(12-06-2019 05:07 PM)mrbig Wrote:  That flushing toilets comment makes me think of Ron Burgundy and his teleprompter.

It makes me think of the mandated move that "somebody" pushed on us of a change to the 1.6 gals/flush toilets. One of the criticisms of that move was that multiple flushes would be needed, thus using more water, not less.

(12-06-2019 04:33 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-06-2019 11:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  266K new jobs, more than experts expected
Unemployment down again to 3.5%.
I bet there are those in the upper levels of the DNC saying "Will this NEVER end?

Job growth under Trump has been virtually identical to job growth under Obama (outside of Obama's first 2 years coming out of the recession). I'm sure you know this, so I don't understand your point. The economy is cyclical and presidents get too much credit and too much blame, plus there is a lag factor after a law passes. I guess it is politically good for Trump that things haven't changed or fallen apart since his election. But I'm not convinced the people who were hurting in 2016 when he was elected have seen the economy improve in ways that have benefited them.
Without looking it up, pick out the Obama or Trump years. This is average job growth per month for each calendar year starting with 2012, but ordered from highest to lowest rather than chronologically:
250,500
227,417
223,250
193,167
191,833
181,167
179,727
179,417
I'm not going to make the point that job growth was better under Obama or Trump. My point is that regardless of which measure you use, there hasn't been a significant change in job growth over the last 8.8 years.

Job growth was easy for Obama after 2009. As you note, the economy is cyclical. Coming out of a recession, we SHOULD have rapid job growth. If anything, the policies pursued by Obama probably slowed what would otherwise have been white-hot job growth. That may in fact have helped Trump, because it may have made the growth somewhat easier to sustain. Bottom line, we are entering unprecedented territory with job growth and low levels of unemployment. The economy turned around under Obama, as it would have done under any president, or even no president at all. Sustaining that turnaround is a remarkable achievement.

My worry is that we are in uncharted waters now, and things could turn around at a moment's notice. If it does before Novermber 2020, that could result in a democrat sweep in the next election. To me, that would be the worst possible result. I am well aware that Trump has a lot of negatives, and would be wary of his second term, although not as worried as I would be about any of the collectivist/socialist/communist democrats taking over (and that seems to be all they have these days). I wouldn't mind somebody like President Bill Clinton, although I don't want the Bill of today, because he seems to have swung hard left like the rest of the party.

(12-06-2019 08:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-06-2019 04:33 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-06-2019 11:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  266K new jobs, more than experts expected
Unemployment down again to 3.5%.
I bet there are those in the upper levels of the DNC saying "Will this NEVER end?

Job growth under Trump has been virtually identical to job growth under Obama (outside of Obama's first 2 years coming out of the recession). I'm sure you know this, so I don't understand your point. The economy is cyclical and presidents get too much credit and too much blame, plus there is a lag factor after a law passes. I guess it is politically good for Trump that things haven't changed or fallen apart since his election. But I'm not convinced the people who were hurting in 2016 when he was elected have seen the economy improve in ways that have benefited them.
Without looking it up, pick out the Obama or Trump years. This is average job growth per month for each calendar year starting with 2012, but ordered from highest to lowest rather than chronologically:
250,500
227,417
223,250
193,167
191,833
181,167
179,727
179,417
I'm not going to make the point that job growth was better under Obama or Trump. My point is that regardless of which measure you use, there hasn't been a significant change in job growth over the last 8.8 years.

Job growth was easy for Obama after 2009. As you note, the economy is cyclical. Coming out of a recession, we SHOULD have rapid job growth. If anything, the policies pursued by Obama probably slowed what would otherwise have been white-hot job growth. That may in fact have helped Trump, because it may have made the growth somewhat easier to sustain. Bottom line, we are entering unprecedented territory with job growth and low levels of unemployment. The economy turned around under Obama, as it would have done under any president, or even no president at all. Sustaining that turnaround is a remarkable achievement.

My worry is that we are in uncharted waters now, and things could turn around at a moment's notice. If it does before Novermber 2020, that could result in a democrat sweep in the next election. To me, that would be the worst possible result. I am well aware that Trump has a lot of negatives, and would be wary of his second term, although not as worried as I would be about any of the collectivist/socialist/communist democrats taking over (and that seems to be all they have these days). I wouldn't mind somebody like President Bill Clinton, although I don't want the Bill of today, because he seems to have swung hard left like the rest of the party.

There are lots of good indicators now. Higher wages. More workers. More growth. Lowest black unemployment ever. Lowest Hispanic unemployment ever. Lowest Asian unemployment ever. Cheap gas. Lower taxes. More construction. Stock market up. Hard to find a bad indicator.

But whoever, or whatever, you want to give credit for all this, one thing is sure.

The policies espoused by every Democratic candidate will make it worse. Some a little worse. Most of them, a lot worse.

Best for them if there is a recession first. Then they can not only claim to be trying to overcome Trump’s policies, but they can claim their failures as due to him. It’s all about controlling the narrative. Take the credit, deserved or not.

So that is part of the reason the Dem leadership wants economic chaos. Like the fireman who sets fires so he can be a hero, they want to be heroes too. Like Obama.

I like being financially secure. A lot more than I like leaders that speak well, but have little else of substance.

There are two or three people I would likely vote for over Trump. None of them are running for the Democratic nomination. But I hope they are around for 2024.

(12-06-2019 01:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  A person is a physical means through which a communication can be ascertained. A document is a physical means through which a communication can be ascertained. In fact, in human terms, the protection from Congressional subpoena can be argued to be stronger than that for documents.

From one of the OLC opinions on the matter:

Quote:To be sure, the President’s advisers could invoke executive privilege to decline to answer specific questions if they were required to testify. See, e.g., Rehnqust Memorandum at 8 & n.4. But the ability to assert executive privilege during live testimony in response to hostile questioning would not remove the threat to the confidentiality of presidential communications. An immediate presidential adviser could be asked, under the express or implied threat of contempt of Congress, a wide range of unanticipated and hostile questions about highly sensitive deliberations and communications. In the heat of the moment, without the opportunity for careful reflection, the adviser might have difficulty confining his remarks to those that do not reveal such sensitive information. Or the adviser could be reluctant to repeatedly invoke executive privilege, even though validly applicable, for fear of the congressional and media condemnation she or the President might endure.

These concerns are heightened because, in a hearing before a congressional committee, there is no judge or other neutral magistrate to whom a witness can turn for protection against questions seeking confidential and privileged information. The committee not only poses the questions to the witness, but also rules on any objections to its own questions according to procedures it establishes. The pressure of compelled live testimony about White House activities in a public congressional hearing would thus create an inherent and substantial risk of inadvertent or coerced disclosure of confidential information relating to presidential decisionmaking—thereby ultimately threatening the President’s ability to receive candid and carefully considered advice from his immediate advisers. To guard against these harms to the President’s ability to discharge his constitutional functions and to the separation of powers, immediate presidential advisers must have absolute immunity from congressional compulsion to testify about matters that occurred during the course of the adviser’s discharge of official duties.

By the way the author is a guy named Karl Thompson, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC under Obama. you have further issues with it, take it up with him how he is so wrong. I am sure he will quickly act with the urgency necessary to make sure you are satisfied with that argument. I know I will sleep easier knowing you are on it.

Maybe there should be judges for (certain) Congressional hearings? For example, the judges of the US District Court for the District of Columbia could be assigned to particular hearings, perhaps using the same sort of random-assignment scheme that district courts use for case assignments. (As one exception, I was going to suggest that the Chief Judge of the "District of the District" should be permanently assigned to the Committee on Committees, but it looks like this committee no longer exists.)

(12-06-2019 05:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I only pop in here occasionally. Were you also concerned about the death threats received by Christine Blasey Ford, Rashida Talib, AOC, and many more? Or just the GOP witness dude? I'm concerned about all of them, but sadly it happens so often now that it isn't really worth complaining about.

I was no more, no less concerned about the threats received by those people. I think it unlikely that anybody will actually try to kill anybody, despite the example of the guy who shot Scalise.
[/quote]

If you want to go back further, Gabby Giffords was also shot. Crazies on both sides.

(12-09-2019 12:25 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-06-2019 05:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I only pop in here occasionally. Were you also concerned about the death threats received by Christine Blasey Ford, Rashida Talib, AOC, and many more? Or just the GOP witness dude? I'm concerned about all of them, but sadly it happens so often now that it isn't really worth complaining about.

I was no more, no less concerned about the threats received by those people. I think it unlikely that anybody will actually try to kill anybody, despite the example of the guy who shot Scalise.

If you want to go back further, Gabby Giffords was also shot. Crazies on both sides.
[/quote]

But Giffords was shot by a straight up crazy, not a politically motivated one. Certainly not one motivated by bulls-eyes.

Just saying people who actually would carry out a death threat based on politics are few and far between.

I think Ford and Tlaib are as safe as Turley - which is to say, pretty safe.

I was far more interested in the movement to ignore or downplay those threats to Turley, while I think any threats to the other three professors would be made much of.

I haven't heard of any threats to the other three. Have you?

(12-09-2019 12:25 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-06-2019 05:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I only pop in here occasionally. Were you also concerned about the death threats received by Christine Blasey Ford, Rashida Talib, AOC, and many more? Or just the GOP witness dude? I'm concerned about all of them, but sadly it happens so often now that it isn't really worth complaining about.

I was no more, no less concerned about the threats received by those people. I think it unlikely that anybody will actually try to kill anybody, despite the example of the guy who shot Scalise.

If you want to go back further, Gabby Giffords was also shot. Crazies on both sides.
[/quote]

Even further back, I am reminded of the time in 1856 when Rep. Preston Brooks (D-SC) assailed Sen. Charles Sumner (R-MA) on the Senate floor and beat him very nearly to death. It took Sumner years to recover enough to return to his Senate duties. The people who sided with Brooks's political stance considered him such a hero that they named towns after him.

Fortunately, that sort of polarization in the 1850s did not escalate to anything worse.

Quote:WASHINGTON —

The Justice Department’s internal watchdog is expected to conclude Monday that political bias did not affect how the FBI conducted its investigation of potential links between Russian spy services and the Trump campaign in 2016.

In a report due to be released at 1 p.m. Monday, however, Inspector General Michael Horowitz sharply criticizes aspects of the investigations, faulting the Justice Department and FBI for lax procedures and shoddy work, according to people familiar with the probe.

The long-awaited report thus is likely to give ammunition to both sides in the bitter debate over whether the Trump campaign was unfairly or improperly targeted, as President Trump has long charged.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2...ssia-probe

(12-09-2019 12:43 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:WASHINGTON —

The Justice Department’s internal watchdog is expected to conclude Monday that political bias did not affect how the FBI conducted its investigation of potential links between Russian spy services and the Trump campaign in 2016.

In a report due to be released at 1 p.m. Monday, however, Inspector General Michael Horowitz sharply criticizes aspects of the investigations, faulting the Justice Department and FBI for lax procedures and shoddy work, according to people familiar with the probe.

The long-awaited report thus is likely to give ammunition to both sides in the bitter debate over whether the Trump campaign was unfairly or improperly targeted, as President Trump has long charged.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2...ssia-probe

Funny you didnt mention Durham's comment to this. I am astonished. Not.

If you think the AG is a credible voice on this matter, then cite him.

Quote:A group of attorneys from the conservative group Checks & Balances have slammed Attorney General William Barr after he responded critically to the findings of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report on the FBI investigation into President Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.

Although the 476-page report highlighted "misconduct" by lower-level FBI officials and "clear abuse of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] process" to obtain a warrant to surveil a Trump campaign official, it largely discredited allegations that the FBI's leaders acted improperly to launch the probe. The findings concluded that the FBI had adequate reason to open the investigation because of valid concerns about Russian interference in the election.

Despite the independent inspector's findings, Barr voiced criticism of the FBI and its probe. "The FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken," he said Monday.

Quote:"Bill Barr has grossly mischaracterized and subverted the findings of the IG investigation report addressing the FBI investigation into Russian interference in our 2016 election," said Donald Ayer, a former deputy attorney general, former deputy solicitor general and former U.S. attorney, in his statement.

"The report's headline findings are that the investigation was properly initiated based on a sound factual basis, and that the allegations of 'witch hunt' and bias on the part of those overseeing it are without foundation," Ayer added. Trump and his supporters have routinely described the investigations into his 2016 campaign as a "witch hunt."

Quote:"The attorney general has returned to his playbook of distortion and obfuscation in a transparent effort to undermine the IG's meticulous, fact-based conclusions," former associate deputy attorney general Jonathan Rose, who also served as a special assistant to President Richard Nixon, said.

Carrie Cordero, a former counsel to the assistant attorney general for national security, pointed out that the report demonstrated that there was no "evidence of political bias or systematic abuse of surveillance authorities on the part of the FBI." The president and some of his supporters have continued to push such claims, despite the inspector general's findings.

Quote:"There was no evidence, testimonial or documentary, that political bias improperly motivated the FBI's decision to continue a counterintelligence investigation focused on Russian attempts to subvert the American political process and, most importantly, that there was sufficient probable cause from the outset to undertake that investigation," asserted Stuart Gerson, a former assistant and acting attorney general.

https://www.newsweek.com/conservative-at...stribution

Imagine actually believing this guy is worried about corruption.

Quote:President Trump has paid $2 million in court-ordered damages for misusing funds in a tax-exempt charity he controlled, the New York attorney general said Tuesday.

The payment was ordered last month by a New York state judge in an extraordinary rebuke to a sitting president. Trump had been sued in 2018 by the New York attorney general, who alleged that the president had illegally used funds from the Donald J. Trump Foundation to buy portraits of himself, pay off his businesses’ legal obligations and help his 2016 campaign.

The money was split among eight charities, according to a statement from New York Attorney General Letitia James (D).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...story.html

(12-10-2019 04:07 PM)At Ease Wrote:  Imagine actually believing this guy is worried about corruption.

Quote:President Trump has paid $2 million in court-ordered damages for misusing funds in a tax-exempt charity he controlled, the New York attorney general said Tuesday.

The payment was ordered last month by a New York state judge in an extraordinary rebuke to a sitting president. Trump had been sued in 2018 by the New York attorney general, who alleged that the president had illegally used funds from the Donald J. Trump Foundation to buy portraits of himself, pay off his businesses’ legal obligations and help his 2016 campaign.

The money was split among eight charities, according to a statement from New York Attorney General Letitia James (D).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...story.html

Rah! Rah! Go TEAM!!!

(12-10-2019 02:11 PM)At Ease Wrote:  https://www.newsweek.com/conservative-at...stribution

The disconnect in this sort of conversation is obvious to anyone not blinded to it... and the problem for the left is that the middle isn't blinded to it

Said simply, there was plenty of reason to investigate Russian attempts to influence the election. This has been the case since the 1960's. The Obama administration and the DNC were warned of this long prior to the election. This has never really been in dispute, and yet the left continually harps on it as if it is new news, or a revelation of some sort.

SO yes, the investigation into RUSSIA was valid and there was good reason to start the investigation.

That has nothing to do with what Barr is talking about, which was an investigation into the TRUMP organization.


From lines quoted in the above, Read:

Although the 476-page report highlighted "misconduct" by lower-level FBI officials and "clear abuse of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] process" to obtain a warrant to surveil a Trump campaign official, it largely discredited allegations that the FBI's leaders acted improperly to launch the probe. The findings concluded that the FBI had adequate reason to open the investigation because of valid concerns about Russian interference in the election.

There was misconduct and clear abuses of the FISA process to surveil the Trump campaign. The FBI had adequate reasons to start an investigation into Russia. Not the same thing to anyone who isn't a Democrat. All this really says again is what we have all seen hundreds of times... Low level employees engaged in misconduct and higher level employees have at worst, plausible deniability. Leaders almost never go down from either party.

Read more:
"There was no evidence, testimonial or documentary, that political bias improperly motivated the FBI's decision to continue a counterintelligence investigation focused on Russian attempts to subvert the American political process and, most importantly, that there was sufficient probable cause from the outset to undertake that investigation,"

no evidence that political bias motivated the FBIs decision to focus on RUSSIAN ATTEMPTS... Again, not the same as no political bias to (from above) engage in misconduct and abuses of the FISA process in order to investigate a Trump official. Frankly, I don't care if it was political bias, 15 minutes of fame or racism against men of color (orange)... misconduct and abuses of the FISA process in order to investigate a US citizen is a problem. It's pretty hard to PROVE 'why' someone did something.

I mean seriously... If the report wanted to say there was sufficient evidence to investigate Trump, it would have very clearly said so.

It did not, and words have meanings.

It said there was reason to investigate Russia, and misconduct and abuses of the FISA process in order to investigate a Trump official.

It really seems simple to me.

(12-10-2019 09:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 02:11 PM)At Ease Wrote:  https://www.newsweek.com/conservative-at...stribution

The disconnect in this sort of conversation is obvious to anyone not blinded to it... and the problem for the left is that the middle isn't blinded to it

Said simply, there was plenty of reason to investigate Russian attempts to influence the election. This has been the case since the 1960's. The Obama administration and the DNC were warned of this long prior to the election. This has never really been in dispute, and yet the left continually harps on it as if it is new news, or a revelation of some sort.

SO yes, the investigation into RUSSIA was valid and there was good reason to start the investigation.

That has nothing to do with what Barr is talking about, which was an investigation into the TRUMP organization.


From lines quoted in the above, Read:

Although the 476-page report highlighted "misconduct" by lower-level FBI officials and "clear abuse of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] process" to obtain a warrant to surveil a Trump campaign official, it largely discredited allegations that the FBI's leaders acted improperly to launch the probe. The findings concluded that the FBI had adequate reason to open the investigation because of valid concerns about Russian interference in the election.

There was misconduct and clear abuses of the FISA process to surveil the Trump campaign. The FBI had adequate reasons to start an investigation into Russia. Not the same thing to anyone who isn't a Democrat. All this really says again is what we have all seen hundreds of times... Low level employees engaged in misconduct and higher level employees have at worst, plausible deniability. Leaders almost never go down from either party.

Read more:
"There was no evidence, testimonial or documentary, that political bias improperly motivated the FBI's decision to continue a counterintelligence investigation focused on Russian attempts to subvert the American political process and, most importantly, that there was sufficient probable cause from the outset to undertake that investigation,"

no evidence that political bias motivated the FBIs decision to focus on RUSSIAN ATTEMPTS... Again, not the same as no political bias to (from above) engage in misconduct and abuses of the FISA process in order to investigate a Trump official. Frankly, I don't care if it was political bias, 15 minutes of fame or racism against men of color (orange)... misconduct and abuses of the FISA process in order to investigate a US citizen is a problem. It's pretty hard to PROVE 'why' someone did something.

I mean seriously... If the report wanted to say there was sufficient evidence to investigate Trump, it would have very clearly said so.

It did not, and words have meanings.

It said there was reason to investigate Russia, and misconduct and abuses of the FISA process in order to investigate a Trump official.

It really seems simple to me.

Ham, read the executive summary of the document. You seem to misunderstand some things regarding the opening of the investigation - it clearly says that the FBI has sufficient evidence to open the investigation into the Trump campaign, and into the four individuals - Papadopolous, Page, Flynn, and Manafort. Page iii is where a lot of that information is located.

The IG found significant issues into the FISA application submitted to further surveil one of those individuals (Page).

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document....ion-Report

Keep two points in mind:

1) There has been a considerable and long-running attempt to conflate investigation of Russian interference with investigation of the Trump campaign and administration. Hambone's post attempts to differentiate the two. There is no question in my mind that Russia made efforts to interfere in the 2016 election and to hack anything that they could, and I didn't need an investigation to tell me that. So did China, so did just about every country that seeks to be any kind of player in global diplomacy. And we do the same to them. And all have been doing it for decades. It's an essential and integral part of playing the game. For the same reason, there's little doubt in my mind that they hacked Hillary's server. And that's where democrats are in a bit of a bind. They have to make it look like this was something new, that was instigated at the behest of Donald Trump, both to attack Trump and to give cover to Hillary. It's not new, it's been going on for a while. As for allegations that they attempted to benefit Trump, look at it this way. If you were trying to sow hate and discontent, and one candidate was considered a 90+% lock to win an election, which one would you support? So, Russian interference does not imply that the Trump administration sought or embraced such interference. That's the connection that has simply not been made.

2) There were repeated shoddy practices and violations of the FISA rules. That could be because the FBI is incompetent, or it could be because of inherent bias. Either comes with its own set of negative implications. When the violations all point one way, it starts to look more like bias than incompetence.

(12-11-2019 07:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, read the executive summary of the document. You seem to misunderstand some things regarding the opening of the investigation - it clearly says that the FBI has sufficient evidence to open the investigation into the Trump campaign, and into the four individuals - Papadopolous, Page, Flynn, and Manafort. Page iii is where a lot of that information is located.

The IG found significant issues into the FISA application submitted to further surveil one of those individuals (Page).

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document....ion-Report

Actually it doesn't say they had sufficient evidence. It says there is a very low threshold for any investigation.... sort of the 'indict a ham sandwhich' comment. All that is required (page 4 top right) is a first hand account from someone that they consider credible.

The allegation is that Papadopolous apparently said to a foreign government that there had been 'some kind of suggestion' made to the Trump campaign that Russia could release some damaging information. (Page 3)

That's all it takes to investigate anyone. That doesn't remotely mean there is ANY evidence whatsoever.

RiceLad told me that NPR had information damaging to Trump. If they find me credible, they can investigate you based solely on that comment.

(12-11-2019 01:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 07:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, read the executive summary of the document. You seem to misunderstand some things regarding the opening of the investigation - it clearly says that the FBI has sufficient evidence to open the investigation into the Trump campaign, and into the four individuals - Papadopolous, Page, Flynn, and Manafort. Page iii is where a lot of that information is located.
The IG found significant issues into the FISA application submitted to further surveil one of those individuals (Page).
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document....ion-Report

Actually it doesn't say they had sufficient evidence. It says there is a very low threshold for any investigation.... sort of the 'indict a ham sandwhich' comment. All that is required (page 4 top right) is a first hand account from someone that they consider credible.
The allegation is that Papadopolous apparently said to a foreign government that there had been 'some kind of suggestion' made to the Trump campaign that Russia could release some damaging information. (Page 3)
That's all it takes to investigate anyone. That doesn't remotely mean there is ANY evidence whatsoever.
RiceLad told me that NPR had information damaging to Trump. If they find me credible, they can investigate you based solely on that comment.

That's kind of the whole point of this entire spectacle. Enough evidence to open an investigation can consist of nothing more than an unsupported and unsubstantiated allegation.

I'll give you a perfect example. Hunter Biden's absurdly unreasonable contract with Burisma is sufficient basis to launch an investigation as to whether there were any improprieties involved. Doing such a contract with a public company in the USA would probably trigger both SEC and IRS investigation. And that would be the case whether his father was VP of the USA or the village idiot. Come to think of it, Joe might have been both, but that's beside the point.

So what we have with respect to both "Russia" and "Biden" are unsupported hearsay and rumors that, even if true, don't prove a prima facie case against Donald Trump or the Trump campaign or administration. Supporters of the Mueller probe like to point to how many convictions and indictments they obtained, as proof that it was a justified investigation. But none of those indictments are for actions related to any Trump campaign cooperation with any Russians. They are for unrelated violations by Trump campaign staffers, and indictments of Russian entities over which they will likely never gain jurisdiction. And as far as what should have been the most useful output of that probe, lesson learned about specific steps to take to minimize Russian (and other foreign) intervention in future elections, seems conspicuously absent. Taken as a whole, the process looks more like a coup attempt than a valid investigation. And the Biden/Burisma "investigation" is that on steroids.

(12-11-2019 01:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 07:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, read the executive summary of the document. You seem to misunderstand some things regarding the opening of the investigation - it clearly says that the FBI has sufficient evidence to open the investigation into the Trump campaign, and into the four individuals - Papadopolous, Page, Flynn, and Manafort. Page iii is where a lot of that information is located.

The IG found significant issues into the FISA application submitted to further surveil one of those individuals (Page).

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document....ion-Report

Actually it doesn't say they had sufficient evidence. It says there is a very low threshold for any investigation.... sort of the 'indict a ham sandwhich' comment. All that is required (page 4 top right) is a first hand account from someone that they consider credible.

The allegation is that Papadopolous apparently said to a foreign government that there had been 'some kind of suggestion' made to the Trump campaign that Russia could release some damaging information. (Page 3)

That's all it takes to investigate anyone. That doesn't remotely mean there is ANY evidence whatsoever.

RiceLad told me that NPR had information damaging to Trump. If they find me credible, they can investigate you based solely on that comment.

Did you actually try to argue that the report doesn’t say it has sufficient evidence by saying that the report says that the FBI met the threshold required to open an investigation, which is low?

That means that if it was proper to open an investigation, there was sufficient evidence, regardless of how you personally feel about the threshold for the investigation.

As noted, it was 'sufficient' to begin an investigation (with that very low bar).

But they persisted even when the linchpins were pulled; and kept using the National Enquirer level Steele dossier as a point of continuing in repeated renewals of the FISA warrant process.

Had I pulled **** like that in front of a judge I would (should) face sanctions. Kind of grotesque. But some of us called the Steele/continued FISA problems a loooooonnnnggg time ago. Some actually got torqued when it was referred to as making the National Enquirer look mainstream and how fked up its continued use as such was.

But the IG report only is partial in nature; the IG doesnt have any power outside the DOJ. Durham has the ability to forcibly get info outside the confines of the DOJ. What Durham ends up with will be the real fun stuff.

And Durham actually has commented on the subject as well.

And to the Pop Up Poster, I didnt say Barr, nor did I before.

But I would hazard Barr does know the underlying points of the Durham US Attorney probe. Perhaps Barr's comments have a grounding that Popup Poster simply did not contemplate.

(12-11-2019 04:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 01:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 07:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, read the executive summary of the document. You seem to misunderstand some things regarding the opening of the investigation - it clearly says that the FBI has sufficient evidence to open the investigation into the Trump campaign, and into the four individuals - Papadopolous, Page, Flynn, and Manafort. Page iii is where a lot of that information is located.

The IG found significant issues into the FISA application submitted to further surveil one of those individuals (Page).

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document....ion-Report

Actually it doesn't say they had sufficient evidence. It says there is a very low threshold for any investigation.... sort of the 'indict a ham sandwhich' comment. All that is required (page 4 top right) is a first hand account from someone that they consider credible.

The allegation is that Papadopolous apparently said to a foreign government that there had been 'some kind of suggestion' made to the Trump campaign that Russia could release some damaging information. (Page 3)

That's all it takes to investigate anyone. That doesn't remotely mean there is ANY evidence whatsoever.

RiceLad told me that NPR had information damaging to Trump. If they find me credible, they can investigate you based solely on that comment.

Did you actually try to argue that the report doesn’t say it has sufficient evidence by saying that the report says that the FBI met the threshold required to open an investigation, which is low?

That means that if it was proper to open an investigation, there was sufficient evidence, regardless of how you personally feel about the threshold for the investigation.

He is making a point about *your* fixation on 'proper basis' (ham sandwich level) and your apparent non-comment on how fked up it was as it continued.