *all* important distinction between: responding to foreigners who say they have dirt, and asking foreigners for dirt.

Makes all the difference.

(08-04-2018 05:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 04:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I'll let the lawyers discuss the use or misuse of the dossier.

I am more interested right now in the differences of the provenance of the dossier vis-a-vis the Trump Tower meeting.

There has been much hysteria over the meeting in Trump Tower (TT). It has been called treasonous, and indicative of collusion between Trump and Russia.

The Steele dossier, OTOH, is a wonderful piece of investigative work that should be the foundation for the entire investigation.

Checking some of the similarities/differences:

Both campaigns want dirt on the other candidate.

One campaign did not buy any dirt. The other one did.

One campaign dismissed a Russian who want to inform. The other sought Russians out and probably paid them.

One was in New York. The other sent a paid employee to Russia.

So why is the one that bought nothing, published nothing the bad guy? Or more importantly, why is the one that paid a small fortune to sen an employee to Russia and then bought some dirt the good guy?

I don't blame either campaign for wanting to find dirt on the other, although that activity properly belongs to the free press. I don't care if they pay for it or not, if it is true. But why is one organization evil for that and the other wonderful?

The only difference I can see it the target. Evil to look for dirt on Clinton, great to look for dirt on Trump.

But remember that *all* important distinction between: responding to foreigners who say they have dirt, and asking foreigners for dirt.

Makes all the difference.

Only differences I see are:

1. Clinton paid for her dirt. Handsomely.
2. Trump got no dirt, paid or unpaid.
3. Trump, bad, Clinton, good
4. Clinton hired people to do her dirty work.

(08-04-2018 05:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 05:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 04:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I'll let the lawyers discuss the use or misuse of the dossier.

I am more interested right now in the differences of the provenance of the dossier vis-a-vis the Trump Tower meeting.

There has been much hysteria over the meeting in Trump Tower (TT). It has been called treasonous, and indicative of collusion between Trump and Russia.

The Steele dossier, OTOH, is a wonderful piece of investigative work that should be the foundation for the entire investigation.

Checking some of the similarities/differences:

Both campaigns want dirt on the other candidate.

One campaign did not buy any dirt. The other one did.

One campaign dismissed a Russian who want to inform. The other sought Russians out and probably paid them.

One was in New York. The other sent a paid employee to Russia.

So why is the one that bought nothing, published nothing the bad guy? Or more importantly, why is the one that paid a small fortune to sen an employee to Russia and then bought some dirt the good guy?

I don't blame either campaign for wanting to find dirt on the other, although that activity properly belongs to the free press. I don't care if they pay for it or not, if it is true. But why is one organization evil for that and the other wonderful?

The only difference I can see it the target. Evil to look for dirt on Clinton, great to look for dirt on Trump.

But remember that *all* important distinction between: responding to foreigners who say they have dirt, and asking foreigners for dirt.

Makes all the difference.

Only differences I see are:

1. Clinton paid for her dirt. Handsomely.
2. Trump got no dirt, paid or unpaid.
3. Trump, bad, Clinton, good
4. Clinton hired people to do her dirty work.

Another big difference:

5. The #4 person in the FBI, and the head of counter-intelligence, along with his lover/counsel for the section had/has a severe hard-on for Trump; not so much for Hills.

6. Rice, Clapper, and Power had no qualms using their position to unmask names with the speed of a bottle of whiskey being drained at a frat house rush party when it came to Trump's group.

(08-04-2018 06:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 05:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 05:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 04:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I'll let the lawyers discuss the use or misuse of the dossier.

I am more interested right now in the differences of the provenance of the dossier vis-a-vis the Trump Tower meeting.

There has been much hysteria over the meeting in Trump Tower (TT). It has been called treasonous, and indicative of collusion between Trump and Russia.

The Steele dossier, OTOH, is a wonderful piece of investigative work that should be the foundation for the entire investigation.

Checking some of the similarities/differences:

Both campaigns want dirt on the other candidate.

One campaign did not buy any dirt. The other one did.

One campaign dismissed a Russian who want to inform. The other sought Russians out and probably paid them.

One was in New York. The other sent a paid employee to Russia.

So why is the one that bought nothing, published nothing the bad guy? Or more importantly, why is the one that paid a small fortune to sen an employee to Russia and then bought some dirt the good guy?

I don't blame either campaign for wanting to find dirt on the other, although that activity properly belongs to the free press. I don't care if they pay for it or not, if it is true. But why is one organization evil for that and the other wonderful?

The only difference I can see it the target. Evil to look for dirt on Clinton, great to look for dirt on Trump.

But remember that *all* important distinction between: responding to foreigners who say they have dirt, and asking foreigners for dirt.

Makes all the difference.

Only differences I see are:

1. Clinton paid for her dirt. Handsomely.
2. Trump got no dirt, paid or unpaid.
3. Trump, bad, Clinton, good
4. Clinton hired people to do her dirty work.

Another big difference:

5. The #4 person in the FBI, and the head of counter-intelligence, along with his lover/counsel for the section had/has a severe hard-on for Trump; not so much for Hills.

6. Rice, Clapper, and Power had no qualms using their position to unmask names with the speed of a bottle of whiskey being drained at a frat house rush party when it came to Trump's group.

7. Trump was approached by a Russian; Clinton approached the Russians, soliciting dirt.

(08-04-2018 06:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 05:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 05:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 04:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I'll let the lawyers discuss the use or misuse of the dossier.

I am more interested right now in the differences of the provenance of the dossier vis-a-vis the Trump Tower meeting.

There has been much hysteria over the meeting in Trump Tower (TT). It has been called treasonous, and indicative of collusion between Trump and Russia.

The Steele dossier, OTOH, is a wonderful piece of investigative work that should be the foundation for the entire investigation.

Checking some of the similarities/differences:

Both campaigns want dirt on the other candidate.

One campaign did not buy any dirt. The other one did.

One campaign dismissed a Russian who want to inform. The other sought Russians out and probably paid them.

One was in New York. The other sent a paid employee to Russia.

So why is the one that bought nothing, published nothing the bad guy? Or more importantly, why is the one that paid a small fortune to sen an employee to Russia and then bought some dirt the good guy?

I don't blame either campaign for wanting to find dirt on the other, although that activity properly belongs to the free press. I don't care if they pay for it or not, if it is true. But why is one organization evil for that and the other wonderful?

The only difference I can see it the target. Evil to look for dirt on Clinton, great to look for dirt on Trump.

But remember that *all* important distinction between: responding to foreigners who say they have dirt, and asking foreigners for dirt.

Makes all the difference.

Only differences I see are:

1. Clinton paid for her dirt. Handsomely.
2. Trump got no dirt, paid or unpaid.
3. Trump, bad, Clinton, good
4. Clinton hired people to do her dirty work.

Another big difference:

5. The #4 person in the FBI, and the head of counter-intelligence, along with his lover/counsel for the section had/has a severe hard-on for Trump; not so much for Hills.

6. Rice, Clapper, and Power had no qualms using their position to unmask names with the speed of a bottle of whiskey being drained at a frat house rush party when it came to Trump's group.

7. Trump was approached by a Russian; Clinton approached the Russians, soliciting dirt.

(08-04-2018 06:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 05:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 05:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 04:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I'll let the lawyers discuss the use or misuse of the dossier.

I am more interested right now in the differences of the provenance of the dossier vis-a-vis the Trump Tower meeting.

There has been much hysteria over the meeting in Trump Tower (TT). It has been called treasonous, and indicative of collusion between Trump and Russia.

The Steele dossier, OTOH, is a wonderful piece of investigative work that should be the foundation for the entire investigation.

Checking some of the similarities/differences:

Both campaigns want dirt on the other candidate.

One campaign did not buy any dirt. The other one did.

One campaign dismissed a Russian who want to inform. The other sought Russians out and probably paid them.

One was in New York. The other sent a paid employee to Russia.

So why is the one that bought nothing, published nothing the bad guy? Or more importantly, why is the one that paid a small fortune to sen an employee to Russia and then bought some dirt the good guy?

I don't blame either campaign for wanting to find dirt on the other, although that activity properly belongs to the free press. I don't care if they pay for it or not, if it is true. But why is one organization evil for that and the other wonderful?

The only difference I can see it the target. Evil to look for dirt on Clinton, great to look for dirt on Trump.

But remember that *all* important distinction between: responding to foreigners who say they have dirt, and asking foreigners for dirt.

Makes all the difference.

Only differences I see are:

1. Clinton paid for her dirt. Handsomely.
2. Trump got no dirt, paid or unpaid.
3. Trump, bad, Clinton, good
4. Clinton hired people to do her dirty work.

Another big difference:

5. The #4 person in the FBI, and the head of counter-intelligence, along with his lover/counsel for the section had/has a severe hard-on for Trump; not so much for Hills.

6. Rice, Clapper, and Power had no qualms using their position to unmask names with the speed of a bottle of whiskey being drained at a frat house rush party when it came to Trump's group.

7. Trump was approached by a Russian; Clinton approached the Russians, soliciting dirt.

(08-04-2018 06:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 05:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 05:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 04:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I'll let the lawyers discuss the use or misuse of the dossier.

I am more interested right now in the differences of the provenance of the dossier vis-a-vis the Trump Tower meeting.

There has been much hysteria over the meeting in Trump Tower (TT). It has been called treasonous, and indicative of collusion between Trump and Russia.

The Steele dossier, OTOH, is a wonderful piece of investigative work that should be the foundation for the entire investigation.

Checking some of the similarities/differences:

Both campaigns want dirt on the other candidate.

One campaign did not buy any dirt. The other one did.

One campaign dismissed a Russian who want to inform. The other sought Russians out and probably paid them.

One was in New York. The other sent a paid employee to Russia.

So why is the one that bought nothing, published nothing the bad guy? Or more importantly, why is the one that paid a small fortune to sen an employee to Russia and then bought some dirt the good guy?

I don't blame either campaign for wanting to find dirt on the other, although that activity properly belongs to the free press. I don't care if they pay for it or not, if it is true. But why is one organization evil for that and the other wonderful?

The only difference I can see it the target. Evil to look for dirt on Clinton, great to look for dirt on Trump.

But remember that *all* important distinction between: responding to foreigners who say they have dirt, and asking foreigners for dirt.

Makes all the difference.

Only differences I see are:

1. Clinton paid for her dirt. Handsomely.
2. Trump got no dirt, paid or unpaid.
3. Trump, bad, Clinton, good
4. Clinton hired people to do her dirty work.

Another big difference:

5. The #4 person in the FBI, and the head of counter-intelligence, along with his lover/counsel for the section had/has a severe hard-on for Trump; not so much for Hills.

6. Rice, Clapper, and Power had no qualms using their position to unmask names with the speed of a bottle of whiskey being drained at a frat house rush party when it came to Trump's group.

7. Trump was approached by a Russian; Clinton approached the Russians, soliciting dirt.

(08-04-2018 06:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 05:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 05:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 04:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I'll let the lawyers discuss the use or misuse of the dossier.

I am more interested right now in the differences of the provenance of the dossier vis-a-vis the Trump Tower meeting.

There has been much hysteria over the meeting in Trump Tower (TT). It has been called treasonous, and indicative of collusion between Trump and Russia.

The Steele dossier, OTOH, is a wonderful piece of investigative work that should be the foundation for the entire investigation.

Checking some of the similarities/differences:

Both campaigns want dirt on the other candidate.

One campaign did not buy any dirt. The other one did.

One campaign dismissed a Russian who want to inform. The other sought Russians out and probably paid them.

One was in New York. The other sent a paid employee to Russia.

So why is the one that bought nothing, published nothing the bad guy? Or more importantly, why is the one that paid a small fortune to sen an employee to Russia and then bought some dirt the good guy?

I don't blame either campaign for wanting to find dirt on the other, although that activity properly belongs to the free press. I don't care if they pay for it or not, if it is true. But why is one organization evil for that and the other wonderful?

The only difference I can see it the target. Evil to look for dirt on Clinton, great to look for dirt on Trump.

But remember that *all* important distinction between: responding to foreigners who say they have dirt, and asking foreigners for dirt.

Makes all the difference.

Only differences I see are:

1. Clinton paid for her dirt. Handsomely.
2. Trump got no dirt, paid or unpaid.
3. Trump, bad, Clinton, good
4. Clinton hired people to do her dirty work.

Another big difference:

5. The #4 person in the FBI, and the head of counter-intelligence, along with his lover/counsel for the section had/has a severe hard-on for Trump; not so much for Hills.

6. Rice, Clapper, and Power had no qualms using their position to unmask names with the speed of a bottle of whiskey being drained at a frat house rush party when it came to Trump's group.

7. Trump was approached by a Russian; Clinton approached the Russians, soliciting dirt.

(08-04-2018 06:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 05:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 05:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 04:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I'll let the lawyers discuss the use or misuse of the dossier.

I am more interested right now in the differences of the provenance of the dossier vis-a-vis the Trump Tower meeting.

There has been much hysteria over the meeting in Trump Tower (TT). It has been called treasonous, and indicative of collusion between Trump and Russia.

The Steele dossier, OTOH, is a wonderful piece of investigative work that should be the foundation for the entire investigation.

Checking some of the similarities/differences:

Both campaigns want dirt on the other candidate.

One campaign did not buy any dirt. The other one did.

One campaign dismissed a Russian who want to inform. The other sought Russians out and probably paid them.

One was in New York. The other sent a paid employee to Russia.

So why is the one that bought nothing, published nothing the bad guy? Or more importantly, why is the one that paid a small fortune to sen an employee to Russia and then bought some dirt the good guy?

I don't blame either campaign for wanting to find dirt on the other, although that activity properly belongs to the free press. I don't care if they pay for it or not, if it is true. But why is one organization evil for that and the other wonderful?

The only difference I can see it the target. Evil to look for dirt on Clinton, great to look for dirt on Trump.

But remember that *all* important distinction between: responding to foreigners who say they have dirt, and asking foreigners for dirt.

Makes all the difference.

Only differences I see are:

1. Clinton paid for her dirt. Handsomely.
2. Trump got no dirt, paid or unpaid.
3. Trump, bad, Clinton, good
4. Clinton hired people to do her dirty work.

Another big difference:

5. The #4 person in the FBI, and the head of counter-intelligence, along with his lover/counsel for the section had/has a severe hard-on for Trump; not so much for Hills.

6. Rice, Clapper, and Power had no qualms using their position to unmask names with the speed of a bottle of whiskey being drained at a frat house rush party when it came to Trump's group.

7. Trump was approached by a Russian; Clinton approached the Russians, soliciting dirt.

(08-04-2018 06:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 05:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 05:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 04:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I'll let the lawyers discuss the use or misuse of the dossier.

I am more interested right now in the differences of the provenance of the dossier vis-a-vis the Trump Tower meeting.

There has been much hysteria over the meeting in Trump Tower (TT). It has been called treasonous, and indicative of collusion between Trump and Russia.

The Steele dossier, OTOH, is a wonderful piece of investigative work that should be the foundation for the entire investigation.

Checking some of the similarities/differences:

Both campaigns want dirt on the other candidate.

One campaign did not buy any dirt. The other one did.

One campaign dismissed a Russian who want to inform. The other sought Russians out and probably paid them.

One was in New York. The other sent a paid employee to Russia.

So why is the one that bought nothing, published nothing the bad guy? Or more importantly, why is the one that paid a small fortune to sen an employee to Russia and then bought some dirt the good guy?

I don't blame either campaign for wanting to find dirt on the other, although that activity properly belongs to the free press. I don't care if they pay for it or not, if it is true. But why is one organization evil for that and the other wonderful?

The only difference I can see it the target. Evil to look for dirt on Clinton, great to look for dirt on Trump.

But remember that *all* important distinction between: responding to foreigners who say they have dirt, and asking foreigners for dirt.

Makes all the difference.

Only differences I see are:

1. Clinton paid for her dirt. Handsomely.
2. Trump got no dirt, paid or unpaid.
3. Trump, bad, Clinton, good
4. Clinton hired people to do her dirty work.

Another big difference:

5. The #4 person in the FBI, and the head of counter-intelligence, along with his lover/counsel for the section had/has a severe hard-on for Trump; not so much for Hills.

6. Rice, Clapper, and Power had no qualms using their position to unmask names with the speed of a bottle of whiskey being drained at a frat house rush party when it came to Trump's group.

7. Trump was approached by a Russian; Clinton approached the Russians, soliciting dirt.

(08-04-2018 06:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 05:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 05:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 04:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I'll let the lawyers discuss the use or misuse of the dossier.

I am more interested right now in the differences of the provenance of the dossier vis-a-vis the Trump Tower meeting.

There has been much hysteria over the meeting in Trump Tower (TT). It has been called treasonous, and indicative of collusion between Trump and Russia.

The Steele dossier, OTOH, is a wonderful piece of investigative work that should be the foundation for the entire investigation.

Checking some of the similarities/differences:

Both campaigns want dirt on the other candidate.

One campaign did not buy any dirt. The other one did.

One campaign dismissed a Russian who want to inform. The other sought Russians out and probably paid them.

One was in New York. The other sent a paid employee to Russia.

So why is the one that bought nothing, published nothing the bad guy? Or more importantly, why is the one that paid a small fortune to sen an employee to Russia and then bought some dirt the good guy?

I don't blame either campaign for wanting to find dirt on the other, although that activity properly belongs to the free press. I don't care if they pay for it or not, if it is true. But why is one organization evil for that and the other wonderful?

The only difference I can see it the target. Evil to look for dirt on Clinton, great to look for dirt on Trump.

But remember that *all* important distinction between: responding to foreigners who say they have dirt, and asking foreigners for dirt.

Makes all the difference.

Only differences I see are:

1. Clinton paid for her dirt. Handsomely.
2. Trump got no dirt, paid or unpaid.
3. Trump, bad, Clinton, good
4. Clinton hired people to do her dirty work.

Another big difference:

5. The #4 person in the FBI, and the head of counter-intelligence, along with his lover/counsel for the section had/has a severe hard-on for Trump; not so much for Hills.

6. Rice, Clapper, and Power had no qualms using their position to unmask names with the speed of a bottle of whiskey being drained at a frat house rush party when it came to Trump's group.

7. Trump was approached by a Russian; Clinton approached the Russians, soliciting dirt.