(08-10-2018 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 01:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 12:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(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).

Yes it is true.
You need to read a tad more carefully. I dont see an 'official act' anywhere there. Nor do I see any particular 'partisan political affiliation.'
Hate to tell you every word is important, not just the phrase 'attempt to influence .... an employment decision' in isolation.
Further you missed the adjective 'solely' in the statute as well.

No, it's not reading more carefully- I've done that. I'll fully agree that maybe I need a better understanding of legal definitions.
I took (a)(2) to suggest that one doesn't have to actually do an "official act," just threaten another's "official act." In this case, would this not be a private employer's ability to discipline/fire their employees?

Nope, it would not be.

And that's where you go wrong. The rest of this over-long discussion becomes very quickly irrelevant when you consider that.

(08-10-2018 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 01:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 12:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(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).

Yes it is true.
You need to read a tad more carefully. I dont see an 'official act' anywhere there. Nor do I see any particular 'partisan political affiliation.'
Hate to tell you every word is important, not just the phrase 'attempt to influence .... an employment decision' in isolation.
Further you missed the adjective 'solely' in the statute as well.

No, it's not reading more carefully- I've done that. I'll fully agree that maybe I need a better understanding of legal definitions.
I took (a)(2) to suggest that one doesn't have to actually do an "official act," just threaten another's "official act." In this case, would this not be a private employer's ability to discipline/fire their employees?

Nope, it would not be. You need to check the definition of "official action."

And that's where you go wrong. The rest of this over-long discussion becomes very quickly irrelevant when you consider that.

Plus, "solely" limits the meaning of "on the basis of partisan political affiliation" very narrowly.

Tanq pointed both of these out to you long ago, but you don't seem to have comprehended.

(08-13-2018 04:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 01:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 12:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

Yes it is true.
You need to read a tad more carefully. I dont see an 'official act' anywhere there. Nor do I see any particular 'partisan political affiliation.'
Hate to tell you every word is important, not just the phrase 'attempt to influence .... an employment decision' in isolation.
Further you missed the adjective 'solely' in the statute as well.

No, it's not reading more carefully- I've done that. I'll fully agree that maybe I need a better understanding of legal definitions.
I took (a)(2) to suggest that one doesn't have to actually do an "official act," just threaten another's "official act." In this case, would this not be a private employer's ability to discipline/fire their employees?

Nope, it would not be. You need to check the definition of "official action."

And that's where you go wrong. The rest of this over-long discussion becomes very quickly irrelevant when you consider that.

Plus, "solely" limits the meaning of "on the basis of partisan political affiliation" very narrowly.

Tanq pointed both of these out to you long ago, but you don't seem to have comprehended.

Yeah,ok. Tanq already clarified one thing for me (in response to the post you quoted) that I never tried to refute refute. In that post you quote, I state how I understood the statute withe respect to "official act" and then Tanq corrected me. What later post of mine suggested I didn't understand Tanq's explanation?

Looking at the second half, and the portion of the statute where the word "solely" is used... I very quickly demonstrated that I did understand that the word solely limited the ability to use that statute. What I kept trying to understand better was what the limiting portion of the text, the phrase "partisan political affiliation," meant in practice. See my comment here:

Quote:Is political affiliation so narrowly defined that this statute can only be applied if an action is taken against someone of a defined political affiliation? Or is it broad enough to cover a political action (e.g. protesting)?

Tanq's response kind of answers that question by saying that there is little case law to point to, but that's about it. So my question still stands - the phrase solely limits the statute to only be applied when a government official acts "solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation," what exactly does partisan political affiliation mean? Can that be applied to partisan issue or does it only apply to an identified political party? I don't see a definition of partisan political affiliation in the statute, which is why I ask.

At this point, I'm not trying to argue if Trump violated this statute - I understand why he hasn't (from, at a minimum, the official action perspective). I'm trying to understand how the second necessary portion of that statute would be applied and if "partisan political affiliation" only applies to one's political party, and not any political causes.

(08-13-2018 05:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

Quote:Is political affiliation so narrowly defined that this statute can only be applied if an action is taken against someone of a defined political affiliation? Or is it broad enough to cover a political action (e.g. protesting)?

Tanq's response kind of answers that question by saying that there is little case law to point to, but that's about it. So my question still stands - the phrase solely limits the statute to only be applied when a government official acts "solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation," what exactly does partisan political affiliation mean? Can that be applied to partisan issue or does it only apply to an identified political party? I don't see a definition of partisan political affiliation in the statute, which is why I ask.

At this point, I'm not trying to argue if Trump violated this statute - I understand why he hasn't (from, at a minimum, the official action perspective). I'm trying to understand how the second necessary portion of that statute would be applied and if "partisan political affiliation" only applies to one's political party, and not any political causes.

Lad, when a term is undefined in a statute, you look at the caselaw and the legislative history to ferret that out.

I did a quick search on the caselaw a year ago when this jewel showed up.

There are more FARA cases out there (a whole six of them, seven with Manafort) than this one. There are exactly six more of those than this one.

To be honest, if you were a paying client I would do the next step: the legislative history. But, I dont have the time nor the inclination to do so.

So my advice would be on this: this is pretty much an untested law. The phrase you want clarification is loosey goosey. My best guess is that every word is important, if they meant loose political goals they simply could have have omitted the term 'partisan'. And, my sense when you talk of 'partisan politics' in the everyday sense you are talking about red ant republicans fighting blue ant democrats. So my best guess is that this would be limited to party affiliation.

Even with that backdrop, that amazingly narrow intent is constricted even more because of the word 'solely'.

And both of those words should be a first step lesson in parsing statutes --- if you take the phrase 'partisan politics' and say it is non-party politics, you have made the word 'partisan' superfluous.

And while you got mad as **** when I said 'every word matters', that is one of the backdrops to that. And to the inclusion of the 'extreme' word "solely".

In short, the liberal legal pundits were doing their readers a huge disfavor with this trope.

(08-13-2018 05:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tanq's response kind of answers that question by saying that there is little case law to point to, but that's about it. So my question still stands - the phrase solely limits the statute to only be applied when a government official acts "solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation," what exactly does partisan political affiliation mean? Can that be applied to partisan issue or does it only apply to an identified political party? I don't see a definition of partisan political affiliation in the statute, which is why I ask.
At this point, I'm not trying to argue if Trump violated this statute - I understand why he hasn't (from, at a minimum, the official action perspective). I'm trying to understand how the second necessary portion of that statute would be applied and if "partisan political affiliation" only applies to one's political party, and not any political causes.

My only point was that once the meaning of "official act" was clarified, none of the rest of the discussion is relevant, except as an esoteric discussion of legalistic minutiae. Tanq's point that there is little case law very likely indicates that what it means hasn't been decided yet. There are lots of words in the law that we don't know what they mean yet. Hell, we thought the Obamacare mandate was not a tax until the Chief Justice told us otherwise.

(08-13-2018 06:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-13-2018 05:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tanq's response kind of answers that question by saying that there is little case law to point to, but that's about it. So my question still stands - the phrase solely limits the statute to only be applied when a government official acts "solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation," what exactly does partisan political affiliation mean? Can that be applied to partisan issue or does it only apply to an identified political party? I don't see a definition of partisan political affiliation in the statute, which is why I ask.
At this point, I'm not trying to argue if Trump violated this statute - I understand why he hasn't (from, at a minimum, the official action perspective). I'm trying to understand how the second necessary portion of that statute would be applied and if "partisan political affiliation" only applies to one's political party, and not any political causes.

My only point was that once the meaning of "official act" was clarified, none of the rest of the discussion is relevant, except as an esoteric discussion of legalistic minutiae. Tanq's point that there is little case law very likely indicates that what it means hasn't been decided yet. There are lots of words in the law that we don't know what they mean yet. Hell, we thought the Obamacare mandate was not a tax until the Chief Justice told us otherwise.

Yep, once there isnt any "official act" no reason to bootstrap this any further. But this one is just so short in so many different ways ---


Lad, no disrespect, but you fell for the 'neat sounding phrase that seems to fit on a phrase basis' that masquerades as legal analysis in the media. I understand that a very superficial glance makes this one 'kind of interesting' re: Trump and the NFL -- the problem I have is the hacks that have tossed it out there as such. And, people get pulled in by this sort of stuff.

Funny thing I read a comment on the Florida 'Stand Your Ground' law on another section of this website, and the dude cited the Florida version from two years ago. Because he read somewhere that told him that it what it was.

But as I said, the liberal legal pundits did their readership a terrible favor by tossing them this turd nugget to repeat. If you do a google on the Code and section number, the Google search brings up every one of these 'legal scholars' putting this thing out for the last year and a half ---- and zero hits for caselaw and/or law review articles.

But, the limited free use to Westlaw still comes in handy every now and then....

A nibblet to add to the sub-discussion that percolates here from time to time about the propriety of 'tagging' the liberal/progressive/Democratic views as being somewhat closely aligned with socialist thought:

Breakdown on viewpoints on capitalism and socialism by party affiliation

Quote: Democrats' and Republicans' sharply contrasting views of the two economic systems are not unexpected, given the history of the two parties. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents have notably positive views of capitalism and negative views of socialism. Democrats, by contrast, are less unified in their views, but by 10 percentage points are more positive about socialism than about capitalism.

(08-14-2018 10:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  A nibblet to add to the sub-discussion that percolates here from time to time about the propriety of 'tagging' the liberal/progressive/Democratic views as being somewhat closely aligned with socialist thought:

Breakdown on viewpoints on capitalism and socialism by party affiliation

Quote: Democrats' and Republicans' sharply contrasting views of the two economic systems are not unexpected, given the history of the two parties. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents have notably positive views of capitalism and negative views of socialism. Democrats, by contrast, are less unified in their views, but by 10 percentage points are more positive about socialism than about capitalism.

I think this tidbit is interesting as well:

Quote:Americans aged 18 to 29 are as positive about socialism (51%) as they are about capitalism (45%). This represents a 12-point decline in young adults' positive views of capitalism in just the past two years and a marked shift since 2010, when 68% viewed it positively. Meanwhile, young people's views of socialism have fluctuated somewhat from year to year, but the 51% with a positive view today is the same as in 2010.

And as the article says, they do not define socialism/capitalism. So I think what you get is a lot of people applying the definition that they want. My gut would be that Dems are inclined to think about social democracy (a la Scandinavia), while Reps are inclined to think about actual socialism. And then vice versa for capitalism, where Dems are more inclined to think of crony capitalism, and Reps are more inclined to think of just capitalism.

The article gets into this a bit at the end:

Quote:Socialism as a concept is open to many interpretations. Gallup was describing socialism in questions asked in the 1940s in terms of government ownership of businesses -- something that Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and most other left-leaning Democratic candidates have not advocated. Instead, socialism today seems to embody sets of programs by which the government helps regulate and in some instances run and pay for social programs focused on basic population needs in health, education, housing and employment.

Socialism clearly sounds better as a concept to young people than to those who are older, as it has over the past eight years. Evidence for this is found in the strong support younger voters gave Bernie Sanders during his 2016 presidential campaign (despite his septuagenarian status) and in the candidacy of Ocasio-Cortez (who is herself 28 years old). Whether the appeal of socialism to young adults is a standard function of idealism at that age that dissipates as one grows older, or will turn out to be a more permanent part of the political beliefs held by the cohort of millennials who have come of age over the past decade, remains to be seen.

Interesting article, thanks for posting.

I think lots of people who favor socialism vote Democrat as the lesser evil, while lots of people (like myself) who favor capitalism vote Republican as the lesser evil.

(08-14-2018 10:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 10:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:   Breakdown on viewpoints on capitalism and socialism by party affiliation

Quote:Instead, socialism today seems to embody sets of programs by which the government helps regulate and in some instances run and pay for social programs focused on basic population needs in health, education, housing and employment.

There is a name for private ownership with heavy government regulation. That name is fascism. A lot of European "social democrats" really embrace a lot of fascist ideas. Not the militarism and nationalism that went with Nazism, but economically they are pretty fascist. Of course, given its history, Europe is probably always going to be more comfortable with fascism than the USA.

One thing Europe is not is heavily redistributionist. Programs are generally not means-tested, so everybody benefits, and taxes are much flatter and more regressive than here in the USA. I'm actually pretty comfortable with the European economic approach--everybody benefits, and everybody pays. I'm not comfortable with their level of regulation, particularly since the EU government has come into existence and grown in overreach. That's were their fascist heritage of overly centralized power comes into play. Build a safety net, and then let the market work. "Taxing the rich" is not the only--or best--way to provide a safety net.

To me socialism starts when redistribution becomes the primary driver. I would put Bernie and most democrats in that group. You can rob from Peter to pay Paul and buy Paul's vote. Or, "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you can keep 'em voting democrat." Distributing the golden eggs is fine, but when you overdo it and kill the goose, you are SOL. The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of somebody else's money.

I guess one part of the US capitalism/socialism debate that I find rather disconcerting is that every time someone extols the advantages of our system, the left chimes in with, "it's a mix of capitalism and socialism," but as soon as we start talking about problems, it's, "unbridled capitalism." It's one or the other, and whatever good or bad goes with the same system. I personally think it's a mix that would do better with less socialism and more capitalism.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/...setup.html

When will the Clinton campaign be investigated for collusion again? Oh wait, rule of law means nothing in this gas bag country, only who you don't like.

Yep, it’s all coming together. I just worry about the willingness of this Congress to investigate Clinton for anything.

(08-14-2018 09:27 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/...setup.html

When will the Clinton campaign be investigated for collusion again? Oh wait, rule of law means nothing in this gas bag country, only who you don't like.

Ah yes, the grand conspiracy that the FBI and Clinton waited until after the election to release damaging information on Trump (but did not wait until after the election to inform the American people that Clinton was back under investigation), so that they could install Mike Pence in the Oval Office. Brilliant!

The only way that garbage website makes sense (I’ll go into issues I found with their reporting if you want, which only took me reading a source they linked to), is if the entire Clinton/FBI cabal was so incompetent as to not realize that, if they had damaging information as part of a conspiracy, they should use it before the election, because after the election it would do no good in putting Clinton into a seat of power.

(08-14-2018 10:14 PM)At Ease Wrote:  Yep, it’s all coming together. I just worry about the willingness of this Congress to investigate Clinton for anything.

At this point, I say let them. My gut say I t’ll be Benghazi part II all over again, and if it isn’t, then some justice will hopefully be served.

Plus, it means we may actually find out if there really is a pee tape.

(08-15-2018 06:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 09:27 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/...setup.html

When will the Clinton campaign be investigated for collusion again? Oh wait, rule of law means nothing in this gas bag country, only who you don't like.

Ah yes, the grand conspiracy that the FBI and Clinton waited until after the election to release damaging information on Trump (but did not wait until after the election to inform the American people that Clinton was back under investigation), so that they could install Mike Pence in the Oval Office. Brilliant!

The only way that garbage website makes sense (I’ll go into issues I found with their reporting if you want, which only took me reading a source they linked to), is if the entire Clinton/FBI cabal was so incompetent as to not realize that, if they had damaging information as part of a conspiracy, they should use it before the election, because after the election it would do no good in putting Clinton into a seat of power.

I do wish you would be consistent in your use of logic. You sound like an alien abduction advocate making fun of the people who think the moon landing was a hoax

(08-15-2018 08:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 06:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 09:27 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/...setup.html

When will the Clinton campaign be investigated for collusion again? Oh wait, rule of law means nothing in this gas bag country, only who you don't like.

Ah yes, the grand conspiracy that the FBI and Clinton waited until after the election to release damaging information on Trump (but did not wait until after the election to inform the American people that Clinton was back under investigation), so that they could install Mike Pence in the Oval Office. Brilliant!

The only way that garbage website makes sense (I’ll go into issues I found with their reporting if you want, which only took me reading a source they linked to), is if the entire Clinton/FBI cabal was so incompetent as to not realize that, if they had damaging information as part of a conspiracy, they should use it before the election, because after the election it would do no good in putting Clinton into a seat of power.

I do wish you would be consistent in your use of logic. You sound like an alien abduction advocate making fun of the people who think the moon landing was a hoax

I don't see how my logic is inconsistent in this instance. Care to point out the inconsitency?

The logic I used is that if there was a conspiracy to try and damage a campaign, the conspiracy would do so during the actual campaign, and not after.

So let's apply that to the Trump campaign. If the Trump campaign were involved in a conspiracy with the Russian government to release stolen emails to attempt to damage the Clinton campaign, they would do so during the campaign. OO, were damaging emails related to the Clinton campaign released during the campaign? This isn't saying that the Trump campaign MUST have been involved, but rather that there is reason to suspect they may have been, or at least that there doesn't exist a result that says the underlying conspiracy would have been illogical.

(08-15-2018 06:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 09:27 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/...setup.html
When will the Clinton campaign be investigated for collusion again? Oh wait, rule of law means nothing in this gas bag country, only who you don't like.

Ah yes, the grand conspiracy that the FBI and Clinton waited until after the election to release damaging information on Trump (but did not wait until after the election to inform the American people that Clinton was back under investigation), so that they could install Mike Pence in the Oval Office. Brilliant!

Remember that at the time nobody, including the Clinton campaign, thought that Donald Trump had even the slightest chance of winning. We all turned on the news on election night to see a coronation, just waiting to see how wide the margin was going to be. My best expected outcome was for republicans to hang into the senate to continue gridlock, but I wasn't optimistic that would happen (and it barely did).

In that context, it would not have made sense to use something you didn't need. Better to hang onto it for use later.

And do we know exactly who "knew" what, and when did they "know" it? I don't recall a time line, if I ever saw one, but I believe work on the dossier continued after the election, and I'm not sure what parts of the dossier came when.

It's also like intel, when you release info you potentially reveal sources, and I don't know how that would have played. It could certainly have backfired. "Typical Clintons, using shady means to achieve power again," and that could possibly cost her a sure thing. Maybe it was better to use this info as te "insurance policy" as Strzok appeared to suggest.

I can see every reason why something like this would have been withheld, given the scenario that existed at the time. In hindsight, no. But if Hillary had the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I'm sure she would have done a lot of things differently. I'm not sure Trump, even with 20/20 hindsight, would ever do anything differently, and that worries me a bit.

One thing for sure, the hatred for Hillary among evangelicals is so high that I don't think even public release of the pee tapes (if there actually are any) would cause them to do anything but vote for Trump. Evangelicals I know (and coming from the Deep South I know a lot of them, and I think they are a representative sample) saw the 2016 election as a terrible sinner versus the devil herself. And they will vote sinner over devil 1001 times out of 1000.

I didn't see that, by the way, I saw it more as sinner versus sinner. I think Hillary, particularly with a republican senate or congress to limit her, would just be more of the same, a slow crawl down the wrong track. I saw Trump as a bull in the China shop who would force some change in direction, but potentially very risky. It's like the frog in the kettle, do you sit and take the slowly increasing water temperature, or do you jump out and maybe land in the fire? At my age I was okay with the slow boil, figuring I would be dead before we cooked. But now we have Trump, for better or worse.

As far as Pence, I think most republicans in congress would actually prefer Pence, but...

This time around, I expect the senate to stay republican, maybe even pick up a seat or two, because the seats up for grabs are those who rode Obama's coattails in 2012. I see the house as a tossup. If democrats take the house, I see them passing articles of impeachment as their first order of business. In that case, I can't imagine one republican senator voting to put Nancy Pelosi one heartbeat closer to the White House, and there is no scenario where democrats would get the 2/3 of senate seats necessary to convict and remove. We will be more divided than ever.

(08-15-2018 09:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 06:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 09:27 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/...setup.html
When will the Clinton campaign be investigated for collusion again? Oh wait, rule of law means nothing in this gas bag country, only who you don't like.

Ah yes, the grand conspiracy that the FBI and Clinton waited until after the election to release damaging information on Trump (but did not wait until after the election to inform the American people that Clinton was back under investigation), so that they could install Mike Pence in the Oval Office. Brilliant!

Remember that at the time nobody, including the Clinton campaign, thought that Donald Trump had even the slightest chance of winning. We all turned on the news on election night to see a coronation, just waiting to see how wide the margin was going to be. My best expected outcome was for republicans to hang into the senate to continue gridlock, but I wasn't optimistic that would happen (and it barely did).

In that context, it would not have made sense to use something you didn't need. Better to hang onto it for use later.

And do we know exactly who "knew" what, and when did they "know" it? I don't recall a time line, if I ever saw one, but I believe work on the dossier continued after the election, and I'm not sure what parts of the dossier came when.

It's also like intel, when you release info you potentially reveal sources, and I don't know how that would have played. It could certainly have backfired. "Typical Clintons, using shady means to achieve power again," and that could possibly cost her a sure thing. Maybe it was better to use this info as te "insurance policy" as Strzok appeared to suggest.

I can see every reason why something like this would have been withheld, given the scenario that existed at the time. In hindsight, no. But if Hillary had the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I'm sure she would have done a lot of things differently. I'm not sure Trump, even with 20/20 hindsight, would ever do anything differently, and that worries me a bit.

One thing for sure, the hatred for Hillary among evangelicals is so high that I don't think even public release of the pee tapes (if there actually are any) would cause them to do anything but vote for Trump. Evangelicals I know (and coming from the Deep South I know a lot of them, and I think they are a representative sample) saw the 2016 election as a terrible sinner versus the devil herself. And they will vote sinner over devil 1001 times out of 1000.

I didn't see that, by the way, I saw it more as sinner versus sinner. I think Hillary, particularly with a republican senate or congress to limit her, would just be more of the same, a slow crawl down the wrong track. I saw Trump as a bull in the China shop who would force some change in direction, but potentially very risky. It's like the frog in the kettle, do you sit and take the slowly increasing water temperature, or do you jump out and maybe land in the fire? At my age I was okay with the slow boil, figuring I would be dead before we cooked. But now we have Trump, for better or worse.

As far as Pence, I think most republicans in congress would actually prefer Pence, but...

This time around, I expect the senate to stay republican, maybe even pick up a seat or two, because the seats up for grabs are those who rode Obama's coattails in 2012. I see the house as a tossup. If democrats take the house, I see them passing articles of impeachment as their first order of business. In that case, I can't imagine one republican senator voting to put Nancy Pelosi one heartbeat closer to the White House, and there is no scenario where democrats would get the 2/3 of senate seats necessary to convict and remove. We will be more divided than ever.

I'm not denying that the dossier wasn't be compiled by Steele and funded by the DNC as opposition research. I'm saying that there is no logic behind a conspiracy that suggests the FBI was in on the game as a way to keep Trump out of the White House.

We know the FBI had information before the election, so if there had been a conspiracy involving the FBI to keep Trump out of the WH, the FBI would have used all of their resources to try and do that. Instead they kept mum about the investigation that was ongoing during the election. An act that directly counters the conspiracy claim.

Your response is full of a number of salient points about the election, but none touch on the original post, which was about the FBI trying to unseat Trump and prevent him from being in the WH, except maybe that they felt Clinton would win. But then why go through the trouble of being part of a conspiracy, only to not use the material you conspired to create?

(08-15-2018 08:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 08:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 06:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 09:27 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/...setup.html
When will the Clinton campaign be investigated for collusion again? Oh wait, rule of law means nothing in this gas bag country, only who you don't like.

Ah yes, the grand conspiracy that the FBI and Clinton waited until after the election to release damaging information on Trump (but did not wait until after the election to inform the American people that Clinton was back under investigation), so that they could install Mike Pence in the Oval Office. Brilliant!
The only way that garbage website makes sense (I’ll go into issues I found with their reporting if you want, which only took me reading a source they linked to), is if the entire Clinton/FBI cabal was so incompetent as to not realize that, if they had damaging information as part of a conspiracy, they should use it before the election, because after the election it would do no good in putting Clinton into a seat of power.

I do wish you would be consistent in your use of logic. You sound like an alien abduction advocate making fun of the people who think the moon landing was a hoax

I don't see how my logic is inconsistent in this instance. Care to point out the inconsistency?
The logic I used is that if there was a conspiracy to try and damage a campaign, the conspiracy would do so during the actual campaign, and not after.
So let's apply that to the Trump campaign. If the Trump campaign were involved in a conspiracy with the Russian government to release stolen emails to attempt to damage the Clinton campaign, they would do so during the campaign. OO, were damaging emails related to the Clinton campaign released during the campaign? This isn't saying that the Trump campaign MUST have been involved, but rather that there is reason to suspect they may have been, or at least that there doesn't exist a result that says the underlying conspiracy would have been illogical.

What about the possibility that it was Strzok's "insurance policy"? We don't need it to win the election, which was a foregone conclusion, but it could be useful later. Maybe, once she is on the throne, we use it to discredit any opposition. Or maybe we are worried that releasing it could backfire and ruin a sure thing. Or maybe, just maybe, it is truly the "insurance policy" in case the unthinkable happens.

Of, course, the foregone conclusion was wrong. But back when it was a foregone conclusion, lots of things made sense.

(08-15-2018 09:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 08:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 08:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 06:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 09:27 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/...setup.html
When will the Clinton campaign be investigated for collusion again? Oh wait, rule of law means nothing in this gas bag country, only who you don't like.

Ah yes, the grand conspiracy that the FBI and Clinton waited until after the election to release damaging information on Trump (but did not wait until after the election to inform the American people that Clinton was back under investigation), so that they could install Mike Pence in the Oval Office. Brilliant!
The only way that garbage website makes sense (I’ll go into issues I found with their reporting if you want, which only took me reading a source they linked to), is if the entire Clinton/FBI cabal was so incompetent as to not realize that, if they had damaging information as part of a conspiracy, they should use it before the election, because after the election it would do no good in putting Clinton into a seat of power.

I do wish you would be consistent in your use of logic. You sound like an alien abduction advocate making fun of the people who think the moon landing was a hoax

I don't see how my logic is inconsistent in this instance. Care to point out the inconsistency?
The logic I used is that if there was a conspiracy to try and damage a campaign, the conspiracy would do so during the actual campaign, and not after.
So let's apply that to the Trump campaign. If the Trump campaign were involved in a conspiracy with the Russian government to release stolen emails to attempt to damage the Clinton campaign, they would do so during the campaign. OO, were damaging emails related to the Clinton campaign released during the campaign? This isn't saying that the Trump campaign MUST have been involved, but rather that there is reason to suspect they may have been, or at least that there doesn't exist a result that says the underlying conspiracy would have been illogical.

What about the possibility that it was Strzok's "insurance policy"? We don't need it to win the election, which was a foregone conclusion, but it could be useful later. Maybe, once she is on the throne, we use it to discredit any opposition. Or maybe we are worried that releasing it could backfire and ruin a sure thing. Or maybe, just maybe, it is truly the "insurance policy" in case the unthinkable happens.

Of, course, the foregone conclusion was wrong. But back when it was a foregone conclusion, lots of things made sense.

I'm wondering, did you read what I'm responding to?

The theory posited is that the Trump Tower meeting was actually a set up by the Clinton campaign and DOJ officials. The article posted relies on the idea that Fusion GPS started the conspiracy in 2014, a year before Trump even made his intention to run public. It leaves out that timeline when it tried to suggest that the Russian lawyer was directed by Fusion GPS because of how it blows up their conspiracy theory. So while that same lawyer had worked with Fusion GPS on a prior case in 2014 (which actually generated some, if not all of the potential dirt on Clinton she proposed to have), there's really no evidence to suggest that this was part of a conspiracy.

But let's get to the Strozk insurance policy quote - with regards to the idea that the FBI and Clinton campaign, prior to the election conspired to keep Trump from the oval office, there's no bearing. There's too much evidence to refute that they actively conspired together (Strozk leading the reopening of the Clinton investigation during the election, Comey making that information public, the FBI keeping the Trump investigation quiet).

You're right that Strozk might have been suggesting that the information may be used after Trump is elected, but how does that show that there was a conspiracy between the Clinton campaign and the FBI? I can see how it could suggest an FBI agent was biased against Trump, but where is the connection to the Clinton campaign?