(08-07-2018 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 10:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 09:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 07:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As I’ve said, the difference to me is the potential ulterior motives of the people who provided intel. That’s why I support investigating the Steele dossier, to evaluate if any of the sources were being used by the Russian government to peddle false information, intentionally.
If evidence comes to light that suggests the Clinton campaign was involved with the gathering of the information by Steele and was influencing it somehow (like say directing Steele to people to talk to), then it would make sense to bring them into the fold. So far what we know is that the Clinton camp wasn’t in the loop. And remember, Russia released thousands of emails from the DNC and Podesta, and I’ve not seen any of those suggest otherwise. Suggesting otherwise is relying completely on your own personal opinion and biases.

But I think you are suggesting a vastly different standard for Hillary than for Trump. I've seen no indication that anyone in the Trump campaign had the kind of direction authority that you are suggesting as a threshold for investigating the Clinton campaign.

Say what?
Trump Jr. released his own personal emails in which he welcomed and organized a meeting with a known representative of Russia with the explicit knowledge that the sovereign power of Russia was trying to assist the Trump campaign.
How is that not an indication that someone in the Trump campaign was aware that a sovereign state (and a hostile one at that) was providing, or involved with the gathering of, said information?
edit: and to show that this isn't a double standard, based on what we know, the Clinton Campaign didn't even know Steele had been hired, let alone that he had talked to people in Russia. If the Clinton Campaign had been in the loop, that information would have almost certainly come to light because they, and the DNC, had thousands of emails stolen.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood you to be suggesting that the threshold for investigating the Clinton campaign would be that her campaign was somehow directing the gathering of information "(like say directing Steele to people to talk to)". There is no indication that anyone in Trump's camp went anywhere near that far. In fact, it would appear that whatever information was discussed in the TT meeting had already been gathered.

And having a meeting may or may not have been collusion (which is not a crime) but it does not arise to conspiracy (which is). Conspiracy requires that the meeting produced a plan to do something, and that at least one act in furtherance of that plan was done. I don't see evidence of that yet. Do you? If in fact Don Jr. is correct in stating that no agreement was reached and he walked out, then that closes the door on conspiracy.

I don't know whether Don Jr. is telling the truth, and neither do you.

You're right - which is why I'm not suggesting a crime was committed based on the evidence at hand. Instead, I'm suggesting there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. Why try and make me defend a position I haven't taken?

We know a meeting took place where a conspiracy could very well have been initiated, so reason says that an investigation is warranted, right? We know a situation arose where Trump Jr and other campaign leaders could have very well started a conspiracy, and we know that those members lied about the meeting when it came to light and did not inform the authorities before hand.

So this is my whole point - that the TT meeting alone is enough to warrant the Mueller probe. We deserve an answer as to whether a conspiracy was established that doesn't rely solely on the word of someone who has already lied about the meeting multiple times.

And to your first point, I offered one potential hypothetical as to why an investigation into the Clinton Campaign would be warranted - it wasn't all encompassing. Do you have e

So any single meeting would be cause sufficient for a special prosecutor? That is a huge stretch there Lad.

I guess, lesson being next time use the fing cutouts like law firms to take those meetings. Seems that that route is a major differentiator for some dancing that jig.....

(08-07-2018 10:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 09:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  edit: and to show that this isn't a double standard, based on what we know, the Clinton Campaign didn't even know Steele had been hired, let alone that he had talked to people in Russia. If the Clinton Campaign had been in the loop, that information would have almost certainly come to light because they, and the DNC, had thousands of emails stolen.

Please show us your proof positive that "Clinton Campaign didn't even know Steele had been hired, let alone that he had talked to people in Russia".

Last I knew, Perkins Coie, has an absolute duty to keep a client informed on all aspects of their representation of a client --- which this is, mind you. Or is Perkins Coie the best fing cutout scheme ever to do this type of ****, which has been one issue some of us have noted for some time.

To be blunt, it would boggle the fing mind of any competent attorney or firm to knowingly keep those facts from the client in the course of it representation. Just saying.

Hate to say this Lad, but your supposed 'lack of anything we see' statement once again cuts against every single attorney practice in the real-world sense. Again, just saying.

Do you even read what I type? I said based on what we know- that means, the evidence that is in the public record indicates that the Clinton Campaign didn't know. Is there ANY evidence in the public record that refutes this? What would that proof even look like?

Maybe it's my ignorance of the law, but I am surprised that a law firm has to inform their client of every person who works for a subcontractor that they hire out. So when a law firm hires my company to do groundwater sampling to support a legal case, does that law firm inform their client that I'm going to be the one installing a monitoring well? That seems a bit preposterous.

Again, based on what we know, Perkins Coie contracted Fusion GPS, which in turn contracted Orbis Business Intelligence, which Steele was a part of. So a more apt analogy in my line of work would be a law firm hires a bigger environmental consulting firm who them subs out specialty work to my smaller firm, and then I go in the field and complete it. Why would the initial client be told by the law firm that I was going to be going into the field to do the work?

Instead, the client would be told that big firm was handling all of the environmental work, and it would be on the big firm to inform the law firm that they had subbed out specialty work.

The only time I'll actually be involved in the case is if things go tits up and I need to testify about the work I completed in the field.

And again, let's go back to the fact that both the DNC and John Podesta had their emails hacked, and none showed evidence that they were involved with selecting or working with Steele. So that helps to corroborate that Podesta was not lying when he said he didn't know Steele was on the dole until Mother Jones broke the story.

(08-07-2018 10:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 10:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 09:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But I think you are suggesting a vastly different standard for Hillary than for Trump. I've seen no indication that anyone in the Trump campaign had the kind of direction authority that you are suggesting as a threshold for investigating the Clinton campaign.

Say what?
Trump Jr. released his own personal emails in which he welcomed and organized a meeting with a known representative of Russia with the explicit knowledge that the sovereign power of Russia was trying to assist the Trump campaign.
How is that not an indication that someone in the Trump campaign was aware that a sovereign state (and a hostile one at that) was providing, or involved with the gathering of, said information?
edit: and to show that this isn't a double standard, based on what we know, the Clinton Campaign didn't even know Steele had been hired, let alone that he had talked to people in Russia. If the Clinton Campaign had been in the loop, that information would have almost certainly come to light because they, and the DNC, had thousands of emails stolen.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood you to be suggesting that the threshold for investigating the Clinton campaign would be that her campaign was somehow directing the gathering of information "(like say directing Steele to people to talk to)". There is no indication that anyone in Trump's camp went anywhere near that far. In fact, it would appear that whatever information was discussed in the TT meeting had already been gathered.

And having a meeting may or may not have been collusion (which is not a crime) but it does not arise to conspiracy (which is). Conspiracy requires that the meeting produced a plan to do something, and that at least one act in furtherance of that plan was done. I don't see evidence of that yet. Do you? If in fact Don Jr. is correct in stating that no agreement was reached and he walked out, then that closes the door on conspiracy.

I don't know whether Don Jr. is telling the truth, and neither do you.

You're right - which is why I'm not suggesting a crime was committed based on the evidence at hand. Instead, I'm suggesting there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. Why try and make me defend a position I haven't taken?

We know a meeting took place where a conspiracy could very well have been initiated, so reason says that an investigation is warranted, right? We know a situation arose where Trump Jr and other campaign leaders could have very well started a conspiracy, and we know that those members lied about the meeting when it came to light and did not inform the authorities before hand.

So this is my whole point - that the TT meeting alone is enough to warrant the Mueller probe. We deserve an answer as to whether a conspiracy was established that doesn't rely solely on the word of someone who has already lied about the meeting multiple times.

And to your first point, I offered one potential hypothetical as to why an investigation into the Clinton Campaign would be warranted - it wasn't all encompassing. Do you have e

So any single meeting would be cause sufficient for a special prosecutor? That is a huge stretch there Lad.

I guess, lesson being next time use the fing cutouts like law firms to take those meetings. Seems that that route is a major differentiator for some dancing that jig.....

If that single meeting is between a known Russian representative with the express goal of the Russian government aiding said individual in an election, then yes. I don't see that being a huge stretch.

I think the lesson is, next time someone comes to you saying the Russian government wants to help provide dirt on your opponent, you go to the FBI.

(08-07-2018 10:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 10:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 09:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  edit: and to show that this isn't a double standard, based on what we know, the Clinton Campaign didn't even know Steele had been hired, let alone that he had talked to people in Russia. If the Clinton Campaign had been in the loop, that information would have almost certainly come to light because they, and the DNC, had thousands of emails stolen.

Please show us your proof positive that "Clinton Campaign didn't even know Steele had been hired, let alone that he had talked to people in Russia".

Last I knew, Perkins Coie, has an absolute duty to keep a client informed on all aspects of their representation of a client --- which this is, mind you. Or is Perkins Coie the best fing cutout scheme ever to do this type of ****, which has been one issue some of us have noted for some time.

To be blunt, it would boggle the fing mind of any competent attorney or firm to knowingly keep those facts from the client in the course of it representation. Just saying.

Hate to say this Lad, but your supposed 'lack of anything we see' statement once again cuts against every single attorney practice in the real-world sense. Again, just saying.

Do you even read what I type? I said based on what we know- that means, the evidence that is in the public record indicates that the Clinton Campaign didn't know. Is there ANY evidence in the public record that refutes this? What would that proof even look like?

Maybe it's my ignorance of the law, but I am surprised that a law firm has to inform their client of every person who works for a subcontractor that they hire out. So when a law firm hires my company to do groundwater sampling to support a legal case, does that law firm inform their client that I'm going to be the one installing a monitoring well? That seems a bit preposterous.

Actually, yes they absolutely have that obligation to inform the client of as much as they know or may have control over.

Quote:Again, based on what we know, Perkins Coie contracted Fusion GPS, which in turn contracted Orbis Business Intelligence, which Steele was a part of. So a more apt analogy in my line of work would be a law firm hires a bigger environmental consulting firm who them subs out specialty work to my smaller firm, and then I go in the field and complete it. Why would the initial client be told by the law firm that I was going to be going into the field to do the work?

Instead, the client would be told that big firm was handling all of the environmental work, and it would be on the big firm to inform the law firm that they had subbed out specialty work.

Maybe because it is an integral part of what the work product would be. Silly me for thinking that I guess.

Quote:The only time I'll actually be involved in the case is if things go tits up and I need to testify about the work I completed in the field.

Depends on how integral it is, Lad. I think it rather disingenuous to characterize what you are apparently wishing to be be 'fungible **** that anyone can do' (I hope that isnt the case in your profession) with rather specialized functionality that would be pretty much not just fing integral to the final work product, but would (hopefully) be the crown jewel in the work resulting product.

Put your thinking cap on on what the expected work product would be. Common sense tells you that Perkins Coie knew what the chain was; or conversely if they did not, then I guess that setup is the perfect fing foil to claim ignorance through the use of a cutout.

Quote:And again, let's go back to the fact that both the DNC and John Podesta had their emails hacked, and none showed evidence that they were involved with selecting or working with Steele. So that helps to corroborate that Podesta was not lying when he said he didn't know Steele was on the dole until Mother Jones broke the story.

DNC does not equal Clinton campaign Lad. Funny that. Very strict and fundamental legal distinction. But please try to conflate the two.

(08-07-2018 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right - which is why I'm not suggesting a crime was committed based on the evidence at hand. Instead, I'm suggesting there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. Why try and make me defend a position I haven't taken?
We know a meeting took place where a conspiracy could very well have been initiated, so reason says that an investigation is warranted, right? We know a situation arose where Trump Jr and other campaign leaders could have very well started a conspiracy, and we know that those members lied about the meeting when it came to light and did not inform the authorities before hand.
So this is my whole point - that the TT meeting alone is enough to warrant the Mueller probe. We deserve an answer as to whether a conspiracy was established that doesn't rely solely on the word of someone who has already lied about the meeting multiple times.
And to your first point, I offered one potential hypothetical as to why an investigation into the Clinton Campaign would be warranted - it wasn't all encompassing. Do you have e

OK, I don't disagree that there is enough to warrant an investigation of that meeting. What I'm not understanding is why investigations in Hillary's campaign are not similarly warranted.

At a minimum there is substantially more actual evidence (not speculation) that Hillary's campaign did in fact conspire with the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to fix the democrat primaries.

And there is ample reason to speculate that her campaign somehow was conspiring with "the Russians" to produce dirt on Trump. What you seem to be saying is that it's a no-no if you do it directly, but okay if it is handled through intermediaries.

(08-07-2018 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 10:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And again, let's go back to the fact that both the DNC and John Podesta had their emails hacked, and none showed evidence that they were involved with selecting or working with Steele. So that helps to corroborate that Podesta was not lying when he said he didn't know Steele was on the dole until Mother Jones broke the story.

DNC does not equal Clinton campaign Lad. Funny that. Very strict and fundamental legal distinction. But please try to conflate the two.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

When you read the bolded, I assume you'll understand what is so funny about your response.

(08-07-2018 11:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right - which is why I'm not suggesting a crime was committed based on the evidence at hand. Instead, I'm suggesting there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. Why try and make me defend a position I haven't taken?
We know a meeting took place where a conspiracy could very well have been initiated, so reason says that an investigation is warranted, right? We know a situation arose where Trump Jr and other campaign leaders could have very well started a conspiracy, and we know that those members lied about the meeting when it came to light and did not inform the authorities before hand.
So this is my whole point - that the TT meeting alone is enough to warrant the Mueller probe. We deserve an answer as to whether a conspiracy was established that doesn't rely solely on the word of someone who has already lied about the meeting multiple times.
And to your first point, I offered one potential hypothetical as to why an investigation into the Clinton Campaign would be warranted - it wasn't all encompassing. Do you have e

OK, I don't disagree that there is enough to warrant an investigation of that meeting. What I'm not understanding is why investigations in Hillary's campaign are not similarly warranted.

At a minimum there is substantially more actual evidence (not speculation) that Hillary's campaign did in fact conspire with the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to fix the democrat primaries.

And there is ample reason to speculate that her campaign somehow was conspiring with "the Russians" to produce dirt on Trump. What you seem to be saying is that it's a no-no if you do it directly, but okay if it is handled through intermediaries.

Go ahead and investigate the primaries.

But there isn't even ample reason to speculate that the campaign was conspiring with the Russians. The only "reason" you can provide is that funds were used by the DNC to pay for opposition research, and that, well, you know, it's Clinton.

There's no evidence that Podesta/Clinton knew that the funds were being used to either hire a British intelligence officer, or use sources in Russia. That point right there is where the Trump campaign loses this battle - Don Jr. published the evidence that shows he knew that the Russian government would be supplying the oppo research.

Or is there something I'm missing? Cus I'm not buying what Tanq is selling based on my experiences working for attorneys and the fact that I don't tell them what driller I hire when I do field work for them.

(08-07-2018 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 11:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right - which is why I'm not suggesting a crime was committed based on the evidence at hand. Instead, I'm suggesting there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. Why try and make me defend a position I haven't taken?
We know a meeting took place where a conspiracy could very well have been initiated, so reason says that an investigation is warranted, right? We know a situation arose where Trump Jr and other campaign leaders could have very well started a conspiracy, and we know that those members lied about the meeting when it came to light and did not inform the authorities before hand.
So this is my whole point - that the TT meeting alone is enough to warrant the Mueller probe. We deserve an answer as to whether a conspiracy was established that doesn't rely solely on the word of someone who has already lied about the meeting multiple times.
And to your first point, I offered one potential hypothetical as to why an investigation into the Clinton Campaign would be warranted - it wasn't all encompassing. Do you have e

OK, I don't disagree that there is enough to warrant an investigation of that meeting. What I'm not understanding is why investigations in Hillary's campaign are not similarly warranted.

At a minimum there is substantially more actual evidence (not speculation) that Hillary's campaign did in fact conspire with the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to fix the democrat primaries.

And there is ample reason to speculate that her campaign somehow was conspiring with "the Russians" to produce dirt on Trump. What you seem to be saying is that it's a no-no if you do it directly, but okay if it is handled through intermediaries.

Go ahead and investigate the primaries.

But there isn't even ample reason to speculate that the campaign was conspiring with the Russians. The only "reason" you can provide is that funds were used by the DNC to pay for opposition research, and that, well, you know, it's Clinton.

There's no evidence that Podesta/Clinton knew that the funds were being used to either hire a British intelligence officer, or use sources in Russia. That point right there is where the Trump campaign loses this battle - Don Jr. published the evidence that shows he knew that the Russian government would be supplying the oppo research.

Or is there something I'm missing? Cus I'm not buying what Tanq is selling based on my experiences working for attorneys and the fact that I don't tell them what driller I hire when I do field work for them.

So the instructions when the they hired Fusion were "Find dirt on Trump and don't tell us how or where you got it"?

Pretty good defense. Works all the time. "I am shocked, shocked, I tell you that our attorneys went to Russia for dirt on Trump. But my hands are clean - I just hired them." "I had no idea that my friend was going to hire a hit man to kill my wife, even though I gave him the money for it. I just wanted it to end. I'm innocent."

Yep, works all the time.

(08-07-2018 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Go ahead and investigate the primaries.

But so far that's not happening.

Quote:But there isn't even ample reason to speculate that the campaign was conspiring with the Russians. The only "reason" you can provide is that funds were used by the DNC to pay for opposition research,

Follow the money. That is enough to get you to investigate. So far there is no money to follow with Trump.

Quote:There's no evidence that Podesta/Clinton knew that the funds were being used to either hire a British intelligence officer, or use sources in Russia.

They knew they were being used for something. They didn't just pay money for nothing. What did they actually know and when did they know it?

Quote:That point right there is where the Trump campaign loses this battle - Don Jr. published the evidence that shows he knew that the Russian government would be supplying the oppo research.

But that gets you to collusion (which is not a crime) and not conspiracy (which is). Conspiracy requires that you actually get the information (which there is no indication that ever happened) or some other act in furtherance of some plan that was hatched in the meeting. What was the plan? And what was done in furtherance of that plan?

(08-07-2018 11:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 10:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 10:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 09:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Say what?
Trump Jr. released his own personal emails in which he welcomed and organized a meeting with a known representative of Russia with the explicit knowledge that the sovereign power of Russia was trying to assist the Trump campaign.
How is that not an indication that someone in the Trump campaign was aware that a sovereign state (and a hostile one at that) was providing, or involved with the gathering of, said information?
edit: and to show that this isn't a double standard, based on what we know, the Clinton Campaign didn't even know Steele had been hired, let alone that he had talked to people in Russia. If the Clinton Campaign had been in the loop, that information would have almost certainly come to light because they, and the DNC, had thousands of emails stolen.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood you to be suggesting that the threshold for investigating the Clinton campaign would be that her campaign was somehow directing the gathering of information "(like say directing Steele to people to talk to)". There is no indication that anyone in Trump's camp went anywhere near that far. In fact, it would appear that whatever information was discussed in the TT meeting had already been gathered.

And having a meeting may or may not have been collusion (which is not a crime) but it does not arise to conspiracy (which is). Conspiracy requires that the meeting produced a plan to do something, and that at least one act in furtherance of that plan was done. I don't see evidence of that yet. Do you? If in fact Don Jr. is correct in stating that no agreement was reached and he walked out, then that closes the door on conspiracy.

I don't know whether Don Jr. is telling the truth, and neither do you.

You're right - which is why I'm not suggesting a crime was committed based on the evidence at hand. Instead, I'm suggesting there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. Why try and make me defend a position I haven't taken?

We know a meeting took place where a conspiracy could very well have been initiated, so reason says that an investigation is warranted, right? We know a situation arose where Trump Jr and other campaign leaders could have very well started a conspiracy, and we know that those members lied about the meeting when it came to light and did not inform the authorities before hand.

So this is my whole point - that the TT meeting alone is enough to warrant the Mueller probe. We deserve an answer as to whether a conspiracy was established that doesn't rely solely on the word of someone who has already lied about the meeting multiple times.

And to your first point, I offered one potential hypothetical as to why an investigation into the Clinton Campaign would be warranted - it wasn't all encompassing. Do you have e

So any single meeting would be cause sufficient for a special prosecutor? That is a huge stretch there Lad.

I guess, lesson being next time use the fing cutouts like law firms to take those meetings. Seems that that route is a major differentiator for some dancing that jig.....

If that single meeting is between a known Russian representative with the express goal of the Russian government aiding said individual in an election, then yes. I don't see that being a huge stretch.

I think the lesson is, next time someone comes to you saying the Russian government wants to help provide dirt on your opponent, you go to the FBI.

Perhaps the fing Clinton campaign should have adhered to that as well.... oh I forgot, using the perfect cutout mechanism obviates them from that responsiblity.....

Ignorance is bliss I guess.

(08-07-2018 12:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 11:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right - which is why I'm not suggesting a crime was committed based on the evidence at hand. Instead, I'm suggesting there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. Why try and make me defend a position I haven't taken?
We know a meeting took place where a conspiracy could very well have been initiated, so reason says that an investigation is warranted, right? We know a situation arose where Trump Jr and other campaign leaders could have very well started a conspiracy, and we know that those members lied about the meeting when it came to light and did not inform the authorities before hand.
So this is my whole point - that the TT meeting alone is enough to warrant the Mueller probe. We deserve an answer as to whether a conspiracy was established that doesn't rely solely on the word of someone who has already lied about the meeting multiple times.
And to your first point, I offered one potential hypothetical as to why an investigation into the Clinton Campaign would be warranted - it wasn't all encompassing. Do you have e

OK, I don't disagree that there is enough to warrant an investigation of that meeting. What I'm not understanding is why investigations in Hillary's campaign are not similarly warranted.

At a minimum there is substantially more actual evidence (not speculation) that Hillary's campaign did in fact conspire with the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to fix the democrat primaries.

And there is ample reason to speculate that her campaign somehow was conspiring with "the Russians" to produce dirt on Trump. What you seem to be saying is that it's a no-no if you do it directly, but okay if it is handled through intermediaries.

Go ahead and investigate the primaries.

But there isn't even ample reason to speculate that the campaign was conspiring with the Russians. The only "reason" you can provide is that funds were used by the DNC to pay for opposition research, and that, well, you know, it's Clinton.

There's no evidence that Podesta/Clinton knew that the funds were being used to either hire a British intelligence officer, or use sources in Russia. That point right there is where the Trump campaign loses this battle - Don Jr. published the evidence that shows he knew that the Russian government would be supplying the oppo research.

Or is there something I'm missing? Cus I'm not buying what Tanq is selling based on my experiences working for attorneys and the fact that I don't tell them what driller I hire when I do field work for them.

So the instructions when the they hired Fusion were "Find dirt on Trump and don't tell us how or where you got it"?

Pretty good defense. Works all the time. "I am shocked, shocked, I tell you that our attorneys went to Russia for dirt on Trump. But my hands are clean - I just hired them." "I had no idea that my friend was going to hire a hit man to kill my wife, even though I gave him the money for it. I just wanted it to end. I'm innocent."

Yep, works all the time.

Yes Lad, your experience with attorneys makes you the fking expert I guess. Your 'experience' and your analogy is fking idiotic.

If the main purpose of them hiring you was the fking hole drilled, then yes, it is their job to know. If the main purpose in them hiring you is *not* in the fking hole drilled, but in the installation of the equipment, then you would be correct that they probably wont care that Pepe the Hole Driller did that ancillary work.

The main purpose and crown jewel of the Fusion excercise was 'dirt'. Whom you hire to collect that dirt is essential to the value the fking work product. Kind of a big difference between what Boris ex-GRU agent says, and what Petrov the shoe shiner on the street, and Natasha the local water polo coach says about Trump relative to that work product, tbh. But if you think that insignificant, I would suggest you eschew corporate intelligence work as a vocation.

And, tbh, attorneys have duty well beyond 'good business practice' to report to the client things that are not ancillary in nature. But please, disbelieve that as well, since you seemingly like to make up legal standards willy nilly here and there at times.....

And, attorneys also have an implied duty to make sure that the 'experts' provided arent chain smoking, liver addled, dyslexic boobs who provide worthless information. Kind a malpractice thingy at issue there....

Put your thinking cap on and stop dancing. I dont know if you are simply dense on this concept or showing real-world naivete in this. When the general contractor is *not* the originator of the main locus of the expected work product, yes, a law firm and attorney expects real fing world information on the fing source of what the general is providing them. No ifs, ands, or buts.

And, to be blunt, this would be general fing common sense to any industry. Your conflation of ancillary product or side action in no way, shape, or form makes sense when you actually ask yourself (and I suggest that you do) *what* the expected work product is, and how is it to be vetted on an ongoing basis.

I guess in LadCo, you would be more than happy to plop down 500k for political info, and want to have no idea at all or any fing clue where the main expected work product comes from. Sounds stupid as **** to me, but thats just me.

(08-07-2018 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 12:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 11:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right - which is why I'm not suggesting a crime was committed based on the evidence at hand. Instead, I'm suggesting there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. Why try and make me defend a position I haven't taken?
We know a meeting took place where a conspiracy could very well have been initiated, so reason says that an investigation is warranted, right? We know a situation arose where Trump Jr and other campaign leaders could have very well started a conspiracy, and we know that those members lied about the meeting when it came to light and did not inform the authorities before hand.
So this is my whole point - that the TT meeting alone is enough to warrant the Mueller probe. We deserve an answer as to whether a conspiracy was established that doesn't rely solely on the word of someone who has already lied about the meeting multiple times.
And to your first point, I offered one potential hypothetical as to why an investigation into the Clinton Campaign would be warranted - it wasn't all encompassing. Do you have e

OK, I don't disagree that there is enough to warrant an investigation of that meeting. What I'm not understanding is why investigations in Hillary's campaign are not similarly warranted.

At a minimum there is substantially more actual evidence (not speculation) that Hillary's campaign did in fact conspire with the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to fix the democrat primaries.

And there is ample reason to speculate that her campaign somehow was conspiring with "the Russians" to produce dirt on Trump. What you seem to be saying is that it's a no-no if you do it directly, but okay if it is handled through intermediaries.

Go ahead and investigate the primaries.

But there isn't even ample reason to speculate that the campaign was conspiring with the Russians. The only "reason" you can provide is that funds were used by the DNC to pay for opposition research, and that, well, you know, it's Clinton.

There's no evidence that Podesta/Clinton knew that the funds were being used to either hire a British intelligence officer, or use sources in Russia. That point right there is where the Trump campaign loses this battle - Don Jr. published the evidence that shows he knew that the Russian government would be supplying the oppo research.

Or is there something I'm missing? Cus I'm not buying what Tanq is selling based on my experiences working for attorneys and the fact that I don't tell them what driller I hire when I do field work for them.

So the instructions when the they hired Fusion were "Find dirt on Trump and don't tell us how or where you got it"?

Pretty good defense. Works all the time. "I am shocked, shocked, I tell you that our attorneys went to Russia for dirt on Trump. But my hands are clean - I just hired them." "I had no idea that my friend was going to hire a hit man to kill my wife, even though I gave him the money for it. I just wanted it to end. I'm innocent."

Yep, works all the time.

Yes Lad, your experience with attorneys makes you the fking expert I guess. Your 'experience' and your analogy is fking idiotic.

If the main purpose of them hiring you was the fking hole drilled, then yes, it is their job to know. The main purpose in them hiring you is *not* in the fking hole drilled, but in the installation of the equipment.

The main purpose and crown jewel of the Fusion excercise was 'dirt'. Whom you hire to collect that dirt is essential knowledge of the fking work product.

Put your thinking cap on and stop dancing. I dont know if you are simply dense on this concept or showing real-world naivete in this. When the general contractor is *not* the originator of the main locus of the expected work product, yes, a law firm and attorney expects real fing world information on the fing source of what the general is providing them. No ifs, ands, or buts.

And, to be blunt, this would be general fing common sense to any industry. Your conflation of ancilalry product or side action in no way, shape, or form makes sense when you actually ask yourself (and I suggest that you do) *what* the expected work product is, and how is it to be vetted on an ongoing basis.

I guess in LadCo, you would be more than happy to plop down 500k for political info, and want to have no idea at all or any fing clue where the main expected work product comes from. Sounds stupid as **** to me, but thats just me.

You're wrong on the analogy. Generally, the main purpose of hiring me is to interpret data that is collected from that hole in the ground - so they trust me to hire a sub to put the hole in the ground correctly, and then for me to interpret the data. The attorney's client does not care at all who puts the hole in the ground.

Not sure exactly how the working relationship between Fusion GPS and Steele's company was, but that doesn't seem to different. Fusion GPS outsources the drilling of the hole (gathering information on Russia related materials). Fusion GPS was providing oppo research on more than just Russia to the Washington Free Beacon and then DNC - it was just Steele's company that was hired to look into Russia.

If anything, doesn't it make sense when asking someone to gather oppo research to not inform you of their methods, so you can at least have plausible deniability with respect to how it was gathered? That's the same thing that may shield Trump himself from any potential issues - he wasn't in the loop, intentionally so.

(08-07-2018 01:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 12:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 11:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  OK, I don't disagree that there is enough to warrant an investigation of that meeting. What I'm not understanding is why investigations in Hillary's campaign are not similarly warranted.

At a minimum there is substantially more actual evidence (not speculation) that Hillary's campaign did in fact conspire with the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to fix the democrat primaries.

And there is ample reason to speculate that her campaign somehow was conspiring with "the Russians" to produce dirt on Trump. What you seem to be saying is that it's a no-no if you do it directly, but okay if it is handled through intermediaries.

Go ahead and investigate the primaries.

But there isn't even ample reason to speculate that the campaign was conspiring with the Russians. The only "reason" you can provide is that funds were used by the DNC to pay for opposition research, and that, well, you know, it's Clinton.

There's no evidence that Podesta/Clinton knew that the funds were being used to either hire a British intelligence officer, or use sources in Russia. That point right there is where the Trump campaign loses this battle - Don Jr. published the evidence that shows he knew that the Russian government would be supplying the oppo research.

Or is there something I'm missing? Cus I'm not buying what Tanq is selling based on my experiences working for attorneys and the fact that I don't tell them what driller I hire when I do field work for them.

So the instructions when the they hired Fusion were "Find dirt on Trump and don't tell us how or where you got it"?

Pretty good defense. Works all the time. "I am shocked, shocked, I tell you that our attorneys went to Russia for dirt on Trump. But my hands are clean - I just hired them." "I had no idea that my friend was going to hire a hit man to kill my wife, even though I gave him the money for it. I just wanted it to end. I'm innocent."

Yep, works all the time.

Yes Lad, your experience with attorneys makes you the fking expert I guess. Your 'experience' and your analogy is fking idiotic.

If the main purpose of them hiring you was the fking hole drilled, then yes, it is their job to know. The main purpose in them hiring you is *not* in the fking hole drilled, but in the installation of the equipment.

The main purpose and crown jewel of the Fusion excercise was 'dirt'. Whom you hire to collect that dirt is essential knowledge of the fking work product.

Put your thinking cap on and stop dancing. I dont know if you are simply dense on this concept or showing real-world naivete in this. When the general contractor is *not* the originator of the main locus of the expected work product, yes, a law firm and attorney expects real fing world information on the fing source of what the general is providing them. No ifs, ands, or buts.

And, to be blunt, this would be general fing common sense to any industry. Your conflation of ancilalry product or side action in no way, shape, or form makes sense when you actually ask yourself (and I suggest that you do) *what* the expected work product is, and how is it to be vetted on an ongoing basis.

I guess in LadCo, you would be more than happy to plop down 500k for political info, and want to have no idea at all or any fing clue where the main expected work product comes from. Sounds stupid as **** to me, but thats just me.

You're wrong on the analogy. Generally, the main purpose of hiring me is to interpret data that is collected from that hole in the ground - so they trust me to hire a sub to put the hole in the ground correctly, and then for me to interpret the data. The attorney's client does not care at all who puts the hole in the ground.

Not sure exactly how the working relationship between Fusion GPS and Steele's company was, but that doesn't seem to different. Fusion GPS outsources the drilling of the hole (gathering information on Russia related materials). Fusion GPS was providing oppo research on more than just Russia to the Washington Free Beacon and then DNC - it was just Steele's company that was hired to look into Russia.

If anything, doesn't it make sense when asking someone to gather oppo research to not inform you of their methods, so you can at least have plausible deniability with respect to how it was gathered? That's the same thing that may shield Trump himself from any potential issues - he wasn't in the loop, intentionally so.

Again -- ask yourself what the main expected work product is/should be. You havent done that. Nor have you seemingly considered it.

As a professional issue, the attorney should absolutely know, and should communicate that to the client.

The alternative is that there is an intentional cutout in place, as was previously suggested a while back.

Each of those is pretty fing scummy for different reasons. And directly implicate a 'knowing' on the Clinton campaign that the activities were just as potentially scummy as what Donlald Jr embarked on, when you stop and think of *why* a cutout was necessary if that alternative is the choice de jour.

Seems to me with one case, the Clinton campaign knowingly accepted *and* acted on foreign based 'intelligence'. With the other, they deliberately shielded themselves from that -- but that begs the question of why they should feel the need to deliberately shield themself *and* still use it.

All you have done in providing the 'shielding' option is to even more directly equate Fusion with the Donald Trump meeting vis a vis the use a foreign nationals. Glad to see that you acknowledge that.

(08-07-2018 01:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Not sure exactly how the working relationship between Fusion GPS and Steele's company was, but that doesn't seem to different. Fusion GPS outsources the drilling of the hole (gathering information on Russia related materials). Fusion GPS was providing oppo research on more than just Russia to the Washington Free Beacon and then DNC - it was just Steele's company that was hired to look into Russia.

Fusion's work product was info. The veracity and provenance of that information is crucial to the value of that info.

The work product of your analogy isnt the 'hole'.

Quote:If anything, doesn't it make sense when asking someone to gather oppo research to not inform you of their methods, so you can at least have plausible deniability with respect to how it was gathered? That's the same thing that may shield Trump himself from any potential issues - he wasn't in the loop, intentionally so.

I would prefer the provenance of the info be somewhat decent; there is a big fing difference between the info provided by Boris the ex-GRU agent and Petrov the ****-shoveler. Just saying.

If you dont see the difference because of the sourcing, well, not my problem.

If you dont see the relative value of the info due to sourcing, again, not my problem.

I dont think Perkins Coie's 'value add' would be very good if they plunked out 500k without the ability to discern. And again, there were several payments from Perkins to the Fusion crowd. I guess if you are A-OK with plunking out *multiple* payments to a 'blind hole' that is your subjective value proposition. Sounds pretty fing stupid to me without at least some level of oversight. Or, there is a pretty good legal reason not to -- which is addressed in the post above mind you.

I guess cutouts make everything hunky dory to you; they dont for me.

Quote:Why do angry people overestimate their intelligence? Neuroticism as a suppressor of the association between Trait-Anger and subjectively assessed intelligence


Trait-Anger and Neuroticism are substantially inter-correlated positively. However, there is some theoretical and empirical research that supports the notion that Trait-Anger and Neuroticism are influenced by several processes differentially. For instance, Trait-Anger is linked to optimistic bias, increased sense of control, approach motivation and high Narcissism. In contrast, Neuroticism correlates with pessimism, low sense of control, withdrawal motivation and low Narcissism. Building on these previous findings, we hypothesized that Trait-Anger and Neuroticism would be positively and negatively, respectively, associated with subjectively assessed intelligence (SAI). Furthermore, we expected that these two traits would act as mutual suppressors in predicting SAI. The results of two studies (ns = 303 and 225) supported our hypotheses. Trait-Anger was positively and Neuroticism negatively related to SAI, even after controlling for objective intelligence. These results are consistent with previous research which suggests that SAI is more substantially associated with personality than objective intelligence. Additionally, in study 2, we found that Narcissism mediated (partially) the relationship between Trait-Anger and SAI. In the discussion, we suggest that there might be two faces of Trait-Anger: one related to anxiety and one to overconfidence. Finally, a potential role of intelligence positive illusions in Trait-Anger is proposed.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...18300102#!

Slight change of subject, but Trump is now on Twitter explicitly calling for NFL players to be suspended, without pay, if they don't stand for the national anthem.

Regardless of where one stands on the matter, is this not wading into 1st Amendment infringement, since the head of the executive branch is explicitly advocating for/against an individuals right to speech? If the NFL wanted to fine the individual or suspend them without pay under their own volition, I would imagine it isn't a free speech violation. But does the pressuring of the POTUS push it into that category since he is, in effect, the head of the government?

(08-10-2018 10:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Slight change of subject, but Trump is now on Twitter explicitly calling for NFL players to be suspended, without pay, if they don't stand for the national anthem.

Regardless of where one stands on the matter, is this not wading into 1st Amendment infringement, since the head of the executive branch is explicitly advocating for/against an individuals right to speech? If the NFL wanted to fine the individual or suspend them without pay under their own volition, I would imagine it isn't a free speech violation. But does the pressuring of the POTUS push it into that category since he is, in effect, the head of the government?

No. He's entitled to an opinion on the subject like any other fan.

(08-10-2018 10:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Slight change of subject, but Trump is now on Twitter explicitly calling for NFL players to be suspended, without pay, if they don't stand for the national anthem.

This is the kind of stupid stuff that I wish he wouldn't do. But it's what you get with populists.

There's a great story about another populist and football that involves Rice. Huey Long was a huge LSU fan and supporter. When LSU came to Houston to play Rice, he used to march in front of the LSU band from the old Rice Hotel down Main Street to the stadium for the game.

Anyway, it was the 1930s, Louisiana was in pretty tough financial shape, an Rice was scheduled to play LSU in Baton Rouge. Ringling Brothers circus announced that they were going to be playing in Baton Rouge on the same weekend. Fearing that the circus would hurt the gate for the football game, Huey called the legislature into special session to pass a law requiring a 30-day quarantine for any animals brought into Louisiana from out of state. Ringling Brothers realized that this would make their visit impossible, so they cancelled.

I've never confirmed this, so I won't vouch for its truthfulness, but it is a good story and is very typical of Huey and other populists.

(08-10-2018 11:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 10:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Slight change of subject, but Trump is now on Twitter explicitly calling for NFL players to be suspended, without pay, if they don't stand for the national anthem.

This is the kind of stupid stuff that I wish he wouldn't do. But it's what you get with populists.

There's a great story about another populist and football that involves Rice. Huey Long was a huge LSU fan and supporter. When LSU came to Houston to play Rice, he used to march in front of the LSU band from the old Rice Hotel down Main Street to the stadium for the game.

Anyway, it was the 1930s, Louisiana was in pretty tough financial shape, an Rice was scheduled to play LSU in Baton Rouge. Ringling Brothers circus announced that they were going to be playing in Baton Rouge on the same weekend. Fearing that the circus would hurt the gate for the football game, Huey called the legislature into special session to pass a law requiring a 30-day quarantine for any animals brought into Louisiana from out of state. Ringling Brothers realized that this would make their visit impossible, so they cancelled.

I've never confirmed this, so I won't vouch for its truthfulness, but it is a good story and is very typical of Huey and other populists.

I've heard it in a slightly different version.

When he realized they wouldn't change their date, he said he understood.

But he then informed them that Louisiana had a "dip" law for any livestock entering the state.

"Let me know when you do the lions. I sure want to see that."

I've seen a program for an LSU AT Rice game with Huey's picture on the cover.

(08-10-2018 11:14 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 10:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Slight change of subject, but Trump is now on Twitter explicitly calling for NFL players to be suspended, without pay, if they don't stand for the national anthem.

Regardless of where one stands on the matter, is this not wading into 1st Amendment infringement, since the head of the executive branch is explicitly advocating for/against an individuals right to speech? If the NFL wanted to fine the individual or suspend them without pay under their own volition, I would imagine it isn't a free speech violation. But does the pressuring of the POTUS push it into that category since he is, in effect, the head of the government?

No. He's entitled to an opinion on the subject like any other fan.

That's not really true.

18 U.S. Code § 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch

(a)Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—(1)takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2)influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(b)In this section, the term “covered government person” means—(1)a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;
(2)an employee of either House of Congress; or
(3)the President, Vice President, an employee of the United StatesPostal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).