(01-09-2019 09:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 08:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 08:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To the former, my assumption is that if the special counsel is saying Manafort lied about this interaction, they have evidence that he lied about the interaction.
And to the latter, that's the point of the conversation, right? This accusation now brings to light the possibility that the former campaign manager transferred useful data about the 2016 election to someone with ties to Russian intelligence. It's not a smoking gun, but is it the first public evidence from the special counsel (which was released accidentally) that suggests a Trump campaign official was working with the Russians. It's not probable that Manafort would share campaign information with Kilimnik for ***** and giggles.
And that's my point, which I've gotten away from. There is now clear evidence that the special counsel is looking at collusion/conspiracy committed by a Trump campaign official. I can't think of another, logical reason that they would have accused Manafort of lying about this act.

The assumption in your first paragraph suggests that you've never dealt with plea bargaining situations. Investigators and prosecutors make unsupported allegations all the time.

The possibility was always there, at least the allegation or innuendo of such possibility. I don't really see what this allegation adds, except fuel to keep the innuendo mill going.

Let's compare to Watergate. In Watergate we had a crime--the break-in--from the get-go. And Nixon resigned in August before the midterms. Here we still don't ave a crime, and we are coming up on six months past the point where Nixon resigned. That was in investigation into a crime. This is still an investigation in search of a crime.

And as far as all this "we don't know what Mueller has" stuff, consider this. Mueller took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, domestic and foreign." If he had any evidence that Trump was somehow an illegitimate president, then would not that oath obligate him to come forward immediately? He hasn't done so yet. The most likely explanation is that he doesn't have any such evidence yet. They may find such evidence, and when they do, I will not be arguing that Trump should somehow be exempt from the law. But they haven't yet, which clearly keeps alive te possibility that they won't.

I dont think that many people really care about or understand that distinction, Owl.

I guess we should just ignore the fact that there was a crime that we all know about and that has even been referenced in the thread. The DNC and Posesta were both hacked and had their emails stolen and published.

Regardless of how easy that was to do, those emails were stolen through fraudulent means.

Goody. You reference a 'crime' with no bearing at all to the thrust of the investigation.

Hmmm.....

The Watergate counsel was predicated on..... investigating the break-in at the Watergate suite. And it investigated the..... break-in.

The Whitewater counsel was predicated on...... investigating the known fraud of the Whitewater development which directly implicated potential issues with Bill *and* Hillary. And it investigated..... the Whitewater development.

The Plame counsel was predicated.... a known illegal actus of disclosing classified information which potentially at the outset implicated members of the Administration. And it investigated..... the act of the Plame disclosure and the implications in the VP office.

I can go on for another 5 or 6 here, or do you get the point?

Now you claim:

The Mueller Counsel was predicated on....... the act of the DNC being hacked (according to you). And it investigated....... Flynn, Manaforth, pee pee allegations, nude selfies on a company server, Cohen, Comey firing, Carter Page, Rick Gates, money laundering, failure to file a form, more money laundering based on the failure to file a form, tax evasion, Skadden Arps, Van der Zwaan.....

Kind of a stream of consciousness linkage there between your supposed predicate and, wouldnt you agree?

Yeah, that's right - Ken Starr only investigated Whitewater, not Lewinsky, or Paula Jones, or the White House travel office fiasco, or the alleged improper collection of Republican appointee FBI files. I totally remember that.

(01-09-2019 09:28 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 09:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Goody. You reference a 'crime' with no bearing at all to the thrust of the investigation.
Hmmm.....
The Watergate counsel was predicated on..... investigating the break-in at the Watergate suite. And it investigated the..... break-in.
The Whitewater counsel was predicated on...... investigating the known fraud of the Whitewater development which directly implicated potential issues with Bill *and* Hillary. And it investigated..... the Whitewater development.
The Plame counsel was predicated.... a known illegal actus of disclosing classified information which potentially at the outset implicated members of the Administration. And it investigated..... the act of the Plame disclosure and the implications in the VP office.
I can go on for another 5 or 6 here, or do you get the point?
Now you claim:
The Mueller Counsel was predicated on....... the act of the DNC being hacked (according to you). And it investigated....... Flynn, Manaforth, pee pee allegations, nude selfies on a company server, Cohen, Comey firing, Carter Page, Rick Gates, money laundering, failure to file a form, more money laundering based on the failure to file a form, tax evasion, Skadden Arps, Van der Zwaan.....
Kind of a stream of consciousness linkage there between your supposed predicate and, wouldnt you agree?

Yeah, that's right - Ken Starr only investigated Whitewater, not Lewinsky, or Paula Jones, or the White House travel office fiasco, or the alleged improper collection of Republican appointee FBI files. I totally remember that.

That exposes a problem with the special counsel process. The mandate is too broad, basically a witch hunt with no limitation on scope, time, or expense. They should be given a very specific scope with a specified time and expense budget. They should be required to report progress at regular intervals to congress, and in the event they uncover related issues, they should come back for a scope modification with appropriate time and budget increases.

A special counsel with a focused mandate is a useful apparatus. An unlimited special counsel creates more problems than it solves. If you give them an unlimited budget, they will exceed it.

(01-09-2019 09:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 09:28 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 09:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Goody. You reference a 'crime' with no bearing at all to the thrust of the investigation.
Hmmm.....
The Watergate counsel was predicated on..... investigating the break-in at the Watergate suite. And it investigated the..... break-in.
The Whitewater counsel was predicated on...... investigating the known fraud of the Whitewater development which directly implicated potential issues with Bill *and* Hillary. And it investigated..... the Whitewater development.
The Plame counsel was predicated.... a known illegal actus of disclosing classified information which potentially at the outset implicated members of the Administration. And it investigated..... the act of the Plame disclosure and the implications in the VP office.
I can go on for another 5 or 6 here, or do you get the point?
Now you claim:
The Mueller Counsel was predicated on....... the act of the DNC being hacked (according to you). And it investigated....... Flynn, Manaforth, pee pee allegations, nude selfies on a company server, Cohen, Comey firing, Carter Page, Rick Gates, money laundering, failure to file a form, more money laundering based on the failure to file a form, tax evasion, Skadden Arps, Van der Zwaan.....
Kind of a stream of consciousness linkage there between your supposed predicate and, wouldnt you agree?

Yeah, that's right - Ken Starr only investigated Whitewater, not Lewinsky, or Paula Jones, or the White House travel office fiasco, or the alleged improper collection of Republican appointee FBI files. I totally remember that.

That exposes a problem with the special counsel process. The mandate is too broad, basically a witch hunt with no limitation on scope, time, or expense. They should be given a very specific scope with a specified time and expense budget. They should be required to report progress at regular intervals to congress, and in the event they uncover related issues, they should come back for a scope modification with appropriate time and budget increases.

A special counsel with a focused mandate is a useful apparatus. An unlimited special counsel creates more problems than it solves. If you give them an unlimited budget, they will exceed it.

Agreed. Which is why it made sense for Mueller to turn over the possible crimes committed by Cohen with respect to campaign finance violations. Those were clearly out of their discretion.

I think some sort of oversight, as you suggest, would be a good idea. The issue is if you have bad faith actors within the group that would torpedo the ongoing investigation when they were briefed.

(01-09-2019 09:28 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 09:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 08:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 08:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The assumption in your first paragraph suggests that you've never dealt with plea bargaining situations. Investigators and prosecutors make unsupported allegations all the time.

The possibility was always there, at least the allegation or innuendo of such possibility. I don't really see what this allegation adds, except fuel to keep the innuendo mill going.

Let's compare to Watergate. In Watergate we had a crime--the break-in--from the get-go. And Nixon resigned in August before the midterms. Here we still don't ave a crime, and we are coming up on six months past the point where Nixon resigned. That was in investigation into a crime. This is still an investigation in search of a crime.

And as far as all this "we don't know what Mueller has" stuff, consider this. Mueller took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, domestic and foreign." If he had any evidence that Trump was somehow an illegitimate president, then would not that oath obligate him to come forward immediately? He hasn't done so yet. The most likely explanation is that he doesn't have any such evidence yet. They may find such evidence, and when they do, I will not be arguing that Trump should somehow be exempt from the law. But they haven't yet, which clearly keeps alive te possibility that they won't.

I dont think that many people really care about or understand that distinction, Owl.

I guess we should just ignore the fact that there was a crime that we all know about and that has even been referenced in the thread. The DNC and Posesta were both hacked and had their emails stolen and published.

Regardless of how easy that was to do, those emails were stolen through fraudulent means.

Goody. You reference a 'crime' with no bearing at all to the thrust of the investigation.

Hmmm.....

The Watergate counsel was predicated on..... investigating the break-in at the Watergate suite. And it investigated the..... break-in.

The Whitewater counsel was predicated on...... investigating the known fraud of the Whitewater development which directly implicated potential issues with Bill *and* Hillary. And it investigated..... the Whitewater development.

The Plame counsel was predicated.... a known illegal actus of disclosing classified information which potentially at the outset implicated members of the Administration. And it investigated..... the act of the Plame disclosure and the implications in the VP office.

I can go on for another 5 or 6 here, or do you get the point?

Now you claim:

The Mueller Counsel was predicated on....... the act of the DNC being hacked (according to you). And it investigated....... Flynn, Manaforth, pee pee allegations, nude selfies on a company server, Cohen, Comey firing, Carter Page, Rick Gates, money laundering, failure to file a form, more money laundering based on the failure to file a form, tax evasion, Skadden Arps, Van der Zwaan.....

Kind of a stream of consciousness linkage there between your supposed predicate and, wouldnt you agree?

Yeah, that's right - Ken Starr only investigated Whitewater, not Lewinsky, or Paula Jones, or the White House travel office fiasco, or the alleged improper collection of Republican appointee FBI files. I totally remember that.

The original mandate was *solely* Whitewater. *After* it was revealed that a possible crime had been committed by the President (i.e. perjury), it was clear (with the crime in mind) that a Special Prosecutor was needed.

Clinton's own Justice Department recommended that the Starr team be retasked since it was already there.

At least read your history before complaining.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/p...ae1d5a7ab0

Quote:On Jan. 16, Reno submitted a petition, excerpted below, to the three-judge panel that oversees independent counsel investigations: {} It would be appropriate for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to handle this matter because he is currently investigating similar allegations involving possible efforts to influence witnesses in his own investigation.

Quote:The panel granted Reno's request the same day

But, as Owl# states, it probably would have been better to impanel an entirely separate Special Counsel, as in the 'bridge' time there were the appearances of a 'morphing' investigation.

But it is clear that if Starr had not assumed the Lewinsky investigation, a separate one would have been created. Along the manner I highlighted above. Irrespective of your whining about it.

Thank you for the opportunity to buttress the point I made in the sequence.

(01-09-2019 09:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 08:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 08:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 06:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To the former, my assumption is that if the special counsel is saying Manafort lied about this interaction, they have evidence that he lied about the interaction.
And to the latter, that's the point of the conversation, right? This accusation now brings to light the possibility that the former campaign manager transferred useful data about the 2016 election to someone with ties to Russian intelligence. It's not a smoking gun, but is it the first public evidence from the special counsel (which was released accidentally) that suggests a Trump campaign official was working with the Russians. It's not probable that Manafort would share campaign information with Kilimnik for ***** and giggles.
And that's my point, which I've gotten away from. There is now clear evidence that the special counsel is looking at collusion/conspiracy committed by a Trump campaign official. I can't think of another, logical reason that they would have accused Manafort of lying about this act.

The assumption in your first paragraph suggests that you've never dealt with plea bargaining situations. Investigators and prosecutors make unsupported allegations all the time.

The possibility was always there, at least the allegation or innuendo of such possibility. I don't really see what this allegation adds, except fuel to keep the innuendo mill going.

Let's compare to Watergate. In Watergate we had a crime--the break-in--from the get-go. And Nixon resigned in August before the midterms. Here we still don't ave a crime, and we are coming up on six months past the point where Nixon resigned. That was in investigation into a crime. This is still an investigation in search of a crime.

And as far as all this "we don't know what Mueller has" stuff, consider this. Mueller took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, domestic and foreign." If he had any evidence that Trump was somehow an illegitimate president, then would not that oath obligate him to come forward immediately? He hasn't done so yet. The most likely explanation is that he doesn't have any such evidence yet. They may find such evidence, and when they do, I will not be arguing that Trump should somehow be exempt from the law. But they haven't yet, which clearly keeps alive te possibility that they won't.

I dont think that many people really care about or understand that distinction, Owl.

I guess we should just ignore the fact that there was a crime that we all know about and that has even been referenced in the thread. The DNC and Posesta were both hacked and had their emails stolen and published.

Regardless of how easy that was to do, those emails were stolen through fraudulent means.

Goody. You reference a 'crime' with no bearing at all to the thrust of the investigation.

Hmmm.....

The Watergate counsel was predicated on..... investigating the break-in at the Watergate suite. And it investigated the..... break-in.

The Whitewater counsel was predicated on...... investigating the known fraud of the Whitewater development which directly implicated potential issues with Bill *and* Hillary. And it investigated..... the Whitewater development.

The Plame counsel was predicated.... a known illegal actus of disclosing classified information which potentially at the outset implicated members of the Administration. And it investigated..... the act of the Plame disclosure and the implications in the VP office.

I can go on for another 5 or 6 here, or do you get the point?

Now you claim:

The Mueller Counsel was predicated on....... the act of the DNC being hacked (according to you). And it investigated....... Flynn, Manaforth, pee pee allegations, nude selfies on a company server, Cohen, Comey firing, Carter Page, Rick Gates, money laundering, failure to file a form, more money laundering based on the failure to file a form, tax evasion, Skadden Arps, Van der Zwaan.....

Kind of a stream of consciousness linkage there between your supposed predicate and, wouldnt you agree?

Using the Whitewater investigation to try and prove the point you’re trying to make is hilarious. Raucously hilarious.

But you’re mischaracterizing the Mueller investigation at the end. It isn’t investigating the hacking, it’s investigating whether the hacking was part of something bigger. A crime started the entire mess - the stealing of personal communications and then publishing of them. The other issue, which I don’t think is a crime but is obviously an act of aggression at the least, was the overt use of misinformation and propaganda by Russia to attempt to influence the election. So that, coupled with numerous other actions taken by Trump and his administration or campaign officials created suspicion that there may have been collusion/cooperation between the Trump campaign and these foreign agents.

So you have a crime for sure. You have aggressive actions by a hostile foreign nation. And then you have a group of people who are connected pretty darn closely to this (including one who publicly asked for help). So why wouldn’t you investigate a possible connection/collusion?

(01-09-2019 11:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Using the Whitewater investigation to try and prove the point you’re trying to make is hilarious. Raucously hilarious.

I suggest you read the actual history. I have made it easy for you to do. It is posted above.

Why doncha come back after you have read it, lad. Or not. Might be "Racuously Hilarious". I look forward to your book report.

I find it "Racuously Hilarious" that Janet Reno not only requested the continuance of the Whitewater into the Lewinsky investigation, but also found a legal requirement to name the crime and issue:

Quote:The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate to the maximum extent authorized by the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994 whether Monica Lewinsky or others suborned perjury, obstructed justice, intimidated witnesses, or otherwise violated federal law

Raucously hilarious I say!

Quote:But you’re mischaracterizing the Mueller investigation at the end. It isn’t investigating the hacking,

Glad you caught that. That is the crime you flap your arms about earlier. You squawk about that being the predicate crime just a couple of posts ago. I was taking *your* arm flap to demonstrate the idiocy of using it as such. Glad you note it seems out of place. That was the point.

So I assume that we are now to believe that your breathless proffer of the hacking as the predicate 'what is the fing *crime* that is being investigated' isnt so accurate. Thats good. But as to my comment to Owl#s, I doubt seriously you will point to a specific crime that is the explicit underpinning of the Mueller investigation --- like every fing other Special Counsel has been.

Now that you admit that your preliminary squawk about the hacking not being the crime that is the explicit underpinning of the Mueller Counsel Team, then *what* is the crime being investigated?

You previously state categorically that the predicate crime is the 'hacking', now its *not* the hacking. You are seemingly keeping all of your bases covered, for what its worth. Let's see what else you serve up for the melange 'definition de jour', shall we?

Quote:it’s investigating whether the hacking was part of something bigger. A crime started the entire mess - the stealing of personal communications and then publishing of them.

Oh goody, a complete revision of the standard --- one that conveniently bootstraps in sync with the kneejerks. But now you seemingly return to the predicate crime (the crime that *should* be the explicit goal and reason for the Special Counsel) being the 'hacking'. Good god, first its the hacking, then its not, then it is. Three stances in two posts, two stances in two paragraphs. The gyrations start....

So as to the bolded, the 'crime' that "started" the entire mess and is the legal predicate for the Mueller team --- where the **** is the investigation of it? You have seemingly forgotten that this crime that you so desperately need to predicate Team Mueller seems to be --- uh --- missing from the investigation. Funny that. Not just funny, but Raucously hilarious!

Looks like we got a Raucously hilarious case of a 'lad cha-cha-cha' starting here.

Quote:The other issue, which I don’t think is a crime but is obviously an act of aggression at the least,

Oh, now an 'other issue' to be considered, yet.... funny I doubt that this will be a crime focus. Wait, now its a 'not a crime' as the basis for an investigation. Got it.... I...... think....

cha cha cha, flap flap flap.

lad: the statement of initiation of *every* Special Counsel investigation states a 'crime' that should be investigated. Even the raucously hilarious Whitewater 'morphed to Lewinsky' --- Reno herself morphed it explicitly for an explicit investigatory power for an explicitly stated crime. As bad as it was to morph it in that manner, at least she didnt do a 'dash of this, a dab of that, and insta-presto there is a specific ground' (a crime, by necessity in the statute) for 'looking into' as you seemingly have started to thrash around here.

Quote:So that, coupled with numerous other actions taken by Trump and his administration or campaign officials created suspicion that there may have been collusion/cooperation between the Trump campaign and these foreign agents.

So to pull the plug on your so finely crafted 'coupled with/created suspicion/*may* have' Rube Goldberg construction, still no basis crime, right?

Quote:So you have a crime for sure.

Okay..... *back* to a base crime to form the predicate of the investigation. So tell me this super duper secret -- what is it? But a *crime* FOR SURE nonetheless!!! Please! No more drama! Tell us what it IS!!!

Quote:You have aggressive actions by a hostile foreign nation.

Aggressive actions is now your predicate crime? Uh...... okay..... Have to make sure to get going on that Iran Mueller team if *that* is now the base predicate crime.

Wow, I am getting tired with this many balls in the air with this juggling act.....

Quote: And then you have a group of people who are connected pretty darn closely to this (including one who publicly asked for help). So why wouldn’t you investigate a possible connection/collusion?

Because you havent named one base crime as the predicate? Just various piles of paint thrown against a canvas.....

Im surprised you havent taken flight with all that Raucously hilarious arm flapping in that post..... You may have just outdone yourself. Good job.

And, I am glad to help you clear up some historical issues on the Whitewater investigation and the Lewinsky investigation. I am sure you are cognizant now that it was actually *two* investigations, with *two* specifically delineated base crimes to investigate, and *one* horrendously lazy AG who seemed to think it would be a good idea to have the team already in place on investigation 1 to simply take over the investigation 2. But at least the horrendously lazy AG had the sense to specifically *authorize* the investigation 2.
And, Heavens to Betsy! She *even* *specifically and explicitly* named the *crime* that investigation 2 was to look into in.

Or is the horrendously lazy AG simply laughing herself at the Raucously hilarious direction that she pointed and authorized the existing team to, or just because she got to name a predicate crime to be investigated for the second time?

So lad, now that you know the nuts and bolts (nuts and bolts tend to be important, kind of like normal definitions of words, mind you) of the direction that Whitewater was officially steered into the Lewinsky investigation, do you still find it so Raucously hilarious? The world is curious..... Maybe we have just witnessed the re-definition of the term 'specific crime to be investigated' much like we have previously and not that long ago have seen with 'subsidy', 'redistribution', and 'competition'.

The Mueller investigation mandate is looking ever more and more like, “Orange man bad. Go prove it.”

(01-09-2019 11:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 09:28 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 09:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 08:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 08:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont think that many people really care about or understand that distinction, Owl.

I guess we should just ignore the fact that there was a crime that we all know about and that has even been referenced in the thread. The DNC and Posesta were both hacked and had their emails stolen and published.

Regardless of how easy that was to do, those emails were stolen through fraudulent means.

Goody. You reference a 'crime' with no bearing at all to the thrust of the investigation.

Hmmm.....

The Watergate counsel was predicated on..... investigating the break-in at the Watergate suite. And it investigated the..... break-in.

The Whitewater counsel was predicated on...... investigating the known fraud of the Whitewater development which directly implicated potential issues with Bill *and* Hillary. And it investigated..... the Whitewater development.

The Plame counsel was predicated.... a known illegal actus of disclosing classified information which potentially at the outset implicated members of the Administration. And it investigated..... the act of the Plame disclosure and the implications in the VP office.

I can go on for another 5 or 6 here, or do you get the point?

Now you claim:

The Mueller Counsel was predicated on....... the act of the DNC being hacked (according to you). And it investigated....... Flynn, Manaforth, pee pee allegations, nude selfies on a company server, Cohen, Comey firing, Carter Page, Rick Gates, money laundering, failure to file a form, more money laundering based on the failure to file a form, tax evasion, Skadden Arps, Van der Zwaan.....

Kind of a stream of consciousness linkage there between your supposed predicate and, wouldnt you agree?

Yeah, that's right - Ken Starr only investigated Whitewater, not Lewinsky, or Paula Jones, or the White House travel office fiasco, or the alleged improper collection of Republican appointee FBI files. I totally remember that.

The original mandate was *solely* Whitewater. *After* it was revealed that a possible crime had been committed by the President (i.e. perjury), it was clear (with the crime in mind) that a Special Prosecutor was needed.

Clinton's own Justice Department recommended that the Starr team be retasked since it was already there.

At least read your history before complaining.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/p...ae1d5a7ab0

Quote:On Jan. 16, Reno submitted a petition, excerpted below, to the three-judge panel that oversees independent counsel investigations: {} It would be appropriate for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to handle this matter because he is currently investigating similar allegations involving possible efforts to influence witnesses in his own investigation.

Quote:The panel granted Reno's request the same day

But, as Owl# states, it probably would have been better to impanel an entirely separate Special Counsel, as in the 'bridge' time there were the appearances of a 'morphing' investigation.

But it is clear that if Starr had not assumed the Lewinsky investigation, a separate one would have been created. Along the manner I highlighted above. Irrespective of your whining about it.

Thank you for the opportunity to buttress the point I made in the sequence.

Yeah, and the original mandate here was *solely* "any links and or coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" and "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." *After* it was revealed that possible crimes had been committed by numerous campaign associates of the President (i.e. perjury, obstruction of justice, money laundering, etc.), it was clear that investigating these items fell under the second item of Mueller's investigatory authority, without need of any "expansion" of Mueller's authority. It is also clear that if Mueller had not assumed the investigation of these items, a separate prosecuting entity (the U.S. Attorney, perhaps) would have done so, as has happened with a number of items already. Irrespective of your whining about it.

Let me know when you find the document "expanding" Starr's investigation to cover the travel office and FBI file stuff. Oh, and Vince Foster and the Rose Law Firm.

Look, it may very well be that Mueller ends all this by saying, "Yeah, there's nothing here vis-a-vis Trump himself. Some of his campaign people made really dumb choices and may have engaged in some individualized coordination with Russians for their own personal gain, but the campaign itself didn't do anything." If so, that's totally fine. But I'm hard-pressed to see how anything Mueller has done so far outstrips the relatively broad mandate he was given by "[Trump's] own Justice Department," to use your phrasing.

(01-10-2019 07:45 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Yeah, and the original mandate here was *solely* "any links and or coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" and "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." *After* it was revealed that possible crimes had been committed by numerous campaign associates of the President (i.e. perjury, obstruction of justice, money laundering, etc.), it was clear that investigating these items fell under the second item of Mueller's investigatory authority, without need of any "expansion" of Mueller's authority. It is also clear that if Mueller had not assumed the investigation of these items, a separate prosecuting entity (the U.S. Attorney, perhaps) would have done so, as has happened with a number of items already. Irrespective of your whining about it.
Let me know when you find the document "expanding" Starr's investigation to cover the travel office and FBI file stuff. Oh, and Vince Foster and the Rose Law Firm.
Look, it may very well be that Mueller ends all this by saying, "Yeah, there's nothing here vis-a-vis Trump himself. Some of his campaign people made really dumb choices and may have engaged in some individualized coordination with Russians for their own personal gain, but the campaign itself didn't do anything." If so, that's totally fine.

I think that's looking more and more like a very likely outcome. I'm glad you're fine with that. I don't think many on the left will be.

Quote:But I'm hard-pressed to see how anything Mueller has done so far outstrips the relatively broad mandate he was given by "[Trump's] own Justice Department," to use your phrasing.

The mandate was basically, "Orange man bad. Go figure out how." I don't think that sort of broad mandate is appropriate. Watergate did not drag on because there was clearly a crime and it was investigating that crime. Monicagate turned into an investigation in search of a crime. This is more of that. I think some republicans saw Monicagate as payback for Watergate, and I think many democrats see this as payback for Monicagate.

I would take some issue with the characterization of "[Trump's] own Justice Department." The people calling the shots are carer bureaucrats. They owe their allegiance to the bureaucracy, not to Trump. To be clear, that's the bureaucracy, not the Constitution. Probably more correctly, they think the bureaucracy IS the Constitution.

(01-10-2019 12:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 11:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Using the Whitewater investigation to try and prove the point you’re trying to make is hilarious. Raucously hilarious.

I suggest you read the actual history. I have made it easy for you to do. It is posted above.

Why doncha come back after you have read it, lad. Or not. Might be "Racuously Hilarious". I look forward to your book report.

I find it "Racuously Hilarious" that Janet Reno not only requested the continuance of the Whitewater into the Lewinsky investigation, but also found a legal requirement to name the crime and issue:

Quote:The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate to the maximum extent authorized by the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994 whether Monica Lewinsky or others suborned perjury, obstructed justice, intimidated witnesses, or otherwise violated federal law

Raucously hilarious I say!

Quote:But you’re mischaracterizing the Mueller investigation at the end. It isn’t investigating the hacking,

Glad you caught that. That is the crime you flap your arms about earlier. You squawk about that being the predicate crime just a couple of posts ago. I was taking *your* arm flap to demonstrate the idiocy of using it as such. Glad you note it seems out of place. That was the point.

So I assume that we are now to believe that your breathless proffer of the hacking as the predicate 'what is the fing *crime* that is being investigated' isnt so accurate. Thats good. But as to my comment to Owl#s, I doubt seriously you will point to a specific crime that is the explicit underpinning of the Mueller investigation --- like every fing other Special Counsel has been.

Now that you admit that your preliminary squawk about the hacking not being the crime that is the explicit underpinning of the Mueller Counsel Team, then *what* is the crime being investigated?

You previously state categorically that the predicate crime is the 'hacking', now its *not* the hacking. You are seemingly keeping all of your bases covered, for what its worth. Let's see what else you serve up for the melange 'definition de jour', shall we?

Quote:it’s investigating whether the hacking was part of something bigger. A crime started the entire mess - the stealing of personal communications and then publishing of them.

Oh goody, a complete revision of the standard --- one that conveniently bootstraps in sync with the kneejerks. But now you seemingly return to the predicate crime (the crime that *should* be the explicit goal and reason for the Special Counsel) being the 'hacking'. Good god, first its the hacking, then its not, then it is. Three stances in two posts, two stances in two paragraphs. The gyrations start....

So as to the bolded, the 'crime' that "started" the entire mess and is the legal predicate for the Mueller team --- where the **** is the investigation of it? You have seemingly forgotten that this crime that you so desperately need to predicate Team Mueller seems to be --- uh --- missing from the investigation. Funny that. Not just funny, but Raucously hilarious!

Looks like we got a Raucously hilarious case of a 'lad cha-cha-cha' starting here.

Quote:The other issue, which I don’t think is a crime but is obviously an act of aggression at the least,

Oh, now an 'other issue' to be considered, yet.... funny I doubt that this will be a crime focus. Wait, now its a 'not a crime' as the basis for an investigation. Got it.... I...... think....

cha cha cha, flap flap flap.

lad: the statement of initiation of *every* Special Counsel investigation states a 'crime' that should be investigated. Even the raucously hilarious Whitewater 'morphed to Lewinsky' --- Reno herself morphed it explicitly for an explicit investigatory power for an explicitly stated crime. As bad as it was to morph it in that manner, at least she didnt do a 'dash of this, a dab of that, and insta-presto there is a specific ground' (a crime, by necessity in the statute) for 'looking into' as you seemingly have started to thrash around here.

Quote:So that, coupled with numerous other actions taken by Trump and his administration or campaign officials created suspicion that there may have been collusion/cooperation between the Trump campaign and these foreign agents.

So to pull the plug on your so finely crafted 'coupled with/created suspicion/*may* have' Rube Goldberg construction, still no basis crime, right?

Quote:So you have a crime for sure.

Okay..... *back* to a base crime to form the predicate of the investigation. So tell me this super duper secret -- what is it? But a *crime* FOR SURE nonetheless!!! Please! No more drama! Tell us what it IS!!!

Quote:You have aggressive actions by a hostile foreign nation.

Aggressive actions is now your predicate crime? Uh...... okay..... Have to make sure to get going on that Iran Mueller team if *that* is now the base predicate crime.

Wow, I am getting tired with this many balls in the air with this juggling act.....

Quote: And then you have a group of people who are connected pretty darn closely to this (including one who publicly asked for help). So why wouldn’t you investigate a possible connection/collusion?

Because you havent named one base crime as the predicate? Just various piles of paint thrown against a canvas.....

Im surprised you havent taken flight with all that Raucously hilarious arm flapping in that post..... You may have just outdone yourself. Good job.

And, I am glad to help you clear up some historical issues on the Whitewater investigation and the Lewinsky investigation. I am sure you are cognizant now that it was actually *two* investigations, with *two* specifically delineated base crimes to investigate, and *one* horrendously lazy AG who seemed to think it would be a good idea to have the team already in place on investigation 1 to simply take over the investigation 2. But at least the horrendously lazy AG had the sense to specifically *authorize* the investigation 2.
And, Heavens to Betsy! She *even* *specifically and explicitly* named the *crime* that investigation 2 was to look into in.

Or is the horrendously lazy AG simply laughing herself at the Raucously hilarious direction that she pointed and authorized the existing team to, or just because she got to name a predicate crime to be investigated for the second time?

So lad, now that you know the nuts and bolts (nuts and bolts tend to be important, kind of like normal definitions of words, mind you) of the direction that Whitewater was officially steered into the Lewinsky investigation, do you still find it so Raucously hilarious? The world is curious..... Maybe we have just witnessed the re-definition of the term 'specific crime to be investigated' much like we have previously and not that long ago have seen with 'subsidy', 'redistribution', and 'competition'.

Still raucously hilarious because the Whitewater investigation morphed into the Lewinsky investigation. As was pointed out in another post, the Mueller investigation was always allowed to follow any criminal leads it uncovered during the initial investigation of any ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.

So I don't see how the transformation of the Whitewater investigation is any different than the current investigation with respect to crimes not directly related to the original investigation.

Or do you need a separate directive outlining specific investigate focuses to sleep well at night?

(01-10-2019 10:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 07:45 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Yeah, and the original mandate here was *solely* "any links and or coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" and "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." *After* it was revealed that possible crimes had been committed by numerous campaign associates of the President (i.e. perjury, obstruction of justice, money laundering, etc.), it was clear that investigating these items fell under the second item of Mueller's investigatory authority, without need of any "expansion" of Mueller's authority. It is also clear that if Mueller had not assumed the investigation of these items, a separate prosecuting entity (the U.S. Attorney, perhaps) would have done so, as has happened with a number of items already. Irrespective of your whining about it.
Let me know when you find the document "expanding" Starr's investigation to cover the travel office and FBI file stuff. Oh, and Vince Foster and the Rose Law Firm.
Look, it may very well be that Mueller ends all this by saying, "Yeah, there's nothing here vis-a-vis Trump himself. Some of his campaign people made really dumb choices and may have engaged in some individualized coordination with Russians for their own personal gain, but the campaign itself didn't do anything." If so, that's totally fine.

I think that's looking more and more like a very likely outcome. I'm glad you're fine with that. I don't think many on the left will be.

Quote:But I'm hard-pressed to see how anything Mueller has done so far outstrips the relatively broad mandate he was given by "[Trump's] own Justice Department," to use your phrasing.

The mandate was basically, "Orange man bad. Go figure out how." I don't think that sort of broad mandate is appropriate. Watergate did not drag on because there was clearly a crime and it was investigating that crime. Monicagate turned into an investigation in search of a crime. This is more of that. I think some republicans saw Monicagate as payback for Watergate, and I think many democrats see this as payback for Monicagate.

I would take some issue with the characterization of "[Trump's] own Justice Department." The people calling the shots are carer bureaucrats. They owe their allegiance to the bureaucracy, not to Trump. To be clear, that's the bureaucracy, not the Constitution. Probably more correctly, they think the bureaucracy IS the Constitution.

While I understand the criticism of a broad mandate, how would you have handled a situation where, say the mandate was hyper focused (on say communications between Trump campaign and Russia regarding hacked emails), which then uncovered evidence of other crimes? Would you have required the special counsel to get public approval to proceed from the DOJ?

(01-10-2019 07:45 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Yeah, and the original mandate here was *solely* "any links and or coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" and "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." *After* it was revealed that possible crimes had been committed by numerous campaign associates of the President (i.e. perjury, obstruction of justice, money laundering, etc.), it was clear that investigating these items fell under the second item of Mueller's investigatory authority, without need of any "expansion" of Mueller's authority. It is also clear that if Mueller had not assumed the investigation of these items, a separate prosecuting entity (the U.S. Attorney, perhaps) would have done so, as has happened with a number of items already.

My problem is with the idiots who claim these "second item" results show first item relevance, as in "they have found plenty of witches".

If you investigate any group of people, from the Trump campaign to the Clinton Campaign to the ASPCA, you will find people who will tell untruths under pressure or who have committed infractions in the past. No group can withstand this type of scrutiny and avoid "second item" problems, especially when the counsel uses these second item infractions to apply pressure in their search for first item infractions.

I long ago predicted this investigation would result in lots of little fish being caught for little crimes, and no collusion found. Looks that way still to me. But every time somebody is indicted for unpaid parking tickets or for lying about paying them, there is a certain segment of the population that goes all aquiver with the anticipation that now we are getting somewhere.

Collusion is a stupid thing to be investigating. If the Russians had altered the emails to make Hillary or her staff look culpable of crimes, that would be more credible. But they didn't. The worst revelation, AFAIK, is that the DNC helped her with debate questions - a crime against liberal Democrats, but not one against the country. So why collude and then do nothing? Also, nobody can come up with any quid pro quo. The collusion theory is a house of twigs, but evidently a lot of people think twigs are bricks. Democrat people.

Did Russia interfere? Almost certainly yes, in minor and ineffectual ways. Did they do so with guidance and help of the Trump campaign? Almost certainly no. Was their interference totally against Hillary? No. Did it change one vote in ANY direction? None are alleged, none are demonstrated. There is no way that Trump is so dad gum smart that he could foresee that publishing Hillary's yoga schedules would sway Wisconsin a year later. Or maybe you guys think he is that smart, that prescient, that brilliant. I don't.

And maybe, also, you think that Putin did his ineffectual interference in hopes of a reward - or with a predetermined reward. If so, what was it? Why would the author of the The Art of the Deal make such a bad one, that he got some FaceBook ads and gave up...what? why would Putin make such a deal? why would anybody?

Collusion is a fantasy, created by a shocked and butt hurt bunch of losers to explain how they lost a race they thought was in the bag. Nothing could be the fault of them or of Hillary, and since many of them don"t believe in God, it also could not be an Act of God. Must be the bogeyman, must be something rotten, let's investigate and string up the MFers, we know they're guilty, what else could it be?

Amazing how many Rice grads will subscribe to this conspiracy theory. Aren't we supposed to be smart and analytical? The hysteria to find these imaginary colluders reminds me of the McCarthy era fever to find and root out the communist sympathizers.

(01-10-2019 10:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 07:45 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Yeah, and the original mandate here was *solely* "any links and or coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" and "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." *After* it was revealed that possible crimes had been committed by numerous campaign associates of the President (i.e. perjury, obstruction of justice, money laundering, etc.), it was clear that investigating these items fell under the second item of Mueller's investigatory authority, without need of any "expansion" of Mueller's authority. It is also clear that if Mueller had not assumed the investigation of these items, a separate prosecuting entity (the U.S. Attorney, perhaps) would have done so, as has happened with a number of items already.

My problem is with the idiots who claim these "second item" results show first item relevance, as in "they have found plenty of witches".
If you investigate any group of people, from the Trump campaign to the Clinton Campaign to the ASPCA, you will find people who will tell untruths under pressure or who have committed infractions in the past. No group can withstand this type of scrutiny and avoid "second item" problems, especially when the counsel uses these second item infractions to apply pressure in their search for first item infractions.
I long ago predicted this investigation would result in lots of little fish being caught for little crimes, and no collusion found. Looks that way still to me. But every time somebody is indicted for unpaid parking tickets or for lying about paying them, there is a certain segment of the population that goes all aquiver with the anticipation that now we are getting somewhere.
Collusion is a stupid thing to be investigating. If the Russians had altered the emails to make Hillary or her staff look culpable of crimes, that would be more credible. But they didn't. The worst revelation, AFAIK, is that the DNC helped her with debate questions - a crime against liberal Democrats, but not one against the country. So why collude and then do nothing? Also, nobody can come up with any quid pro quo. The collusion theory is a house of twigs, but evidently a lot of people think twigs are bricks. Democrat people.
Did Russia interfere? Almost certainly yes, in minor and ineffectual ways. Did they do so with guidance and help of the Trump campaign? Almost certainly no. Was their interference totally against Hillary? No. Did it change one vote in ANY direction? None are alleged, none are demonstrated. There is no way that Trump is so dad gum smart that he could foresee that publishing Hillary's yoga schedules would sway Wisconsin a year later. Or maybe you guys think he is that smart, that prescient, that brilliant. I don't.
And maybe, also, you think that Putin did his ineffectual interference in hopes of a reward - or with a predetermined reward. If so, what was it? Why would the author of the The Art of the Deal make such a bad one, that he got some FaceBook ads and gave up...what? why would Putin make such a deal? why would anybody?
Collusion is a fantasy, created by a shocked and butt hurt bunch of losers to explain how they lost a race they thought was in the bag. Nothing could be the fault of them or of Hillary, and since many of them don"t believe in God, it also could not be an Act of God. Must be the bogeyman, must be something rotten, let's investigate and string up the MFers, we know they're guilty, what else could it be?
Amazing how many Rice grads will subscribe to this conspiracy theory. Aren't we supposed to be smart and analytical? The hysteria to find these imaginary colluders reminds me of the McCarthy era fever to find and root out the communist sympathizers.

Wish I had written that. Very good summary of exactly what I am thinking.

(01-10-2019 10:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 07:45 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Yeah, and the original mandate here was *solely* "any links and or coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" and "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." *After* it was revealed that possible crimes had been committed by numerous campaign associates of the President (i.e. perjury, obstruction of justice, money laundering, etc.), it was clear that investigating these items fell under the second item of Mueller's investigatory authority, without need of any "expansion" of Mueller's authority. It is also clear that if Mueller had not assumed the investigation of these items, a separate prosecuting entity (the U.S. Attorney, perhaps) would have done so, as has happened with a number of items already.

My problem is with the idiots who claim these "second item" results show first item relevance, as in "they have found plenty of witches".

If you investigate any group of people, from the Trump campaign to the Clinton Campaign to the ASPCA, you will find people who will tell untruths under pressure or who have committed infractions in the past. No group can withstand this type of scrutiny and avoid "second item" problems, especially when the counsel uses these second item infractions to apply pressure in their search for first item infractions.

I long ago predicted this investigation would result in lots of little fish being caught for little crimes, and no collusion found. Looks that way still to me. But every time somebody is indicted for unpaid parking tickets or for lying about paying them, there is a certain segment of the population that goes all aquiver with the anticipation that now we are getting somewhere.

Collusion is a stupid thing to be investigating. If the Russians had altered the emails to make Hillary or her staff look culpable of crimes, that would be more credible. But they didn't. The worst revelation, AFAIK, is that the DNC helped her with debate questions - a crime against liberal Democrats, but not one against the country. So why collude and then do nothing? Also, nobody can come up with any quid pro quo. The collusion theory is a house of twigs, but evidently a lot of people think twigs are bricks. Democrat people.

Did Russia interfere? Almost certainly yes, in minor and ineffectual ways. Did they do so with guidance and help of the Trump campaign? Almost certainly no. Was their interference totally against Hillary? No. Did it change one vote in ANY direction? None are alleged, none are demonstrated. There is no way that Trump is so dad gum smart that he could foresee that publishing Hillary's yoga schedules would sway Wisconsin a year later. Or maybe you guys think he is that smart, that prescient, that brilliant. I don't.

And maybe, also, you think that Putin did his ineffectual interference in hopes of a reward - or with a predetermined reward. If so, what was it? Why would the author of the The Art of the Deal make such a bad one, that he got some FaceBook ads and gave up...what? why would Putin make such a deal? why would anybody?

Collusion is a fantasy, created by a shocked and butt hurt bunch of losers to explain how they lost a race they thought was in the bag. Nothing could be the fault of them or of Hillary, and since many of them don"t believe in God, it also could not be an Act of God. Must be the bogeyman, must be something rotten, let's investigate and string up the MFers, we know they're guilty, what else could it be?

Amazing how many Rice grads will subscribe to this conspiracy theory. Aren't we supposed to be smart and analytical? The hysteria to find these imaginary colluders reminds me of the McCarthy era fever to find and root out the communist sympathizers.

Based on all available information, you're wrong on the bolded items.

Almost certainly = Certainly.

All interference was against Hillary - by either directly targeting her or assisting her opponents like Stein and Bernie.

And to your final point, most of us on here (if not all of us) that are countering you aren't arguing the points that you keep trying to suggest we're arguing. We're not saying Trump 100% conspired with Russia. We're saying that there was enough evidence of the Trump campaign interacting with Russia, that an investigation into coordination between the two regarding election interference was warranted. You know, to try and understand what happened so we can be smart and analytical...

(01-10-2019 10:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 07:45 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Yeah, and the original mandate here was *solely* "any links and or coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" and "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." *After* it was revealed that possible crimes had been committed by numerous campaign associates of the President (i.e. perjury, obstruction of justice, money laundering, etc.), it was clear that investigating these items fell under the second item of Mueller's investigatory authority, without need of any "expansion" of Mueller's authority. It is also clear that if Mueller had not assumed the investigation of these items, a separate prosecuting entity (the U.S. Attorney, perhaps) would have done so, as has happened with a number of items already.

My problem is with the idiots who claim these "second item" results show first item relevance, as in "they have found plenty of witches".
If you investigate any group of people, from the Trump campaign to the Clinton Campaign to the ASPCA, you will find people who will tell untruths under pressure or who have committed infractions in the past. No group can withstand this type of scrutiny and avoid "second item" problems, especially when the counsel uses these second item infractions to apply pressure in their search for first item infractions.
I long ago predicted this investigation would result in lots of little fish being caught for little crimes, and no collusion found. Looks that way still to me. But every time somebody is indicted for unpaid parking tickets or for lying about paying them, there is a certain segment of the population that goes all aquiver with the anticipation that now we are getting somewhere.
Collusion is a stupid thing to be investigating. If the Russians had altered the emails to make Hillary or her staff look culpable of crimes, that would be more credible. But they didn't. The worst revelation, AFAIK, is that the DNC helped her with debate questions - a crime against liberal Democrats, but not one against the country. So why collude and then do nothing? Also, nobody can come up with any quid pro quo. The collusion theory is a house of twigs, but evidently a lot of people think twigs are bricks. Democrat people.
Did Russia interfere? Almost certainly yes, in minor and ineffectual ways. Did they do so with guidance and help of the Trump campaign? Almost certainly no. Was their interference totally against Hillary? No. Did it change one vote in ANY direction? None are alleged, none are demonstrated. There is no way that Trump is so dad gum smart that he could foresee that publishing Hillary's yoga schedules would sway Wisconsin a year later. Or maybe you guys think he is that smart, that prescient, that brilliant. I don't.
And maybe, also, you think that Putin did his ineffectual interference in hopes of a reward - or with a predetermined reward. If so, what was it? Why would the author of the The Art of the Deal make such a bad one, that he got some FaceBook ads and gave up...what? why would Putin make such a deal? why would anybody?
Collusion is a fantasy, created by a shocked and butt hurt bunch of losers to explain how they lost a race they thought was in the bag. Nothing could be the fault of them or of Hillary, and since many of them don"t believe in God, it also could not be an Act of God. Must be the bogeyman, must be something rotten, let's investigate and string up the MFers, we know they're guilty, what else could it be?
Amazing how many Rice grads will subscribe to this conspiracy theory. Aren't we supposed to be smart and analytical? The hysteria to find these imaginary colluders reminds me of the McCarthy era fever to find and root out the communist sympathizers.

Wish I had written that. Very good summary of exactly what I am thinking.

What's hilarious about the oft repeated line by OO about how this investigation is solely born out of the "butt hurt" is that after the election, there were dozens, if not hundreds of articles written explicitly about how HRC lost, and none of them relied on anything but what HRC did wrong and what Trump did right in terms of messaging and outreach. There are even countless books that dig into this issue.

I'm sure there are some people out there that require this boogeyman to process the results, but for the vast majority of Democrats, the investigation is not born out of any "butt hurt" about the loss, but out of the DNC/Podesta hackings, the other overt election interference activities, and the general coziness of the Trump campaign with the country that committed those acts both during the election and well after it.

http://fortune.com/2018/02/17/russian-or...-meddling/

(01-10-2019 10:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  http://fortune.com/2018/02/17/russian-or...-meddling/

Ah yes, rallies post-election are evidence of Russians trying to hurt Trump during the election...

Quote:The Russians were also accused of promoting discord after the election by simultaneously holding New York rallies, one in support of Trump’s victory and another under the name “Trump is NOT my President!” according to an indictment released Friday by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller. There was a separate post-election, anti-Trump rally in Charlotte, North Carolina.

(01-10-2019 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What's hilarious about the oft repeated line by OO about how this investigation is solely born out of the "butt hurt" is that after the election, there were dozens, if not hundreds of articles written explicitly about how HRC lost, and none of them relied on anything but what HRC did wrong and what Trump did right in terms of messaging and outreach. There are even countless books that dig into this issue.

How does that in any way refute "butt hurt"?

Quote:I'm sure there are some people out there that require this boogeyman to process the results, but for the vast majority of Democrats, the investigation is not born out of any "butt hurt" about the loss, but out of the DNC/Podesta hackings, the other overt election interference activities, and the general coziness of the Trump campaign with the country that committed those acts both during the election and well after it.

One thing is certain, anything done after the election almost certainly had nothing to do with the results of the election.

As for the DNC/Podesta "hackings" we still don't know for sure that they were hacked. We have the opinion of three intel officials (not 17), all politically accountable to the blue team at the time, who said that the methods used were consistent with Russian hacking. That's about all intel can give you, a best guess. There is a plausible alternative, and based upon some analysis by computer experts, a more likely alternative. And no law enforcement official took custody of the most persuasive piece of evidence, the servers themselves. I doubt very seriously that any conviction could be obtained in the "hacking" because the evidentiary trail is so weak and custody of evidence is so poor.

All of the things you cite are very likely molehills blown up into mountains by precisely those "butt hurt" people that you seem to downplay. Maybe because you are too sane and sensible to fall for it, but there are plenty of political activists who live off this stuff.

(01-10-2019 11:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What's hilarious about the oft repeated line by OO about how this investigation is solely born out of the "butt hurt" is that after the election, there were dozens, if not hundreds of articles written explicitly about how HRC lost, and none of them relied on anything but what HRC did wrong and what Trump did right in terms of messaging and outreach. There are even countless books that dig into this issue.

How does that in any way refute "butt hurt"?

Quote:I'm sure there are some people out there that require this boogeyman to process the results, but for the vast majority of Democrats, the investigation is not born out of any "butt hurt" about the loss, but out of the DNC/Podesta hackings, the other overt election interference activities, and the general coziness of the Trump campaign with the country that committed those acts both during the election and well after it.

One thing is certain, anything done after the election almost certainly had nothing to do with the results of the election.

As for the DNC/Podesta "hackings" we still don't know for sure that they were hacked. We have the opinion of three intel officials (not 17), all politically accountable to the blue team at the time, who said that the methods used were consistent with Russian hacking. That's about all intel can give you, a best guess. There is a plausible alternative, and based upon some analysis by computer experts, a more likely alternative. And no law enforcement official took custody of the most persuasive piece of evidence, the servers themselves. I doubt very seriously that any conviction could be obtained in the "hacking" because the evidentiary trail is so weak and custody of evidence is so poor.

All of the things you cite are very likely molehills blown up into mountains by precisely those "butt hurt" people that you seem to downplay. Maybe because you are too sane and sensible to fall for it, but there are plenty of political activists who live off this stuff.

My first comment wasn't intended to refute that Dems were reeling, it was that the reeling didn't manifest itself in accusing Trump of collusion... I mean, after every election the losing side always does some analysis of what went wrong for them, and my point is that the Dems did the same thing and generally came to many conclusions, few (if any) that pointed directly to Trump and Russia as the reason.

And if I'm going to worry about the crazies on the left, I'd be posting a lot more about the crazies on the right like Alex Jones. I kind of figured y'all were in the same boat with respect to that.

(01-10-2019 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 07:45 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Yeah, and the original mandate here was *solely* "any links and or coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" and "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." *After* it was revealed that possible crimes had been committed by numerous campaign associates of the President (i.e. perjury, obstruction of justice, money laundering, etc.), it was clear that investigating these items fell under the second item of Mueller's investigatory authority, without need of any "expansion" of Mueller's authority. It is also clear that if Mueller had not assumed the investigation of these items, a separate prosecuting entity (the U.S. Attorney, perhaps) would have done so, as has happened with a number of items already.

My problem is with the idiots who claim these "second item" results show first item relevance, as in "they have found plenty of witches".
If you investigate any group of people, from the Trump campaign to the Clinton Campaign to the ASPCA, you will find people who will tell untruths under pressure or who have committed infractions in the past. No group can withstand this type of scrutiny and avoid "second item" problems, especially when the counsel uses these second item infractions to apply pressure in their search for first item infractions.
I long ago predicted this investigation would result in lots of little fish being caught for little crimes, and no collusion found. Looks that way still to me. But every time somebody is indicted for unpaid parking tickets or for lying about paying them, there is a certain segment of the population that goes all aquiver with the anticipation that now we are getting somewhere.
Collusion is a stupid thing to be investigating. If the Russians had altered the emails to make Hillary or her staff look culpable of crimes, that would be more credible. But they didn't. The worst revelation, AFAIK, is that the DNC helped her with debate questions - a crime against liberal Democrats, but not one against the country. So why collude and then do nothing? Also, nobody can come up with any quid pro quo. The collusion theory is a house of twigs, but evidently a lot of people think twigs are bricks. Democrat people.
Did Russia interfere? Almost certainly yes, in minor and ineffectual ways. Did they do so with guidance and help of the Trump campaign? Almost certainly no. Was their interference totally against Hillary? No. Did it change one vote in ANY direction? None are alleged, none are demonstrated. There is no way that Trump is so dad gum smart that he could foresee that publishing Hillary's yoga schedules would sway Wisconsin a year later. Or maybe you guys think he is that smart, that prescient, that brilliant. I don't.
And maybe, also, you think that Putin did his ineffectual interference in hopes of a reward - or with a predetermined reward. If so, what was it? Why would the author of the The Art of the Deal make such a bad one, that he got some FaceBook ads and gave up...what? why would Putin make such a deal? why would anybody?
Collusion is a fantasy, created by a shocked and butt hurt bunch of losers to explain how they lost a race they thought was in the bag. Nothing could be the fault of them or of Hillary, and since many of them don"t believe in God, it also could not be an Act of God. Must be the bogeyman, must be something rotten, let's investigate and string up the MFers, we know they're guilty, what else could it be?
Amazing how many Rice grads will subscribe to this conspiracy theory. Aren't we supposed to be smart and analytical? The hysteria to find these imaginary colluders reminds me of the McCarthy era fever to find and root out the communist sympathizers.

Wish I had written that. Very good summary of exactly what I am thinking.

What's hilarious about the oft repeated line by OO about how this investigation is solely born out of the "butt hurt" is that after the election, there were dozens, if not hundreds of articles written explicitly about how HRC lost, and none of them relied on anything but what HRC did wrong and what Trump did right in terms of messaging and outreach. There are even countless books that dig into this issue.

I'm sure there are some people out there that require this boogeyman to process the results, but for the vast majority of Democrats, the investigation is not born out of any "butt hurt" about the loss, but out of the DNC/Podesta hackings, the other overt election interference activities, and the general coziness of the Trump campaign with the country that committed those acts both during the election and well after it.

Just dealing with the history we both saw unfold after the election - the antifa riots, the women weeping and trying to get Presidential electors to change their votes, stunned TV personalities. I guess you saw calm acceptance of the election results, where I saw people trying to explain how the election was stolen or invalid. I still see people trying to explain how the election was stolen. Nobody cared much about the hackings until 11-8-16.

keep hunting that witch until you find one you can "prove" is a witch. Worked in Salem. Thirteen times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h38QAO60SI

"you don't deserve to be in america"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clUTn8NFeXo

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ele...ddfd8d88de