(12-13-2019 02:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 01:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 11:43 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't think I can begin to describe the difference between an internal bias (which is natural) and manufacturing evidence or making intentionally false statements (which is criminal).

There is a difference between thinking Trump is a crook and looking for evidence to prove it, and in the absence of that, manufacturing such evidence.

I mean seriously, how is this any different than a cop who plants a gun or claims that the guy he shot had one?

What would the left be arguing if that had been the circumstances rather than this? That because the guy was a bully, that he deserved it so it was okay?

Wait, an FBI agent manufactured evidence that says Trump was a crook?

As opposed to the nitpick on what the evidence was directed it, perhaps the major focus is that evidence was manufactured in what is conceivably the most important investgation undertaken by the FBI in the last 70 years. But why let that get in the way of your extremely minor nitpicking point..........

Was evidence manufactured?

I know the email was edited, but it wasn't used as evidence. The email was in regards to Page's previous work as an informant.

That's not saying the email editing was correct, or trying to minimize it. But that's not the same as manufacturing evidence, right?

In order to have a conversation, we at least need to be working from the same, common set of facts/understandings of what was found in the IG report.

The email was altered to present a radically different view of Page. Had Page been known by the agent affiming to the issue of what the email should have said, at the very least it would have set off alarm bells. And had the FISA court known the real contents, it likely would not have issued nor re-issued the warrant.

So yes, it was absolutely material. And personally whether something was altered, or made up out of whole cloth has zero difference. In the large scope of things or in the smaller scope of things.

In this case a material fact was changed. In the smaller scope, the action to influence the course of an investigation is repugnant to the extreme; it does not matter what friggin verb you use the simple fact remains that a vindicating arc was changed to present another view.

In the larger scope, the fact that the FBI itself did it is absolutely disgraceful. The actions of the FBI in particular have to be absolutely above reproach. So even if the stuff was changed and *not* even shown to make a difference, even that aspect to the extent it detracts from the objectivity of the organization, and in this case changes into a political act, is doubly atrocious.

As to what was manufactured, I suggest you go back a day or so to the outline of actions I brought forward. The answer is there.

And yes, changing evidence to reflect something that is not is absolutely manufacturing evidence; I dont care if you call it editing, making up, or tamopering -- the end result as to the outcome in front of the FISA court is absolutely repugnant, as is the organizational damage to the FBI overall even if the 'evidence' was not used.

I fail to see where the change in verbs changes either of those outcomes.

I guess my confusion is with the initial claim comparing the email editing to planting a gun, and asking if it was any different.

The FBI did not plant evidence suggesting Page or Trump committed a crime. They did edit an email to hide that Page had previously been an informant (I'm understanding the finding correctly, right?).

So in my mind, there is a big difference because of the obvious intent. Manufacturing evidence of the crime that was being committed shows a clear intent to make someone appear criminal. In Page's case, it's not clear they were trying to make Page or Trump appear criminal - what is clear is they wanted to put Page under surveillance, and were willing to break through moral and ethical bounds to do so.

But like I said, let's make sure we're discussing the same things here. I think Ham's equivalent, which would have been manufacturing communications between the Trump campaign and Russian assets, would be about a million times worse.

(12-13-2019 04:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So in my mind, there is a big difference because of the obvious intent. Manufacturing evidence of the crime that was being committed shows a clear intent to make someone appear criminal. In Page's case, it's not clear they were trying to make Page or Trump appear criminal - what is clear is they wanted to put Page under surveillance, and were willing to break through moral and ethical bounds to do so.

But that's illegal.

(12-13-2019 04:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 04:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So in my mind, there is a big difference because of the obvious intent. Manufacturing evidence of the crime that was being committed shows a clear intent to make someone appear criminal. In Page's case, it's not clear they were trying to make Page or Trump appear criminal - what is clear is they wanted to put Page under surveillance, and were willing to break through moral and ethical bounds to do so.

But that's illegal.

Not sure where I suggested it wasn't illegal. I guess I should have added legal to that last sentence to make it clear.

I'm trying to make sure we're on the same page, as it seemed like Ham was suggesting that agents were fabricating evidence of guilt for someone on the campaign. I think the FISA abuses are pretty darn troubling, but it's distracting when someone suggests the FBI planted a metaphorical gun.

(12-13-2019 02:24 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Is it a play to his base?

That you think his base would approve of his stooping to this tells me you agree with Hillary that we are deplorables.

BUT, nothing here makes me yearn for Biden or Warren.

(12-13-2019 04:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 04:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 04:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So in my mind, there is a big difference because of the obvious intent. Manufacturing evidence of the crime that was being committed shows a clear intent to make someone appear criminal. In Page's case, it's not clear they were trying to make Page or Trump appear criminal - what is clear is they wanted to put Page under surveillance, and were willing to break through moral and ethical bounds to do so.

But that's illegal.

Not sure where I suggested it wasn't illegal. I guess I should have added legal to that last sentence to make it clear.
I'm trying to make sure we're on the same page, as it seemed like Ham was suggesting that agents were fabricating evidence of guilt for someone on the campaign. I think the FISA abuses are pretty darn troubling, but it's distracting when someone suggests the FBI planted a metaphorical gun.

But bending or breaking the evidentiary rules to gain access to that to which you should not be entitled is only a very short distance from fabricating evidence of a crime.

(12-13-2019 04:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 04:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 04:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 04:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So in my mind, there is a big difference because of the obvious intent. Manufacturing evidence of the crime that was being committed shows a clear intent to make someone appear criminal. In Page's case, it's not clear they were trying to make Page or Trump appear criminal - what is clear is they wanted to put Page under surveillance, and were willing to break through moral and ethical bounds to do so.

But that's illegal.

Not sure where I suggested it wasn't illegal. I guess I should have added legal to that last sentence to make it clear.
I'm trying to make sure we're on the same page, as it seemed like Ham was suggesting that agents were fabricating evidence of guilt for someone on the campaign. I think the FISA abuses are pretty darn troubling, but it's distracting when someone suggests the FBI planted a metaphorical gun.

But bending or breaking the evidentiary rules to gain access to that to which you should not be entitled is only a very short distance from fabricating evidence of a crime.

I think there's a wide enough gap for it to matter in this discussion, given that we were talking about motivations. And there's really no reason to suggest evidence of a crime was manufactured, when it wasn't.

(12-13-2019 04:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 02:24 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Is it a play to his base?

That you think his base would approve of his stooping to this tells me you agree with Hillary that we are deplorables.

BUT, nothing here makes me yearn for Biden or Warren.

You're saying you don't think his base wouldn't approve of him being brash and abrasive towards a climate change activist?

(12-13-2019 04:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 02:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 01:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That's not saying the email editing was correct, or trying to minimize it. But that's not the same as manufacturing evidence, right?

In order to have a conversation, we at least need to be working from the same, common set of facts/understandings of what was found in the IG report.

The email was altered to present a radically different view of Page. Had Page been known by the agent affiming to the issue of what the email should have said, at the very least it would have set off alarm bells. And had the FISA court known the real contents, it likely would not have issued nor re-issued the warrant.

So yes, it was absolutely material. And personally whether something was altered, or made up out of whole cloth has zero difference. In the large scope of things or in the smaller scope of things.

In this case a material fact was changed. In the smaller scope, the action to influence the course of an investigation is repugnant to the extreme; it does not matter what friggin verb you use the simple fact remains that a vindicating arc was changed to present another view.

In the larger scope, the fact that the FBI itself did it is absolutely disgraceful. The actions of the FBI in particular have to be absolutely above reproach. So even if the stuff was changed and *not* even shown to make a difference, even that aspect to the extent it detracts from the objectivity of the organization, and in this case changes into a political act, is doubly atrocious.

As to what was manufactured, I suggest you go back a day or so to the outline of actions I brought forward. The answer is there.

And yes, changing evidence to reflect something that is not is absolutely manufacturing evidence; I dont care if you call it editing, making up, or tamopering -- the end result as to the outcome in front of the FISA court is absolutely repugnant, as is the organizational damage to the FBI overall even if the 'evidence' was not used.

I fail to see where the change in verbs changes either of those outcomes.

I guess my confusion is with the initial claim comparing the email editing to planting a gun, and asking if it was any different.

There is zero difference between 'making evidence that tends to show a crime' and 'making evidence that tends to delete exculpatory behavior'.

Quote:The FBI did not plant evidence suggesting Page or Trump committed a crime. They did edit an email to hide that Page had previously been an informant (I'm understanding the finding correctly, right?).

They deleted the reference and affirmatively stated that Page was not a source. There was a deletion *and* a manufacturing. Both of which removed exculpatory evidence.

Think of it this way. Assume the cops find a gun of the same caliber (say a .45 caliber) that was used in a crime, and also find a video timestamped the time of the crime of the user using the gun at a gun range in a different city.

The 'cops' (in this case the Feebs) simply changed the timestamp on the film to remove exculpatory evidence. You are saying that the cops changing that timestamp is A-OK because they 'changed' the evidence. Or alternatively, it is okey dokey to change tthe timestamp and put an innocent person under a miscroscope becuase it is 'only' for purposes of surveillance.

What parts of the 4th Amendment shouldnt apply here? You are literally advocating for a situational specific exemption of one of the three biggies in our parcel of freedoms in this case, mind you.

Quote:So in my mind, there is a big difference because of the obvious intent.

Good lord. We are talking about putting into place literally the most intrusive form of electronic surveillance on an individual. So it is okey-dokey for the government to do that and falsify evidence to do that?

Good fing grief. Do you actually understand what you are advocating/parsing hairs about here?

So manufacturing evidence, or deleting evidence, to get surveillance is okey dokey. Jeezus Krist this sounds like 1984....

On top of it, the intent is to illegally alter evidence, no matter how many dance steps you put on it. So in some cases it is okay to intentionally deceive a court, and others it is not. This sounds like an awesome world you are trying to put forward. Sounds fun.

Quote:But like I said, let's make sure we're discussing the same things here. I think Ham's equivalent, which would have been manufacturing communications between the Trump campaign and Russian assets, would be about a million times worse.

I think the FBI altering or making evidence for any fing reason is equally as bad. I seriously cannot believe you are attempting to discern a 'level of badness' here.

(12-13-2019 05:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 04:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 04:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 04:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 04:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So in my mind, there is a big difference because of the obvious intent. Manufacturing evidence of the crime that was being committed shows a clear intent to make someone appear criminal. In Page's case, it's not clear they were trying to make Page or Trump appear criminal - what is clear is they wanted to put Page under surveillance, and were willing to break through moral and ethical bounds to do so.

But that's illegal.

Not sure where I suggested it wasn't illegal. I guess I should have added legal to that last sentence to make it clear.
I'm trying to make sure we're on the same page, as it seemed like Ham was suggesting that agents were fabricating evidence of guilt for someone on the campaign. I think the FISA abuses are pretty darn troubling, but it's distracting when someone suggests the FBI planted a metaphorical gun.

But bending or breaking the evidentiary rules to gain access to that to which you should not be entitled is only a very short distance from fabricating evidence of a crime.

I think there's a wide enough gap for it to matter in this discussion, given that we were talking about motivations. And there's really no reason to suggest evidence of a crime was manufactured, when it wasn't.

I guess this is partly the attorney versus non-attorney thing going on here, but manufacturing evidence to launch a investigation is little different from manufacturing evidence of a crime IMO.

Funny line I just heard on CNN:

"He" [Trump] operates on conspiracy theories."

Talk about pot, kettle, with pot being oblivious.

(12-13-2019 04:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 02:24 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Is it a play to his base?

That you think his base would approve of his stooping to this tells me you agree with Hillary that we are deplorables.

BUT, nothing here makes me yearn for Biden or Warren.

I've encountered very few deplorable people in my life, and you're not one of them OOwl. I just don't understand the point of this tweet.

(12-13-2019 04:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:I think what bothers the left about Trump's attitude toward Greta are: (1) a lot of past President's likely would have just applauded her passion and involvement, even if they disagreed with her viewpoint (I think both Bushes would have taken this approach); (2) the 1st Lady is literally running an anti-online bullying campaign so having the most powerful person in the world attacking a 16-year-old climate activist on multiple occasions is an interesting juxtaposition; (3) he doesn't have to respond or even acknowledge her. Trump making the conscious decision to throw shade at someone 50 rungs below him on the ladder feels weird; and (4) given a pretty long history of derogatory treatment of many women, the left is more sensitive when Trump acts this way toward a 16-year-old than they would a 36-year-old.

I am not defending Trump's actions here. But, I find the vast majority of 'kid social issue stars' to be found and lauded by the liberals. And then anyone who has the audacity to criticize them is pilloried as being a bully. Heads progessives win, tails conservatives lose. It is brilliant. In Greta's case I have little to no sympathy. She has grandstanded her way to this, and in the process has been an amazing pious spokesperson.

The one other point worth mentioning is the tone of Trump's criticisms. It isn't like he's arguing with the substance of her arguments. His sarcastic "very happy young girl" tweet from back in September and "Anger Management problem" tweet from yesterday both seem directed at the fact that she has Asperger's Syndrome. I mean, the dude is POTUS. He could be a little more sympathetic or at least show a little more discretion when tweeting about a 16-year-old with Asperger's.

He could just tweet "I've talked to a lot of scientist and other experts who disagree with Greta Thunberg. She should stay in a school a little longer!" It would still be crazy, but at least he wouldn't be toeing the line of criticizing a 16-year-old for having a developmental disorder on the autism spectrum.

(12-13-2019 05:44 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 04:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 02:24 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Is it a play to his base?

That you think his base would approve of his stooping to this tells me you agree with Hillary that we are deplorables.

BUT, nothing here makes me yearn for Biden or Warren.

I've encountered very few deplorable people in my life, and you're not one of them OOwl. I just don't understand the point of this tweet.

But why do you think it would play well with his base? You seem to have an image of his base that they would cheer this action.

If I count as one of his base, then explain why you think this would appeal to me.

(12-13-2019 05:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 05:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 04:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 04:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 04:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But that's illegal.

Not sure where I suggested it wasn't illegal. I guess I should have added legal to that last sentence to make it clear.
I'm trying to make sure we're on the same page, as it seemed like Ham was suggesting that agents were fabricating evidence of guilt for someone on the campaign. I think the FISA abuses are pretty darn troubling, but it's distracting when someone suggests the FBI planted a metaphorical gun.

But bending or breaking the evidentiary rules to gain access to that to which you should not be entitled is only a very short distance from fabricating evidence of a crime.

I think there's a wide enough gap for it to matter in this discussion, given that we were talking about motivations. And there's really no reason to suggest evidence of a crime was manufactured, when it wasn't.

I guess this is partly the attorney versus non-attorney thing going on here, but manufacturing evidence to launch a investigation is little different from manufacturing evidence of a crime IMO.

The issue is that the parcels of freedom in the Constitution apply to all forms of government investigative intrusion. There is literally zero difference about authorities falsifying (including deletions) evidence to get 'surveillance' or for those actions in any other law enforcement purpose.

Both are fundamentally the government dishonestly asserting power in direct violation of Constitutional mandates.

The upshot if arguing the contrary is to advocate for law enforcement to be exempt from both illegal and unconstitutional behavior --- which means that one is advocating for selective illegal behavior by the authorities themselves.

That is a no win situation in any form.

If the authorities cannot abide by a stark line of legality, there is absolutely zero reason for anyone else to bother with that pretense at that juncture.

THAT is why the issues coming forth or amazingly upsetting at least to me.

(12-13-2019 05:46 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 04:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:I think what bothers the left about Trump's attitude toward Greta are: (1) a lot of past President's likely would have just applauded her passion and involvement, even if they disagreed with her viewpoint (I think both Bushes would have taken this approach); (2) the 1st Lady is literally running an anti-online bullying campaign so having the most powerful person in the world attacking a 16-year-old climate activist on multiple occasions is an interesting juxtaposition; (3) he doesn't have to respond or even acknowledge her. Trump making the conscious decision to throw shade at someone 50 rungs below him on the ladder feels weird; and (4) given a pretty long history of derogatory treatment of many women, the left is more sensitive when Trump acts this way toward a 16-year-old than they would a 36-year-old.

I am not defending Trump's actions here. But, I find the vast majority of 'kid social issue stars' to be found and lauded by the liberals. And then anyone who has the audacity to criticize them is pilloried as being a bully. Heads progessives win, tails conservatives lose. It is brilliant. In Greta's case I have little to no sympathy. She has grandstanded her way to this, and in the process has been an amazing pious spokesperson.

The one other point worth mentioning is the tone of Trump's criticisms. It isn't like he's arguing with the substance of her arguments. His sarcastic "very happy young girl" tweet from back in September and "Anger Management problem" tweet from yesterday both seem directed at the fact that she has Asperger's Syndrome. I mean, the dude is POTUS. He could be a little more sympathetic or at least show a little more discretion when tweeting about a 16-year-old with Asperger's.

He could just tweet "I've talked to a lot of scientist and other experts who disagree with Greta Thunberg. She should stay in a school a little longer!" It would still be crazy, but at least he wouldn't be toeing the line of criticizing a 16-year-old for having a developmental disorder on the autism spectrum.

To be blunt, I am not surprised after her UN outburst that she has Aspberger's.

I would say something catty, but I would think that some believe I am probably a little far down that spectrum myself.

I agree the tone was terrible. No doubt.

But sorry, as you can tell, I also do not have much sympathy based on her Aspberger's. If one has Aspberger's it may not be the wisest choice to become a community figurehead. It may very well be that Trump himself suffers from that malady, I wouldnt be surprised if he did.

Quote:The one other point worth mentioning is the tone of Trump's criticisms. It isn't like he's arguing with the substance of her arguments. His sarcastic "very happy young girl" tweet from back in September and "Anger Management problem" tweet from yesterday both seem directed at the fact that she has Asperger's Syndrome. I mean, the dude is POTUS. He could be a little more sympathetic or at least show a little more discretion when tweeting about a 16-year-old with Asperger's.

He could just tweet "I've talked to a lot of scientist and other experts who disagree with Greta Thunberg. She should stay in a school a little longer!" It would still be crazy, but at least he wouldn't be toeing the line of criticizing a 16-year-old for having a developmental disorder on the autism spectrum.

[sarcasm]It's clearly an impeachable offense.[/sarcasm]

Look, Trump does things that I don't approve, and this is one. But it's not going to make me want to vote for any of the democrats.

(12-13-2019 05:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 05:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think there's a wide enough gap for it to matter in this discussion, given that we were talking about motivations. And there's really no reason to suggest evidence of a crime was manufactured, when it wasn't.

I guess this is partly the attorney versus non-attorney thing going on here, but manufacturing evidence to launch a investigation is little different from manufacturing evidence of a crime IMO.

I'll start by admitting that I haven't read a single word of the IG report. I've scanned a few articles about the report and about the IG's testimony and loosely followed the conversation here as well.

Am I correct that the IG's criticism was not about "manufacturing evidence" to launch an investigation (your phrase, not mine), but rather about "manufacturing evidence" (again just using your phrase for consistency) to continue a specific form of surveillance to gather evidence (FISA) into an already-opened investigation? So the "manufactured evidence" wasn't used to open the investigation or in the initial FISA application or to prove a specific crime?

I'm not trying to be obtuse, I honestly haven't followed it that closely and I'm just trying to make sure I understand before I completely avoid weighing in on DOJ-related topics.

(12-13-2019 05:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 04:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 02:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 01:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That's not saying the email editing was correct, or trying to minimize it. But that's not the same as manufacturing evidence, right?

In order to have a conversation, we at least need to be working from the same, common set of facts/understandings of what was found in the IG report.

The email was altered to present a radically different view of Page. Had Page been known by the agent affiming to the issue of what the email should have said, at the very least it would have set off alarm bells. And had the FISA court known the real contents, it likely would not have issued nor re-issued the warrant.

So yes, it was absolutely material. And personally whether something was altered, or made up out of whole cloth has zero difference. In the large scope of things or in the smaller scope of things.

In this case a material fact was changed. In the smaller scope, the action to influence the course of an investigation is repugnant to the extreme; it does not matter what friggin verb you use the simple fact remains that a vindicating arc was changed to present another view.

In the larger scope, the fact that the FBI itself did it is absolutely disgraceful. The actions of the FBI in particular have to be absolutely above reproach. So even if the stuff was changed and *not* even shown to make a difference, even that aspect to the extent it detracts from the objectivity of the organization, and in this case changes into a political act, is doubly atrocious.

As to what was manufactured, I suggest you go back a day or so to the outline of actions I brought forward. The answer is there.

And yes, changing evidence to reflect something that is not is absolutely manufacturing evidence; I dont care if you call it editing, making up, or tamopering -- the end result as to the outcome in front of the FISA court is absolutely repugnant, as is the organizational damage to the FBI overall even if the 'evidence' was not used.

I fail to see where the change in verbs changes either of those outcomes.

I guess my confusion is with the initial claim comparing the email editing to planting a gun, and asking if it was any different.

There is zero difference between 'making evidence that tends to show a crime' and 'making evidence that tends to delete exculpatory behavior'.

Quote:The FBI did not plant evidence suggesting Page or Trump committed a crime. They did edit an email to hide that Page had previously been an informant (I'm understanding the finding correctly, right?).

They deleted the reference and affirmatively stated that Page was not a source. There was a deletion *and* a manufacturing. Both of which removed exculpatory evidence.

Think of it this way. Assume the cops find a gun of the same caliber (say a .45 caliber) that was used in a crime, and also find a video timestamped the time of the crime of the user using the gun at a gun range in a different city.

The 'cops' (in this case the Feebs) simply changed the timestamp on the film to remove exculpatory evidence. You are saying that the cops changing that timestamp is A-OK because they 'changed' the evidence. Or alternatively, it is okey dokey to change tthe timestamp and put an innocent person under a miscroscope becuase it is 'only' for purposes of surveillance.

What parts of the 4th Amendment shouldnt apply here? You are literally advocating for a situational specific exemption of one of the three biggies in our parcel of freedoms in this case, mind you.

Quote:So in my mind, there is a big difference because of the obvious intent.

Good lord. We are talking about putting into place literally the most intrusive form of electronic surveillance on an individual. So it is okey-dokey for the government to do that and falsify evidence to do that?

Good fing grief. Do you actually understand what you are advocating/parsing hairs about here?

So manufacturing evidence, or deleting evidence, to get surveillance is okey dokey. Jeezus Krist this sounds like 1984....

On top of it, the intent is to illegally alter evidence, no matter how many dance steps you put on it. So in some cases it is okay to intentionally deceive a court, and others it is not. This sounds like an awesome world you are trying to put forward. Sounds fun.

Quote:But like I said, let's make sure we're discussing the same things here. I think Ham's equivalent, which would have been manufacturing communications between the Trump campaign and Russian assets, would be about a million times worse.

I think the FBI altering or making evidence for any fing reason is equally as bad. I seriously cannot believe you are attempting to discern a 'level of badness' here.

Tanq, why don'y you take a break from making leaping assumptions for once?

I've been pretty clear in saying the email editing was not OK and that the overall report from the IG is damning for the FBI. Yet for some reason you feel compelled to say things like "So manufacturing evidence, or deleting evidence, to get surveillance is okey dokey. Jeezus Krist this sounds like 1984.... "

Please, where in the **** did I say it was OK?

This is like those conversations about DB back in the day, where people would make statements about him that were overly negative and factually incorrect - why do that when there's already enough damning evidence in front of you?

There should be an obvious difference between planting a gun, and not informing someone of information when requesting to put them under surveillance. That is NOT in anyway, shape, or form, saying that one of those two is right.

Is that clear enough for you? Or are you going to try and say I think what the FBI did was OK in two more posts?

(12-13-2019 05:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 05:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 05:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 04:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 04:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Not sure where I suggested it wasn't illegal. I guess I should have added legal to that last sentence to make it clear.
I'm trying to make sure we're on the same page, as it seemed like Ham was suggesting that agents were fabricating evidence of guilt for someone on the campaign. I think the FISA abuses are pretty darn troubling, but it's distracting when someone suggests the FBI planted a metaphorical gun.

But bending or breaking the evidentiary rules to gain access to that to which you should not be entitled is only a very short distance from fabricating evidence of a crime.

I think there's a wide enough gap for it to matter in this discussion, given that we were talking about motivations. And there's really no reason to suggest evidence of a crime was manufactured, when it wasn't.

I guess this is partly the attorney versus non-attorney thing going on here, but manufacturing evidence to launch a investigation is little different from manufacturing evidence of a crime IMO.

The issue is that the parcels of freedom in the Constitution apply to all forms of government investigative intrusion. There is literally zero difference about authorities falsifying (including deletions) evidence to get 'surveillance' or for those actions in any other law enforcement purpose.

Both are fundamentally the government dishonestly asserting power in direct violation of Constitutional mandates.

The upshot if arguing the contrary is to advocate for law enforcement to be exempt from both illegal and unconstitutional behavior --- which means that one is advocating for selective illegal behavior by the authorities themselves.

That is a no win situation in any form.

If the authorities cannot abide by a stark line of legality, there is absolutely zero reason for anyone else to bother with that pretense at that juncture.

THAT is why the issues coming forth or amazingly upsetting at least to me.

I guess we need to make sure we're on the same page regarding what sort of differences are we talking about.

What you say above seems akin to suggesting there are no differences in crimes, because they all, fundamentally, are someone breaking the law.

If we want to be that broad, then I agree that there is no difference between what Ham suggested and what the IG found. But since not all crimes are the same, I would think that Ham's suggestion that evidence of a crime to was planted to get a conviction is a different crime than evidence being tampered to continue surveillance.

AGAIN, THAT IS NOT SAYING ONE OF THOSE IS OK. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T TAKE IT THAT WAY.

(12-13-2019 06:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 05:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 04:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 02:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 01:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That's not saying the email editing was correct, or trying to minimize it. But that's not the same as manufacturing evidence, right?

In order to have a conversation, we at least need to be working from the same, common set of facts/understandings of what was found in the IG report.

The email was altered to present a radically different view of Page. Had Page been known by the agent affiming to the issue of what the email should have said, at the very least it would have set off alarm bells. And had the FISA court known the real contents, it likely would not have issued nor re-issued the warrant.

So yes, it was absolutely material. And personally whether something was altered, or made up out of whole cloth has zero difference. In the large scope of things or in the smaller scope of things.

In this case a material fact was changed. In the smaller scope, the action to influence the course of an investigation is repugnant to the extreme; it does not matter what friggin verb you use the simple fact remains that a vindicating arc was changed to present another view.

In the larger scope, the fact that the FBI itself did it is absolutely disgraceful. The actions of the FBI in particular have to be absolutely above reproach. So even if the stuff was changed and *not* even shown to make a difference, even that aspect to the extent it detracts from the objectivity of the organization, and in this case changes into a political act, is doubly atrocious.

As to what was manufactured, I suggest you go back a day or so to the outline of actions I brought forward. The answer is there.

And yes, changing evidence to reflect something that is not is absolutely manufacturing evidence; I dont care if you call it editing, making up, or tamopering -- the end result as to the outcome in front of the FISA court is absolutely repugnant, as is the organizational damage to the FBI overall even if the 'evidence' was not used.

I fail to see where the change in verbs changes either of those outcomes.

I guess my confusion is with the initial claim comparing the email editing to planting a gun, and asking if it was any different.

There is zero difference between 'making evidence that tends to show a crime' and 'making evidence that tends to delete exculpatory behavior'.

Quote:The FBI did not plant evidence suggesting Page or Trump committed a crime. They did edit an email to hide that Page had previously been an informant (I'm understanding the finding correctly, right?).

They deleted the reference and affirmatively stated that Page was not a source. There was a deletion *and* a manufacturing. Both of which removed exculpatory evidence.

Think of it this way. Assume the cops find a gun of the same caliber (say a .45 caliber) that was used in a crime, and also find a video timestamped the time of the crime of the user using the gun at a gun range in a different city.

The 'cops' (in this case the Feebs) simply changed the timestamp on the film to remove exculpatory evidence. You are saying that the cops changing that timestamp is A-OK because they 'changed' the evidence. Or alternatively, it is okey dokey to change tthe timestamp and put an innocent person under a miscroscope becuase it is 'only' for purposes of surveillance.

What parts of the 4th Amendment shouldnt apply here? You are literally advocating for a situational specific exemption of one of the three biggies in our parcel of freedoms in this case, mind you.

Quote:So in my mind, there is a big difference because of the obvious intent.

Good lord. We are talking about putting into place literally the most intrusive form of electronic surveillance on an individual. So it is okey-dokey for the government to do that and falsify evidence to do that?

Good fing grief. Do you actually understand what you are advocating/parsing hairs about here?

So manufacturing evidence, or deleting evidence, to get surveillance is okey dokey. Jeezus Krist this sounds like 1984....

On top of it, the intent is to illegally alter evidence, no matter how many dance steps you put on it. So in some cases it is okay to intentionally deceive a court, and others it is not. This sounds like an awesome world you are trying to put forward. Sounds fun.

Quote:But like I said, let's make sure we're discussing the same things here. I think Ham's equivalent, which would have been manufacturing communications between the Trump campaign and Russian assets, would be about a million times worse.

I think the FBI altering or making evidence for any fing reason is equally as bad. I seriously cannot believe you are attempting to discern a 'level of badness' here.

Tanq, why don'y you take a break from making leaping assumptions for once?

I've been pretty clear in saying the email editing was not OK and that the overall report from the IG is damning for the FBI. Yet for some reason you feel compelled to say things like "So manufacturing evidence, or deleting evidence, to get surveillance is okey dokey. Jeezus Krist this sounds like 1984.... "

Please, where in the **** did I say it was OK?

This is like those conversations about DB back in the day, where people would make statements about him that were overly negative and factually incorrect - why do that when there's already enough damning evidence in front of you?

There should be an obvious difference between planting a gun, and not informing someone of information when requesting to put them under surveillance. That is NOT in anyway, shape, or form, saying that one of those two is right.

Is that clear enough for you? Or are you going to try and say I think what the FBI did was OK in two more posts?

Then tell me what the fk the 'obvious difference' is on 'planting a gun' and LYING to court to support a warrant to issue?

A governmental intrusion into my liberty based on an intentional falsity is no different than an attempted governmental intrusion into my liberty based on an intentional falsity. But you have this weird, dumb*** line you keep dancing a jig on that you have set up between 'evidence for a trial' and 'evidence for a warrant'.

The reason I state the issue in the manner I do is because your weird as **** fascination with one act being somehow worse than the other.