(06-26-2023 12:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-26-2023 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  My words are chosen carefully.

Including the part about the Lucky Charms?

Absolutely -- that was the level of rationale in the Eastman plan, and apparently the level of official bearing by the various states for at least some of those people that got sucked into doing it.

The **** that they submitted with their slate had as much legal backing as if they had found it in a box of Lucky Charms. Absolutely.

That is, as opposed to the actual state-certified slates that Trump tried to get Pence to disallow because..... well.... 'because' on its own is actually more respect than the action deserves, mind you.

(06-26-2023 01:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-26-2023 12:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-26-2023 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  My words are chosen carefully.

Including the part about the Lucky Charms?

Absolutely -- that was the level of rationale in the Eastman plan, and apparently the level of official bearing by the various states for at least some of those people that got sucked into doing it.

The **** that they submitted with their slate had as much legal backing as if they had found it in a box of Lucky Charms. Absolutely.

That is, as opposed to the actual state-certified slates that Trump tried to get Pence to disallow because..... well.... 'because' on its own is actually more respect than the action deserves, mind you.

Why Lucky Charms and not Count Chocula? Or ... ?

I think I will start using Lucky Charms to designate the Russia probe that some think caught a few witches in the smoke.

(06-26-2023 01:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-26-2023 01:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-26-2023 12:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-26-2023 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  My words are chosen carefully.

Including the part about the Lucky Charms?

Absolutely -- that was the level of rationale in the Eastman plan, and apparently the level of official bearing by the various states for at least some of those people that got sucked into doing it.

The **** that they submitted with their slate had as much legal backing as if they had found it in a box of Lucky Charms. Absolutely.

That is, as opposed to the actual state-certified slates that Trump tried to get Pence to disallow because..... well.... 'because' on its own is actually more respect than the action deserves, mind you.

Why Lucky Charms and not Count Chocula? Or ... ?

I think I will start using Lucky Charms to designate the Russia probe that some think caught a few witches in the smoke.

Eastman plan == Russiagate. Got it.

Next whadaoutism, please.....

(06-26-2023 03:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Eastman plan == Russiagate. Got it.

I don't think you do.

Eastman plan = Russiagate = fantasy

(06-26-2023 03:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-26-2023 03:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Eastman plan == Russiagate. Got it.

I don't think you do.

Actually I think I do.

Quote:Eastman plan = Russiagate = fantasy

Yep I do.

I take it you do not believe that the Eastman plan was formulated and acted upon.

Got it. Sounds fun.

Edited to add: Gotta ask -- what precisely is 'fantasy' about the Eastman plan? I am deeply curious about this 'fantasy' that you believe it to be....

Hopefully you are aware that even the author admits to the plan, admits that the published item is the plan, and much background has been developed about it in the course of litigation. It has been well fleshed out. I'd like to know exactly how/ what you deem 'fantasy' in this issue?

Tanq, a question that I have asked before:

Which do you think is a greater threat to our democratic republic?

1) Donald Trump's actions (including any and all that you want to include), or

2) The partisan inequality of application of law enforcement and national security matters by DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS.

I've asked before. I would appreciate an answer.

(06-26-2023 05:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tanq, a question that I have asked before:

Which do you think is a greater threat to our democratic republic?

1) Donald Trump's actions (including any and all that you want to include), or

2) The partisan inequality of application of law enforcement and national security matters by DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS.

I've asked before. I would appreciate an answer.

And I think I have answered -- if this were in the real world I would respond 'objection, assuming facts not in evidence.'

I dont agree with the bald assertion in #2 that you take as fundamental truth.

In short, in order to assert #2, I would expect you to go by your previous answer to me elsewhere. In another forum, I asked another 'what would it take for you to even consider that Trump should be charged with the documents issue'.

There, you answered 'sufficient proof consistent with sufficient amount something or other to be evidence'.

You answered in the same stack, flat answer that any first year law student responds with 'what evidence does it take to convict someone' -- but I had asked 'charged' (which might I add your answer was wholly inappropriate to the question by a factor of a magnitude or so.)

I think your answer there would be the basis -- show me #2 in the appropriate manner, and your question is valid.

Right now it is an assumption -- and just an assumption. Not one that I am really on board with.

Way too many 'simply blame it on a deep intel / LE state conspiracy'. I dont buy into it at that level.

Russiagate was horribly done. As was the Carter Page issue. No doubt.

But no, I am not going to answer your question with an a) or a b) -- simply because the requisite level of proof isnt in part b) for me to jump in with a simple a or b answer.

And #s, this is the third (?) time I have answered that question or its derivative from you.

(06-26-2023 04:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-26-2023 03:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-26-2023 03:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Eastman plan == Russiagate. Got it.

I don't think you do.

Actually I think I do.

Quote:Eastman plan = Russiagate = fantasy

Yep I do.

I take it you do not believe that the Eastman plan was formulated and acted upon.

Got it. Sounds fun.

Edited to add: Gotta ask -- what precisely is 'fantasy' about the Eastman plan? I am deeply curious about this 'fantasy' that you believe it to be....

Hopefully you are aware that even the author admits to the plan, admits that the published item is the plan, and much background has been developed about it in the course of litigation. It has been well fleshed out. I'd like to know exactly how/ what you deem 'fantasy' in this issue?

No, you don't.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/put...c5d1&ei=14

(06-26-2023 06:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-26-2023 04:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-26-2023 03:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-26-2023 03:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Eastman plan == Russiagate. Got it.

I don't think you do.

Actually I think I do.

Quote:Eastman plan = Russiagate = fantasy

Yep I do.

I take it you do not believe that the Eastman plan was formulated and acted upon.

Got it. Sounds fun.

Edited to add: Gotta ask -- what precisely is 'fantasy' about the Eastman plan? I am deeply curious about this 'fantasy' that you believe it to be....

Hopefully you are aware that even the author admits to the plan, admits that the published item is the plan, and much background has been developed about it in the course of litigation. It has been well fleshed out. I'd like to know exactly how/ what you deem 'fantasy' in this issue?

No, you don't.

Then perhaps explain your Eastman plan = fantasy equation for us. Im all ears.

What exactly is 'fantasy'? (that is where you directly equate it to 'fantasy', mind you....)

As to #s assertion that Hillary was so much more terrible since she 'exposed it'... This came public an hour ago.

Audio of Trump "Look at this..... but this is still secret..... I could have declassified it, but I cant now"

Dont tell us how safe and circumspect Trump was with his Ring of Power pile of documents.

Main CNN Article

(06-26-2023 09:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As to #s assertion that Hillary was so much more terrible since she 'exposed it'... This came public an hour ago.
Audio of Trump "Look at this..... but this is still secret"

No indication that anyone present is or was an enemy. Also, from the context it would appear that he showed them a stack of papers or several stacks of papers. No indication that any contents were shared.

(06-26-2023 09:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-26-2023 09:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As to #s assertion that Hillary was so much more terrible since she 'exposed it'... This came public an hour ago.
Audio of Trump "Look at this..... but this is still secret"

No indication that anyone present is or was an enemy.

There are multiple people on the tape. Good grief. They are talking back and forth. People who ARE NOT cleared. He is showing it to them WILLINGLY.

Hillary, simply exposed them to air. Trump goes out of his way to show them to people who CANNOT. He literally goes out of his way to note the papers to them.

Quote: Also, from the context it would appear that he showed them a stack of papers or several stacks of papers.

I dont say 'look at THIS' when referring to a stack of papers and talking about a single, solitary document. Again, good grief. The context is there. If I have a stack of papers (and according the Trump the other day -- nothing but news clippings) I dont say 'wow there is a really special document about a plan on a war with Iran. Here look at THIS, which is exactly on point' -- gesticulating at a mass of news clippings floating on my desk.

Quote:No indication that any contents were shared.

I guess you missed the "Wow" and comments of concurrence there.

How would your CO have responded to that back and forth, since you tell us so often that nothing more than a hand slap would be appropriate?

(06-26-2023 10:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you missed the "Wow" and comments of concurrence there.
How would your CO have responded to that back and forth, since you tell us so often that nothing more than a hand slap would be appropriate?

That would depend on what was shared. If he opened up the documents and shared the contents, that would be one thing. If he merely showed them the covers of the documents without disclosing contents, that would be a different thing.

Disclosing that, "We had a war plan for Iran and here is a copy," without disclosing contents, is a very different matter from, "We had a war plan for Iran and here on page 249 is a map showing our planned invasion routes." From the context, this appears to be much closer to the former than the latter. Neither is okay, but the latter is a hell of a lot less okay than the former.

Another factor is that the people in that room are known. The people who could have accessed Hillary's server include every hacker in the world. And for the purposes of classified information, placing it in a position where it could have been hacked by someone is considered the same as giving it to that someone.

So, yes, Trump appears to have committed security violations. His violations appear to have been far less serious than those for which Hillary was not prosecuted. And this latest discovery does not change that.

Again, which do you consider the greater threat to our democratic republic--Trump's indiscretions or the hyperpartisan biased nature of DOJ/FBI/CIA/NHS and the Gestapo/KGB tactics that they willingly employ in furtherance of those goals?

(06-27-2023 03:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-26-2023 10:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you missed the "Wow" and comments of concurrence there.
How would your CO have responded to that back and forth, since you tell us so often that nothing more than a hand slap would be appropriate?

That would depend on what was shared. If he opened up the documents and shared the contents, that would be one thing. If he merely showed them the covers of the documents without disclosing contents, that would be a different thing.

Disclosing that, "We had a war plan for Iran and here is a copy," without disclosing contents, is a very different matter from, "We had a war plan for Iran and here on page 249 is a map showing our planned invasion routes." From the context, this appears to be much closer to the former than the latter. Neither is okay, but the latter is a hell of a lot less okay than the former.

Another factor is that the people in that room are known. The people who could have accessed Hillary's server include every hacker in the world. And for the purposes of classified information, placing it in a position where it could have been hacked by someone is considered the same as giving it to that someone.

So, yes, Trump appears to have committed security violations. His violations appear to have been far less serious than those for which Hillary was not prosecuted. And this latest discovery does not change that.

Again, which do you consider the greater threat to our democratic republic--Trump's indiscretions or the hyperpartisan biased nature of DOJ/FBI/CIA/NHS and the Gestapo/KGB tactics that they willingly employ in furtherance of those goals?

What is the DOJ doing that is Gestapo-esque? Are they fabricating these tapes? Did they plant the documents in the ball room? Did they force Trump to not hand them over?

(06-27-2023 05:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What is the DOJ doing that is Gestapo-esque? Are they fabricating these tapes? Did they plant the documents in the ball room? Did they force Trump to not hand them over?

So apparently you take issue only with my Gestapo/KGB comment. Does that mean you agree/admit the partisan bias part?

And as far as Gestapo/KGB, consider the procedural overkill being used routinely against certain political types.

(06-27-2023 07:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 05:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What is the DOJ doing that is Gestapo-esque? Are they fabricating these tapes? Did they plant the documents in the ball room? Did they force Trump to not hand them over?

So apparently you take issue only with my Gestapo/KGB comment. Does that mean you agree/admit the partisan bias part?

And as far as Gestapo/KGB, consider the procedural overkill being used routinely against certain political types.

I take issue too, with the hyperpartisan comment - it just wasn't so egregious as the comment I puleld out.

I don't see how this is procedural overkill. Trump was told to give the documents back and he said no. He ****** himself with that simple act.

(06-27-2023 07:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I take issue too, with the hyperpartisan comment - it just wasn't so egregious as the comment I puleld out.
I don't see how this is procedural overkill. Trump was told to give the documents back and he said no. He ****** himself with that simple act.

I'm not talking about only Trump. I'm talking about their use of SWAT-type forces on multiple occasions when there was clearly no need.

As for the hyperpartisan, are you prepared to say that Hillary and Trump were pursued with equal vigor? I am not, not even remotely close, and that is the hyperpartisanship that I condemn.

Think back to the text exchanges between Strzok and his squeeze. Are those the words of someone who is not hyperpartisan. And the references to "Andy" strongly suggest that sentiment was widespread.

(06-27-2023 03:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Again, which do you consider the greater threat to our democratic republic--Trump's indiscretions or the hyperpartisan biased nature of DOJ/FBI/CIA/NHS and the Gestapo/KGB tactics that they willingly employ in furtherance of those goals?

Answered above.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-972152-post-18...d18994679.

No more than 15 min. after you asked the first time in this thread.

I'd suggest changing the 3 to a 4 at this point.

(06-27-2023 07:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 07:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I take issue too, with the hyperpartisan comment - it just wasn't so egregious as the comment I puleld out.
I don't see how this is procedural overkill. Trump was told to give the documents back and he said no. He ****** himself with that simple act.

I'm not talking about only Trump. I'm talking about their use of SWAT-type forces on multiple occasions when there was clearly no need.

Should the search and seizure crew at MAL donned tux and white tie and delivered turn down service?

Quote:As for the hyperpartisan, are you prepared to say that Hillary and Trump were pursued with equal vigor? I am not, not even remotely close, and that is the hyperpartisanship that I condemn.

I think the record is abundantly clear that Trump exceeded Hillary *just* in the obstruction effort by a wide margin --- better measured in miles.

I think the search showed conclusively that stuff of a *far* higher magnitude was squirreled away by Donald. JFK, I mean -- look at Doc. 19 in the indictment.

"[C]oncerning nuclear weapons of the United States", and ostensibly from the markings classified under the Atomic Secrets Act and through the AEC -- which the President by statute *does not* have the authority to 'declassify' (albeit it should be clear from the audio that Donald's claim at declassifying in the public is a pile of utter crap.....)

Ose nose, Hillary didnt get 'searched and seized'. The sheer and utter horror and sheer inhumanity.

Im sorry, Trump's obstruction efforts make Hillary look like a rank fing rookie. Accordingly, boo fing hoo that MAL got searched and seized.

And no --- to the issue of of rhetoric, MAL was *not* subjected to a SWAT type raid. Far fing from it. It was subject to a search and seizure that seems normal with and commensurate with pretty much any S&S conducted with willful retention and massive obstruction.

Quote:Think back to the text exchanges between Strzok and his squeeze. Are those the words of someone who is not hyperpartisan. And the references to "Andy" strongly suggest that sentiment was widespread.

Absolutely Strzok and his gal are hyperpartisan. That is the breadth and depth of backing of the hyperbolic 'KGB/Stasi/Gestapo' comment?