(06-27-2023 08:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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.

Sorry, I missed any earlier answers.

As far as the answer to which you refer, you apparently do not consider the actions of DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS to be hyperpartisan, or at least consider them unproved. You also seem to be leaning toward interpreting my comments as a defense of Trump. Let me be clear. I am perfectly fine if Donald Trump goes to prison, provided the allegations against him can be proved. I am not fine with Trump goes to prison and Hillary walks scot free, and I expect that I'll put Biden in the same category if we ever get to the facts in his case. Ant that sort of selective enforcement, on what can only be considered partisan grounds, is the basis for my comments regarding DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS.

As to existence of hyperpartisanship, I would offer Comey's absurd recommendation not to prosecute Hillary despite reciting sufficient evidence for slam dunk convictions on several counts, or the hide the pea actions with respect to Hunter and the Big Guy over the past 3-4 years as sufficient actus reus, and the wording of the texts between Strzok and his squeeze as sufficient indicia of mens rea.

If you don't see those things as incredibly problematic, then we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Do you really and truly believe that DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS have been truly objectively calling balls and strikes?

(06-27-2023 05:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What is the DOJ doing that is Gestapo-esque?

Well, the dawn raids with dozens of agents and people led away in handcuffs seems a bit Gestapo-esque to me. Not to you? At a time when many Americans are protesting no-knock warrants?

Stone raid

"But then just after 6 a.m., a number of law enforcement vehicles with lights flashing but no sirens pulled in front of Stone’s home on a darkened street.

About a dozen officers with heavy weapons and tactical vests fanned out across Stone’s lawn. Law enforcement shined a flashlight into Stone’s front door, and one officer rapped against it, shouting “FBI. Open the door.” The agent shouted seconds later: “FBI. Warrant.”

Heavy weapons and tactical vests? Were they expecting a shootout at 6:00 am? Lucky (yeah, lucky) CNN was there, or maybe Stone would have been killed resisting arrest.

Quote:Are they fabricating these tapes?

Well, they do have a history of using fabricated evidence to deprive certain citizens of their rights. Ever hear the tale of the Steele Dossier and the FISA court?

Quote: Did they plant the documents in the ball room?

I don't know - and neither do you. Sure would have been easy to add a couple to what was already there. I cannot trust them because of their history of partisan tactics.

Quote:Did they force Trump to not hand them over?

I was under the impression that negotiations were going on when they lost patience and decided a highly public raid with plenty of news coverage was in order.

(06-27-2023 09:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 05:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What is the DOJ doing that is Gestapo-esque?

Well, the dawn raids with dozens of agents and people led away in handcuffs seems a bit Gestapo-esque to me. Not to you? At a time when many Americans are protesting no-knock warrants?

What instances are you talking about above? If done for a jaywalking ticket I would concur. If done for a potential violent issue, or done to execute a warrant on a crime of violence, that might be appropriate.

Dawn execution of warrants.... I am sorry I dont have a problem with.

People led away in handcuffs -- yes, when arrests are made that is typically what happens in serving an arrest warrant.

Im sorry but your broad statements rally dont shed light on the explanation.

Quote:

Quote:Are they fabricating these tapes?

Well, they do have a history of using fabricated evidence to deprive certain citizens of their rights. Ever hear the tale of the Steele Dossier and the FISA court?

Steele dossier was not fabricated by the DOJ -- that was a Perkins Coie issue, and an private investigatory outfit firm.

It was proffered. And I dont have a problem with them looking at that proffer -- do you?

I do have an issue with the breadth and depth it was taken. But, that is *not* the DOJ fabricating. If the DOJ at the outset knew it was fabricated, your changing Lad's question from 'fabricating' to 'using fabricated' might be more of an issue from the get go.

As for Carter Page -- terrible that the FISA warrant was done. People lost their jobs and careers over that episode -- as they should.

Is one person doing that one time 'fabricating on an ad hoc basis' at this point?

Can you tell me what is suspected of being fabricated with regard to MAL, or is this just a generalized unsupported statement from you as it pertains to MAL?

Quote:

Quote: Did they plant the documents in the ball room?

I don't know - and neither do you. Sure would have been easy to add a couple to what was already there. I cannot trust them because of their history of partisan tactics.

To be fair, lad, documents were not found in the ballroom during the search and seizure.

Dont mistake Donald's desk with a ballroom. The ballroom and bathroom were temporary stopovers for the boxes. Had to start using the bathroom, and that high security was a real ***** when you had to take a #1.

Aside from that generalized 'I dont have a clue', is there any particularized underlying reason to think the DOJ had armies of midgets carrying in highly sensitive documents?

Quote:

Quote:Did they force Trump to not hand them over?

I was under the impression that negotiations were going on when they lost patience and decided a highly public raid with plenty of news coverage was in order.

Defying a subpoena and lying under a sworn statement tends to defeat the sense of negotiation. Just saying.

Tends to make the other party losing patience a tad more tolerable.

Still looking for a background on why "eastman = fantasy" as well.

(06-27-2023 10:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 09:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 05:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What is the DOJ doing that is Gestapo-esque?

Well, the dawn raids with dozens of agents and people led away in handcuffs seems a bit Gestapo-esque to me. Not to you? At a time when many Americans are protesting no-knock warrants?

What instances are you talking about above? If done for a jaywalking ticket I would concur. If done for a potential violent issue, or done to execute a warrant on a crime of violence, that might be appropriate.



Dawn execution of warrants.... I am sorry I dont have a problem with.

People led away in handcuffs -- yes, when arrests are made that is typically what happens in serving an arrest warrant.

Im sorry but your broad statements rally dont shed light on the explanation.

How about dawn executions of warrants with major news coverage? How many reporters were there at the Breona Taylor warrant? Everything was a photo op for the Blue Team. Excuse me, but it seems Gestapo-esque to me. I don't have to make you agree for it to appear like that to me.

Quote:

Quote:Are they fabricating these tapes?

Well, they do have a history of using fabricated evidence to deprive certain citizens of their rights. Ever hear the tale of the Steele Dossier and the FISA court?

Steele dossier was not fabricated by the DOJ -- that was a Perkins Coie issue, and an private investigatory outfit firm.

It was proffered. And I dont have a problem with them looking at that proffer -- do you?

I do have an issue with the breadth and depth it was taken. But, that is *not* the DOJ fabricating. If the DOJ at the outset knew it was fabricated, your changing Lad's question from 'fabricating' to 'using fabricated' might be more of an issue from the get go.

As for Carter Page -- terrible that the FISA warrant was done. People lost their jobs and careers over that episode -- as they should.

Is one person doing that one time 'fabricating on an ad hoc basis' at this point?

Can you tell me what is suspected of being fabricated with regard to MAL, or is this just a generalized unsupported statement from you as it pertains to MAL?

The FBI knowingly used fabricated evidence. If your defence of them is that they didn't do the fabricating themselves, that doesn't matter. One part of the team fabricated, one used the product.

As for what is being fabricated with MAL, AS i SAID - i DON'T KNOW, AND NEITHER DO YOU YOU. YOU JUST PLACE YOUR TRUST IN AN ORGANIZATION WHICH IS DEMONSTRABLY UNRELIABLE.

Quote:

Quote: Did they plant the documents in the ball room?

I don't know - and neither do you. Sure would have been easy to add a couple to what was already there. I cannot trust them because of their history of partisan tactics.

To be fair, lad, documents were not found in the ballroom during the search and seizure.

Dont mistake Donald's desk with a ballroom. The ballroom and bathroom were temporary stopovers for the boxes. Had to start using the bathroom, and that high security was a real ***** when you had to take a #1.

Aside from that generalized 'I dont have a clue', is there any particularized underlying reason to think the DOJ had armies of midgets carrying in highly sensitive documents?

Armies of midgets? Where is your proof that I said, implied, or believe armies of midgets were involved? It would be no problems at all for an agent to carry in a document and stuff it in with others. I have no proof this happened, and you have none that it didn't, other than your childlike faith in the FBI. But I am willing to bet midgets were probably not involved. But it is possible, and when the FBI is involved, there is a level of doubt.

Quote:

Quote:Did they force Trump to not hand them over?

I was under the impression that negotiations were going on when they lost patience and decided a highly public raid with plenty of news coverage was in order.

Defying a subpoena and lying under a sworn statement tends to defeat the sense of negotiation. Just saying.

Tends to make the other party losing patience a tad more tolerable.



Still looking for a background on why "eastman = fantasy" as well.

Eastman was a poorly constructed fantasy position in pursuit of a political goal.

The Russia hoax was a poorly constructed fantasy in pursuit of a political goal.

Sometimes you have to use your head.

(06-27-2023 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 10:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 09:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 05:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What is the DOJ doing that is Gestapo-esque?

Well, the dawn raids with dozens of agents and people led away in handcuffs seems a bit Gestapo-esque to me. Not to you? At a time when many Americans are protesting no-knock warrants?

What instances are you talking about above? If done for a jaywalking ticket I would concur. If done for a potential violent issue, or done to execute a warrant on a crime of violence, that might be appropriate.



Dawn execution of warrants.... I am sorry I dont have a problem with.

People led away in handcuffs -- yes, when arrests are made that is typically what happens in serving an arrest warrant.

Im sorry but your broad statements rally dont shed light on the explanation.

Quote:

Quote:Are they fabricating these tapes?

Well, they do have a history of using fabricated evidence to deprive certain citizens of their rights. Ever hear the tale of the Steele Dossier and the FISA court?

Steele dossier was not fabricated by the DOJ -- that was a Perkins Coie issue, and an private investigatory outfit firm.

It was proffered. And I dont have a problem with them looking at that proffer -- do you?

I do have an issue with the breadth and depth it was taken. But, that is *not* the DOJ fabricating. If the DOJ at the outset knew it was fabricated, your changing Lad's question from 'fabricating' to 'using fabricated' might be more of an issue from the get go.

As for Carter Page -- terrible that the FISA warrant was done. People lost their jobs and careers over that episode -- as they should.

Is one person doing that one time 'fabricating on an ad hoc basis' at this point?

Can you tell me what is suspected of being fabricated with regard to MAL, or is this just a generalized unsupported statement from you as it pertains to MAL?

Quote:

Quote: Did they plant the documents in the ball room?

I don't know - and neither do you. Sure would have been easy to add a couple to what was already there. I cannot trust them because of their history of partisan tactics.

To be fair, lad, documents were not found in the ballroom during the search and seizure.

Dont mistake Donald's desk with a ballroom. The ballroom and bathroom were temporary stopovers for the boxes. Had to start using the bathroom, and that high security was a real ***** when you had to take a #1.

Aside from that generalized 'I dont have a clue', is there any particularized underlying reason to think the DOJ had armies of midgets carrying in highly sensitive documents?

Quote:

Quote:Did they force Trump to not hand them over?

I was under the impression that negotiations were going on when they lost patience and decided a highly public raid with plenty of news coverage was in order.

Defying a subpoena and lying under a sworn statement tends to defeat the sense of negotiation. Just saying.

Tends to make the other party losing patience a tad more tolerable.

Still looking for a background on why "eastman = fantasy" as well.

Eastman was a poorly constructed fantasy position in pursuit of a political goal.

The Russia hoax was a poorly constructed fantasy in pursuit of a political goal.

Sometimes you have to use your head.

Perhaps it also might help to be a little less cryptic at the outset.

I'll refrain from making an equivalent snide end statement.

Thank you for the more detailed explanation. I would concur in part. Trump and his team actively believed the op would work and duper diligently tried to implement a detailed action plan.

My view is that at some point Hills and Perkins Coie realized they had garbage fantasy. I dont think the Trump crowd ever viewed Eastman as such.

(06-27-2023 10:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 10:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 09:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 05:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What is the DOJ doing that is Gestapo-esque?

Well, the dawn raids with dozens of agents and people led away in handcuffs seems a bit Gestapo-esque to me. Not to you? At a time when many Americans are protesting no-knock warrants?

What instances are you talking about above? If done for a jaywalking ticket I would concur. If done for a potential violent issue, or done to execute a warrant on a crime of violence, that might be appropriate.



Dawn execution of warrants.... I am sorry I dont have a problem with.

People led away in handcuffs -- yes, when arrests are made that is typically what happens in serving an arrest warrant.

Im sorry but your broad statements rally dont shed light on the explanation.

Quote:

Quote:Are they fabricating these tapes?

Well, they do have a history of using fabricated evidence to deprive certain citizens of their rights. Ever hear the tale of the Steele Dossier and the FISA court?

Steele dossier was not fabricated by the DOJ -- that was a Perkins Coie issue, and an private investigatory outfit firm.

It was proffered. And I dont have a problem with them looking at that proffer -- do you?

I do have an issue with the breadth and depth it was taken. But, that is *not* the DOJ fabricating. If the DOJ at the outset knew it was fabricated, your changing Lad's question from 'fabricating' to 'using fabricated' might be more of an issue from the get go.

As for Carter Page -- terrible that the FISA warrant was done. People lost their jobs and careers over that episode -- as they should.

Is one person doing that one time 'fabricating on an ad hoc basis' at this point?

Can you tell me what is suspected of being fabricated with regard to MAL, or is this just a generalized unsupported statement from you as it pertains to MAL?

Quote:

Quote: Did they plant the documents in the ball room?

I don't know - and neither do you. Sure would have been easy to add a couple to what was already there. I cannot trust them because of their history of partisan tactics.

To be fair, lad, documents were not found in the ballroom during the search and seizure.

Dont mistake Donald's desk with a ballroom. The ballroom and bathroom were temporary stopovers for the boxes. Had to start using the bathroom, and that high security was a real ***** when you had to take a #1.

Aside from that generalized 'I dont have a clue', is there any particularized underlying reason to think the DOJ had armies of midgets carrying in highly sensitive documents?

Quote:

Quote:Did they force Trump to not hand them over?

I was under the impression that negotiations were going on when they lost patience and decided a highly public raid with plenty of news coverage was in order.

Defying a subpoena and lying under a sworn statement tends to defeat the sense of negotiation. Just saying.

Tends to make the other party losing patience a tad more tolerable.

Still looking for a background on why "eastman = fantasy" as well.

Eastman was a poorly constructed fantasy position in pursuit of a political goal.

The Russia hoax was a poorly constructed fantasy in pursuit of a political goal.

Sometimes you have to use your head.

Perhaps it also might help to be a little less cryptic at the outset.

I'll refrain from making an equivalent snide end statement.

Thank you for the more detailed explanation. I would concur in part. Trump and his team actively believed the op would work and duper diligently tried to implement a detailed action plan.

My view is that at some point Hills and Perkins Coie realized they had garbage fantasy. I dont think the Trump crowd ever viewed Eastman as such.

At some point = the inception. It was the plan from the git-go. The whole three years of Trumpomania was planned, and judging from statements here, worked very well on a population that doesn't think critically.

I don't think my original statement was cryptic in the least - your mind was set, to the point you could not see the forest for the trees.

Be snide all you want. you have the right. I expect it. I can handle it, with the help of my army of midgets. How many does it take to be an army, anyway?

The problem with these conversations is that the left (on the issue) often want to argue specifics... like 'so which specific act do you think was a governmental over-reach' and then we get bogged down in 'value judgements' and 'dominos'.... as here.. where as an example... 'Trump was told to give the documents back and he didn't'... which sort of ignores the legal argument(s) that Trump is going to make in response... which may or may not work.... but the question sort of assumes that there IS no defense... and yet people like Trump 'walk' every single day... over and over. As BAD as Trump? Maybe not yet... but that isn't the issue.

I think the prosecutorial attacks on Hillary (mostly through Bill) back in the 90's were pretty outrageous... but it has now been taken to a whole other level. Lying to a FISA court, fabricating a 'dossier' and then using wiretaps and all sorts of other things that likely wouldn't have been allowed without the lies and fabrications for political purposes is an absolute affront to our civil liberties. If you don't agree, that's fine... you should still be upset that the FBI, IRS and other agencies have been turned into 'weapons' of political power. You may disagree on the degree to which this has happened, but I don't think you'd disagree that it is wrong or that it has happened.

The example(s) given above are not intended to be all-inclusive... nor even perhaps the most egregious in anyone's mind... they are merely what I believe to be fairly obvious and relatively commonly held beliefs.... mostly because of how much they dominated the press.

(06-27-2023 10:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What instances are you talking about above? If done for a jaywalking ticket I would concur. If done for a potential violent issue, or done to execute a warrant on a crime of violence, that might be appropriate.

Dawn execution of warrants.... I am sorry I dont have a problem with.

People led away in handcuffs -- yes, when arrests are made that is typically what happens in serving an arrest warrant.

Im sorry but your broad statements rally dont shed light on the explanation.

There have been numerous examples of people being 'aggressively raided' presented on the floor of Congress to the heads of these various agencies... where no real justification for such an aggressive action was presented, meanwhile plenty of evidence of significantly less aggressive options, including in some cases... someone turning themselves in was all that would have been required.

It is not smart to go into a case by case debate on such things as people are allowed to draw the lines in different places... but when these events are being brought to the floor of Congress and being directed at the heads of these agencies, you must at LEAST admit that there is SOME reason for concern.

Quote:It was proffered. And I dont have a problem with them looking at that proffer -- do you?

I do have an issue with the breadth and depth it was taken. But, that is *not* the DOJ fabricating. If the DOJ at the outset knew it was fabricated, your changing Lad's question from 'fabricating' to 'using fabricated' might be more of an issue from the get go.

Was it looked at with a suspicious mind? Was it corroborated? I would certainly expect them to corroborate it before relying on it for the purpose of infringing upon someone's civil rights, no?

Quote:As for Carter Page -- terrible that the FISA warrant was done. People lost their jobs and careers over that episode -- as they should.

Is one person doing that one time 'fabricating on an ad hoc basis' at this point?

If it was one person, why did 'people' lose their jobs??

Quote:Can you tell me what is suspected of being fabricated with regard to MAL, or is this just a generalized unsupported statement from you as it pertains to MAL?

SO maybe we should play YOUR game?

DId anyone here on this forum suggest that something about the MAL raid was fabricated?

I will say this... just because I'm trying to imagine something that was fabricated....

Apparently there were about 100 pages of classified documents... and yet we were shown pictures of literally dozens of boxes capable of holding perhaps thousands of pages each as part of what was taken. While to a smart person, they might know that you might have to look at tens of thousands if not millions of documents to find small numbers of classified documents... to the average person,

Now this is absolutely a self-inflicted wound... as Trump could have easily had these 100 pages in a single binder and turned them over... much more similar to what Biden and Pence did... but it is absolutely true that the press was MORE than happy to give the impression that there were 'dozens of boxes of classified material' at MAL.

Since we didn't even know that Biden had ANY documents, but we knew that Trump had a certain number... The ACTUAL story should have been the other way around... similarly self-inflicted... by that I mean, Trump didn't benefit from the fact that the government should have known that he only had about 100 pages... and Biden shouldn't have been protected from the fact that he also has what I'm sure is dozens of boxes that COULD include classified material.

Nobody in the government did anything wrong here... Trump blew/pissed on his opportunity... but you asked if anything was fabricated... and the 'impression' that there were dozens of boxes of classified material WAS fabricated by the press.... and Impressions matter during elections.

Quote:

Quote:I was under the impression that negotiations were going on when they lost patience and decided a highly public raid with plenty of news coverage was in order.

Defying a subpoena and lying under a sworn statement tends to defeat the sense of negotiation. Just saying.

Tends to make the other party losing patience a tad more tolerable.

So would you accept that 'fighting' 4 years of lawsuits and subpoenas and congressional inquiries based at least mostly on lies (Russian Collusion) might ALSO tend to make a party less willing to simply be an open book and give the government deference when it comes to them telling him what he can and cannot do??

I'm not agreeing this is the case... I mostly agree with you. Trump **** the pot here, no doubt... I am saying that I'm pretty confident that (right or wrong) this is how Trump feels/felt.... that these same people who had been up his ass for the past 4 years can now kiss it. He's absolutely responsible for the repercussions of that, but I can certainly understand why he might have felt that way.

Put in a different context... the thing that causes most people to get divorced is rarely something that most people might get divorced over... it is most often a collection of lesser transgressions... often incessant ones that eventually become overwhelming and cause an 'out of scope' reaction. I mean, if you punch her, you're still going to jail... but I've heard of people getting away with murder over that.

(06-27-2023 11:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 10:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 10:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 09:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, the dawn raids with dozens of agents and people led away in handcuffs seems a bit Gestapo-esque to me. Not to you? At a time when many Americans are protesting no-knock warrants?

What instances are you talking about above? If done for a jaywalking ticket I would concur. If done for a potential violent issue, or done to execute a warrant on a crime of violence, that might be appropriate.



Dawn execution of warrants.... I am sorry I dont have a problem with.

People led away in handcuffs -- yes, when arrests are made that is typically what happens in serving an arrest warrant.

Im sorry but your broad statements rally dont shed light on the explanation.

Quote:

Well, they do have a history of using fabricated evidence to deprive certain citizens of their rights. Ever hear the tale of the Steele Dossier and the FISA court?

Steele dossier was not fabricated by the DOJ -- that was a Perkins Coie issue, and an private investigatory outfit firm.

It was proffered. And I dont have a problem with them looking at that proffer -- do you?

I do have an issue with the breadth and depth it was taken. But, that is *not* the DOJ fabricating. If the DOJ at the outset knew it was fabricated, your changing Lad's question from 'fabricating' to 'using fabricated' might be more of an issue from the get go.

As for Carter Page -- terrible that the FISA warrant was done. People lost their jobs and careers over that episode -- as they should.

Is one person doing that one time 'fabricating on an ad hoc basis' at this point?

Can you tell me what is suspected of being fabricated with regard to MAL, or is this just a generalized unsupported statement from you as it pertains to MAL?

Quote:

I don't know - and neither do you. Sure would have been easy to add a couple to what was already there. I cannot trust them because of their history of partisan tactics.

To be fair, lad, documents were not found in the ballroom during the search and seizure.

Dont mistake Donald's desk with a ballroom. The ballroom and bathroom were temporary stopovers for the boxes. Had to start using the bathroom, and that high security was a real ***** when you had to take a #1.

Aside from that generalized 'I dont have a clue', is there any particularized underlying reason to think the DOJ had armies of midgets carrying in highly sensitive documents?

Quote:I was under the impression that negotiations were going on when they lost patience and decided a highly public raid with plenty of news coverage was in order.

Defying a subpoena and lying under a sworn statement tends to defeat the sense of negotiation. Just saying.

Tends to make the other party losing patience a tad more tolerable.

Still looking for a background on why "eastman = fantasy" as well.

Eastman was a poorly constructed fantasy position in pursuit of a political goal.

The Russia hoax was a poorly constructed fantasy in pursuit of a political goal.

Sometimes you have to use your head.

Perhaps it also might help to be a little less cryptic at the outset.

I'll refrain from making an equivalent snide end statement.

Thank you for the more detailed explanation. I would concur in part. Trump and his team actively believed the op would work and duper diligently tried to implement a detailed action plan.

My view is that at some point Hills and Perkins Coie realized they had garbage fantasy. I dont think the Trump crowd ever viewed Eastman as such.

At some point = the inception. It was the plan from the git-go. The whole three years of Trumpomania was planned, and judging from statements here, worked very well on a population that doesn't think critically.

I don't think my original statement was cryptic in the least - your mind was set, to the point you could not see the forest for the trees.

Be snide all you want. you have the right. I expect it. I can handle it, with the help of my army of midgets. How many does it take to be an army, anyway?

"eastman = steele = fantasy" has numerous problems with clarity, good sir. I can think of at least 3 interpretations, maybe 4.

In that manner, and for that matter, perhaps you may not see the forest for the trees.

Again -- the pithy "eastman = steele = fantasy" is far from as clear as you ostensibly think it is, and as you are so predisposed to knock anyone who doesnt see that pithy and unclear statement as the pure insight into one and only one thing as you seemingly do.


Thank you for clarifying and thank you for your passive aggressive indication of my ignorance -- twice in a day mind you on that last point.

Tanq,

Do you truly believe that DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS have been honest, objective public servants protecting our democratic republic, or do you believe that they are corrupt, biased, and partisan pursuers of a political agenda?

I realize that s a continuum, and you may place yourself anywhere along the line. Just want to know where you stand on the question.

(06-27-2023 12:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 10:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What instances are you talking about above? If done for a jaywalking ticket I would concur. If done for a potential violent issue, or done to execute a warrant on a crime of violence, that might be appropriate.

Dawn execution of warrants.... I am sorry I dont have a problem with.

People led away in handcuffs -- yes, when arrests are made that is typically what happens in serving an arrest warrant.

Im sorry but your broad statements rally dont shed light on the explanation.

There have been numerous examples of people being 'aggressively raided' presented on the floor of Congress to the heads of these various agencies... where no real justification for such an aggressive action was presented,

Please -- name some. As opposed to 'examples .... on the floor of Congress'.

Everyone seems to enjoy the broad, sweeping statement as opposed to hard details these days. Like in 'overwhelming evidence' previously.

If you want to repeat broad generalizations, repeating similar broad generalizations is not proof of that first braod generalization.

Quote:meanwhile plenty of evidence of significantly less aggressive options, including in some cases... someone turning themselves in was all that would have been required.

Details, please.

Quote:It is not smart to go into a case by case debate on such things as people are allowed to draw the lines in different places... but when these events are being brought to the floor of Congress and being directed at the heads of these agencies, you must at LEAST admit that there is SOME reason for concern.

All I hear here is broad generalizations presented as ipso facto fact.

As for *some* reason of concern -- there is a veritable **** ton of stuff that is cherry picked to provide political kabuki at congressional hearings. Many times to 'stir the side up'.

Using that same 'floor of Congress' standard as being proof positive of SOME CONCERN, then by that standard of 'proof' you should admit to the that same level of concern over Russiagate. That itself is an indication of the level of 'on the floor of Congress' brings.

Quote:

Quote:It was proffered. And I dont have a problem with them looking at that proffer -- do you?

I do have an issue with the breadth and depth it was taken. But, that is *not* the DOJ fabricating. If the DOJ at the outset knew it was fabricated, your changing Lad's question from 'fabricating' to 'using fabricated' might be more of an issue from the get go.

Was it looked at with a suspicious mind? Was it corroborated? I would certainly expect them to corroborate it before relying on it for the purpose of infringing upon someone's civil rights, no?

Part of my "if" statement implicitly.

Quote:As for Carter Page -- terrible that the FISA warrant was done. People lost their jobs and careers over that episode -- as they should.

Quote:Is one person doing that one time 'fabricating on an ad hoc basis' at this point?

If it was one person, why did 'people' lose their jobs??

Responsibility and chain of command. As it is in most any organizational setting.

Quote:

Quote:Can you tell me what is suspected of being fabricated with regard to MAL, or is this just a generalized unsupported statement from you as it pertains to MAL?

SO maybe we should play YOUR game?

DId anyone here on this forum suggest that something about the MAL raid was fabricated?

*My* game? The answer to the second question is 'yes'. See the second question, and second answer in post 42 int his thread. No -- it is not "MY game" Ham....

Quote:Apparently there were about 100 pages of classified documents...

100+ (a little over, that is) *documents*. Not pages. Each document can be several, tens, or scores of pages. iirc, the Florida Special Master debacle litigation indicated about 3000 pages of classified materials.

Quote:and yet we were shown pictures of literally dozens of boxes capable of holding perhaps thousands of pages each as part of what was taken. While to a smart person, they might know that you might have to look at tens of thousands if not millions of documents to find small numbers of classified documents... to the average person,

Now this is absolutely a self-inflicted wound... as Trump could have easily had these 100 pages in a single binder and turned them over... much more similar to what Biden and Pence did... but it is absolutely true that the press was MORE than happy to give the impression that there were 'dozens of boxes of classified material' at MAL.

See above.

Quote:Nobody in the government did anything wrong here... Trump blew/pissed on his opportunity... but you asked if anything was fabricated... and the 'impression' that there were dozens of boxes of classified material WAS fabricated by the press.... and Impressions matter during elections.

Actually it is your misconstruction between documents and pages that seems to be a good root of the issue you speak of above.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:I was under the impression that negotiations were going on when they lost patience and decided a highly public raid with plenty of news coverage was in order.

Defying a subpoena and lying under a sworn statement tends to defeat the sense of negotiation. Just saying.

Tends to make the other party losing patience a tad more tolerable.

So would you accept that 'fighting' 4 years of lawsuits and subpoenas and congressional inquiries based at least mostly on lies (Russian Collusion) might ALSO tend to make a party less willing to simply be an open book and give the government deference when it comes to them telling him what he can and cannot do??

No. Trump does *nothing* but litigate and stall. In civil suits going back 2 score years. Im sorry, Trump didnt change in that respect in the slightest due to '4 years' of hardship'.

Criminy -- I was in a BigLaw firm that was active against Trump in '97. No -- dont give me the 'Trump was ruint by big bad government because of suits and legal proceedings' line.

There is one significant issue that I didnt quite grasp until about a month ago. For his entire professional career, Trump has stolen. He stole via broken contracts, and vexatious litigation. And he had the wherewithal and chops to be the biggest dick in the world in that manner.

Then he ran across one thing/ entity that could outdick him in court. And Trump stole from it. Now Trump for the first time has to pay a protracted price.

Quote:I am saying that I'm pretty confident that (right or wrong) this is how Trump feels/felt.... that these same people who had been up his ass for the past 4 years can now kiss it.

How terrible. The guy that stole from others via the court system and civil litigation in stiffing his contracts for 40+ years, is now the poor innocent victim.

Trump has treated *everyone* in his world in this manner. If anything, this shows how utterly fing stupid Trump is. He can stiff anyone in the business world ('so, sue me'), literally a civil form of theft for years. And has done so for 40+ years.

Now -- oh poor little Donnie is being *hounded* by the one person he cant get away from paying for his crap. Bummer.

Quote:He's absolutely responsible for the repercussions of that, but I can certainly understand why he might have felt that way.

Hes pulled this **** for 40 years. I am friends with people in law firms that he pulled this style of **** on continuously 30 years ago. No, there is no 'poor Donnie is acting bad because he is being hounded' going on here. This garbage he shows is pathological, and has been for two score years.

No, I dont buy into the 'Donald told the feds to piss off because he felt hounded over 4 years'.

More like historical Donald told the feds to piss off because he never really tangled with them full force, and felt emboldened to do his same schtick that he has slung at any civil or contractual matter for 40 years.

(06-27-2023 01:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tanq,

Do you truly believe that DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS have been honest, objective public servants protecting our democratic republic, or do you believe that they are corrupt, biased, and partisan pursuers of a political agenda?

I realize that s a continuum, and you may place yourself anywhere along the line. Just want to know where you stand on the question.

Thank you for realizing there is a continuum.

I do feel there have been a few, a handful of people that have *not* been honest in that sense.

Strzok for one. The atty who falsified the Carter Page FISA application for a second. Those are two egregious examples of that.

Comey -- I am split on. I think he made a decision via Hillary that he felt compelled to try and avoid a very divisive decision -- in my opinion he should have made an alternative decision. I view Comey more as a weak backbone political climber -- not a evil mastermind deep state power broker.

At the end, he made what can easily be looked at as a decision not based in the law, but based on trying to keep a very divisive issue from being hatched. he effed up in my opinion.

I view his conduct in the Russia as the same -- he simply tried to move forward without getting either side's panties in a wad. And honesly, Trump did himself zero favors by firing him -- it lent credence to the oft-repeated 'Trump thinks the government exists for the benefit of Trump'. Which he doubled down and tripled down on with his dealings with Sessions and Barr.

Specious initial issue, and then Trump digs a lot of his own ditch with his reactions. Bad juju.

If there can be unearthed more substantive evidence on this cabal -- Im all ears. The facts are the facts.

In Strzok's individual case, I see the evidence for that isolated portion alone. Russiagate was specious, and should have been nipped for the garbage that it was.

The Ukraine impeachment was somewhat of a self-inflicted wound for Trump. He gave the bullets to a body that had the political backbone to act. But that is Trump being Trump -- as in the tape he made saying 'This is secret. Look, look at this.' -- good grief he is the gift that keeps on giving how he simply *gives* the opposition the means to act. At the very least.

And personally, I think Trump is bent as all ****. That doesnt seem to help his cause.

But back to the Ukraine impeachment -- that isnt a 'deep state plot'. That was the Congress acting in a political realm. That they have every right to do. It was a political power play. Period.

But then you have the garbage 'I wuz cheated', leading to the J6 issues (not jsut issue, but issues). What deep state actor told Trump to hatch a fing comic book level legal ploy to short circuit the certification? What deep state actor told Trump to sit in his dining room during the J6 riot, and do nothing (but throw ketchup on the wall.) Im sorry, those last two actions are *not* deep state plots. And each of those are dodgy.

The Eastman thing may very well be illegal as ****, and the refusal to act as President during the J6 riots just means he is fing unfit to hold any office, without it necessarily being illegal.

And similarly, what deep state actor told Trump to leave with nuclear secrets and war plans, and what deep state actor told Trump to not just blow off a federal Grand Jury subpoena, but to submit a perjurious attestation as to the documents?

Again, if you can put forward more evidence as to this deep state/ Gestapo/ KGB/ Stasi realm that you back -- put it forth. Im all ears. If there is such tangible hard evidence, Ill may even come around to your point of view.

But no, absent such hard, tangible evidence, that presumption is *not* my default point of view. Nor is it a view that the entirety and each and every individual in that apparatus is pure as the driven snow.

Be good sir, and good question.

(06-27-2023 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How about dawn executions of warrants with major news coverage? How many reporters were there at the Breona Taylor warrant? Everything was a photo op for the Blue Team. Excuse me, but it seems Gestapo-esque to me. I don't have to make you agree for it to appear like that to me.

The cycle that day was *not* 'gee willikers, they brought the press with them'.

The press showed up. Funny thing, searches mean LE, means shutting areas down. Not like MAL is some nowhere space.

Yes, how dare the press cover a fairly major news story. Damn Gestapo tactics, those evil news people covering an event. The horrors.

Quote:Is one person doing that one time 'fabricating on an ad hoc basis' at this point?

The FBI knowingly used fabricated evidence. If your defence of them is that they didn't do the fabricating themselves, that doesn't matter. One part of the team fabricated, one used the product.

As for what is being fabricated with MAL, AS i SAID - i DON'T KNOW, AND NEITHER DO YOU YOU. YOU JUST PLACE YOUR TRUST IN AN ORGANIZATION WHICH IS DEMONSTRABLY UNRELIABLE.

Are you just as steadfast in your support of Ancient Alien Visitors and the like?

Seems to me the basis for the above is exactly the same.

You are correct, I do not know. My presumption is that the 100+ documents are not fabricated. Occam's Razor and all that jazz. My base point is to not start out on what seems to be a specious starting point absent some proof.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote: Did they plant the documents in the ball room?

I don't know - and neither do you. Sure would have been easy to add a couple to what was already there. I cannot trust them because of their history of partisan tactics.

To be fair, lad, documents were not found in the ballroom during the search and seizure.

Dont mistake Donald's desk with a ballroom. The ballroom and bathroom were temporary stopovers for the boxes. Had to start using the bathroom, and that high security was a real ***** when you had to take a #1.

Aside from that generalized 'I dont have a clue', is there any particularized underlying reason to think the DOJ had armies of midgets carrying in highly sensitive documents?

Armies of midgets? Where is your proof that I said, implied, or believe armies of midgets were involved? It would be no problems at all for an agent to carry in a document and stuff it in with others. I have no proof this happened, and you have none that it didn't, other than your childlike faith in the FBI. But I am willing to bet midgets were probably not involved. But it is possible, and when the FBI is involved, there is a level of doubt.

Well my my my. My 'childlike faith in in the FBI'. Bummer, my presumption is to start on a historically sound basis, and if the evidence show me otherwise, change accordingly.

Yes, there is *zero* evidence that *anyone* planted evidence. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing.

Yet here you are saying 'yep, its possible.' Got it. Maybe come back when you have some evidence, or, for that matter, something more than what one might expect as a shrill cry from Trump.

I will grant you a 'level of doubt'. It grows exponentially with some proof. Looks pretty specious to this childlike mind. Kind of rather close to zero, but hey, why let an absence of any evidence of malfeasance come into conflict with a good sinister 'FBI might have planted stuff.'

In fact, on that basis, my sarcastic comment on an army of FBI midgets has about as much grounding as yours -- yet you get churlish over 'midgets'...... got it.

(06-27-2023 04:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But no, absent such hard, tangible evidence, that presumption is *not* my default point of view. Nor is it a view that the entirety and each and every individual in that apparatus is pure as the driven snow.
Be good sir, and good question.

Thank you for the discussion. I think the field hands are generally honest. But I think the bureaucrats at the top, like the bureaucrats atop virtually every federal agency, are far more interested in winning their own political games than in doing what is best for the nation. They truly believe that they have the God-given right to run roughshod over the will of the people to get their way about anything and everything. I've spent some time around several different agencies and they all think that way.

You mention the Strzok/Strzok squeeze texts as indicative of an isolated problem. Believe me, it's not. That's the way that the top folks at DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS all feel. I've worked inside all of them, plus DOD, FERC, and FDIC, and that's the way the execs at each think and feel. And I truly see that as a greater threat to our democratic republic than any thing Trump or Hillary, or maybe even Biden, has done.

(06-27-2023 03:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Please -- name some. As opposed to 'examples .... on the floor of Congress'.

Leave it to this forum for people to 'demand' that others demonstrate their anecdotal observations. I don't care to argue with you about how you might define 'aggressive'....

How about from MY quick google search about congress 'grilling' FBI...
Stefanik grills Wray
Hawley grills FBI
Hawley grills Garland

If I type Congress FBI raid I get a Texas Tribune article about an FBI raid on Henry Cuellar's home potentially impacting an election... and then House.gov, Jim Jordan launches inquiry on fbi raid of Mark Houck's house.... or even the Washington Post, where FBI agents argued with their director over raiding Trump's house.

Personally, I recall mostly seeing Kennedy, Hawley and Cruz on that highly partisan site... c-span grilling Garland and some FBI people. The biggest issue I recall was the FBI 'policing' cars with certain bumper stickers on them at school board meetings. I can't recall the specifics, but I remember it sounding especially egregious, and the responses never had anything to do with there being any real reason to do so.... aka an overly-aggressive FBI... a weaponization of it.

but although I noted these anecdotal observations... I never expected to have to defend my opinions in a court of law. I'll try and keep better notes in the future... though I have a personal 90 day retention policy and I fry my hard drive.

Quote:Everyone seems to enjoy the broad, sweeping statement as opposed to hard details these days. Like in 'overwhelming evidence' previously.

no more than some seem to enjoy debating opinions and meaningless details, or things that others never said.

Quote:If you want to repeat broad generalizations, repeating similar broad generalizations is not proof of that first braod generalization.

Nor is denying that these things exist proof that they don't. At the very least, I can demonstrate a congressional inquiry into it.... as well as lots of questions about it on the floor. While it is not proof that it exists, it absolutely is proof that the 'belief' that it exists isn't the stuff of pure fantasy. MAYBE it's a head-fake and shimmy like Russia... but I haven't seen anyone argue that yet... I've only heard some people argue that the intrusion wasn't TOO aggressive... which is a subjective argument that I'm not really interested in.

I DO find it funny though how many of the same people who want a less aggressive police for drugs and assaults, are okay with a more aggressive FBI for CERTAIN protests (but not ALL protests) and people gathering at school boards. I'm pretty sure you're not one of those... but I know a few of them.

Quote:meanwhile plenty of evidence of significantly less aggressive options, including in some cases... someone turning themselves in was all that would have been required.

Details, please.
[/quote]

It was one of the raids of someone's home... look it up yourself.

Quote:

Quote:It is not smart to go into a case by case debate on such things as people are allowed to draw the lines in different places... but when these events are being brought to the floor of Congress and being directed at the heads of these agencies, you must at LEAST admit that there is SOME reason for concern.

All I hear here is broad generalizations presented as ipso facto fact.

Wow... so why don't you ask them for proof rather than me. I have anecdotal evidence and recollections... these are not ipso-facto facts... you know, like the argument that Trump absolutely illegally took documents and obstructed justice etc... It only becomes a fact when he is convicted of it... yet plenty of people (cough cough) present those as slam-dunk, ipso facto facts.

Quote:As for *some* reason of concern -- there is a veritable **** ton of stuff that is cherry picked to provide political kabuki at congressional hearings. Many times to 'stir the side up'.

Yep... Russia Russia Russia is a perfect example.

Quote:Using that same 'floor of Congress' standard as being proof positive of SOME CONCERN, then by that standard of 'proof' you should admit to the that same level of concern over Russiagate. That itself is an indication of the level of 'on the floor of Congress' brings.

Funny that I actually typed that before reading this. Maybe you shouldn't assume that I wouldn't ??

Except that Russiagate has been determined to have been based on false/misleading information... while many of these raids are on tape... there really isn't any debate as to the aggressiveness (or not) of the raids... The only question is whether or not those aggressive actions were warranted... i.e. the people presented some form of physical harm threat where 'guns drawn' would be required.

Hardly the same level of intricacy and detail.

Quote:

Quote:It was proffered. And I dont have a problem with them looking at that proffer -- do you?

I do have an issue with the breadth and depth it was taken. But, that is *not* the DOJ fabricating. If the DOJ at the outset knew it was fabricated, your changing Lad's question from 'fabricating' to 'using fabricated' might be more of an issue from the get go.

Was it looked at with a suspicious mind? Was it corroborated? I would certainly expect them to corroborate it before relying on it for the purpose of infringing upon someone's civil rights, no?

Part of my "if" statement implicitly.[/quote]

Not really... You said 'If the DOJ at the outset knew it was fabricated'... and I asked if they corroborated it. Those are not in any way the same thing. I have presented a MUCH higher barrier to violating people's rights... which is as I understand it, the same barrier as most judges would have for a raid on a convicted felon's house. I'm no expert here, but I'm pretty sure that isn't normally allowed on just an uncorroborated statement from a witness with a clear bias and/or agenda.

Quote:

Quote:If it was one person, why did 'people' lose their jobs??

Responsibility and chain of command. As it is in most any organizational setting.

Right... so not just one person on an ad hoc basis as you suggested, but a 'system' that failed to police such things. Thank you.

Quote:

Quote:SO maybe we should play YOUR game?

DId anyone here on this forum suggest that something about the MAL raid was fabricated?

*My* game? The answer to the second question is 'yes'. See the second question, and second answer in post 42 int his thread. No -- it is not "MY game" Ham....

You've certainly played it on me numerous times today alone.... and my answers to you were also often 'yes'.- Looks like you understand how annoying it can be.

Quote:Apparently there were about 100 pages of classified documents...

100+ (a little over, that is) *documents*. Not pages. Each document can be several, tens, or scores of pages. iirc, the Florida Special Master debacle litigation indicated about 3000 pages of classified materials.
[/quote]

I'll defer to your number... it still doesn't remotely fill one box, much less the dozens that were pictured and talked about in the media...

remember though... this was just me trying to imagine ANYTHING that seemed to be fabricated... so while you corrected me on some details, you really didn't change the point.

Quote:and yet we were shown pictures of literally dozens of boxes capable of holding perhaps thousands of pages each as part of what was taken. While to a smart person, they might know that you might have to look at tens of thousands if not millions of documents to find small numbers of classified documents... to the average person,

Now this is absolutely a self-inflicted wound... as Trump could have easily had these 100 pages in a single binder and turned them over... much more similar to what Biden and Pence did... but it is absolutely true that the press was MORE than happy to give the impression that there were 'dozens of boxes of classified material' at MAL.

See above.
[/quote]

Yes... do so.

Quote:Nobody in the government did anything wrong here... Trump blew/pissed on his opportunity... but you asked if anything was fabricated... and the 'impression' that there were dozens of boxes of classified material WAS fabricated by the press.... and Impressions matter during elections.

Actually it is your misconstruction between documents and pages that seems to be a good root of the issue you speak of above.
[/quote]

Nope... makes no difference. It still isn't remotely the dozens of boxes I mentioned.... A typical banker's box holds probably 2-3,000 pages.

But good for you to keep trying to be right about comments that I began by pointing out that weren't a real issue.

Quote:

Quote:So would you accept that 'fighting' 4 years of lawsuits and subpoenas and congressional inquiries based at least mostly on lies (Russian Collusion) might ALSO tend to make a party less willing to simply be an open book and give the government deference when it comes to them telling him what he can and cannot do??

No. Trump does *nothing* but litigate and stall. In civil suits going back 2 score years. Im sorry, Trump didnt change in that respect in the slightest due to '4 years' of hardship'.

Which has nothing to do with anything I asked, does it. If you want to claim that Trump would have done it anyway, that's fine... but that isn't what I asked. I asked if 'being frustrated by pointless accusations' was ALSO an excuse to 'over-react'. I am of course paraphrasing... but you can refer to the actual question I asked.... and if you are denying that right to be frustrated, merely because it is Trump and he has a history of such things, that shows bias.

Quote:Criminy -- I was in a BigLaw firm that was active against Trump in '97. No -- dont give me the 'Trump was ruint by big bad government because of suits and legal proceedings' line.

So now you're hearing voices?? I've certainly never argued anything like that. All I've ever argued is that Trump didn't write the laws that he abused prior to being in government... Biden and company did. If he got away with things, that's IMO more on the government than it is on Trump, in terms of any REQUIREMENT to fix it. Trump certainly wasn't deterred from acting that way by (generally) 'winning'.

Quote:There is one significant issue that I didnt quite grasp until about a month ago. For his entire professional career, Trump has stolen. He stole via broken contracts, and vexatious litigation. And he had the wherewithal and chops to be the biggest dick in the world in that manner.

Then he ran across one thing/ entity that could outdick him in court. And Trump stole from it. Now Trump for the first time has to pay a protracted price.

Maybe... probably. I agree that he should, but I don't trust that he will.... and it shouldn't take someone as egregious as Trump to FINALLY get caught and not be able to wiggle out of it... like Hunter just did.

Quote:I am saying that I'm pretty confident that (right or wrong) this is how Trump feels/felt.... that these same people who had been up his ass for the past 4 years can now kiss it.

How terrible. The guy that stole from others via the court system and civil litigation in stiffing his contracts for 40+ years, is now the poor innocent victim. [/quote][/quote]

Your bias showing again. I never referred to him as a victim. I am basically referring to him as a narcissistic *******... but guess what? They have the same Constitutional protections as everyone else.

Quote:Trump has treated *everyone* in his world in this manner. If anything, this shows how utterly fing stupid Trump is. He can stiff anyone in the business world ('so, sue me'), literally a civil form of theft for years. And has done so for 40+ years.

So why didn't Congress fix this 39 years ago? Your anger is misplaced. Criminals who don't get punished keep being criminals. If you want to stop them, you have to catch them and punish them.

Quote:Now -- oh poor little Donnie is being *hounded* by the one person he cant get away from paying for his crap. Bummer.

Yeah... that's a voice in your head saying that if you're hearing that from anything I said.

Seriously, Tanq... I understand you may have some major burr in your saddle about Trump the person... but you really need to stop applying anything that disagrees with your clearly biased position as being in any way sympathetic towards him.

Quote:He's absolutely responsible for the repercussions of that, but I can certainly understand why he might have felt that way.

Hes pulled this **** for 40 years. I am friends with people in law firms that he pulled this style of **** on continuously 30 years ago. No, there is no 'poor Donnie is acting bad because he is being hounded' going on here. This garbage he shows is pathological, and has been for two score years.

No, I dont buy into the 'Donald told the feds to piss off because he felt hounded over 4 years'.

More like historical Donald told the feds to piss off because he never really tangled with them full force, and felt emboldened to do his same schtick that he has slung at any civil or contractual matter for 40 years.
[/quote]

So again, maybe I should try YOUR game of asking why you're bringing up some unrelated 40 year old act to the issue at hand.

As I've repeatedly said... If he's been getting away with it for 40 years, then why aren't you as upset as I am at those who have allowed him to do so? Had you stopped him 40 years ago, maybe none of this would have happened.

That's not a defense of Trump... but a leopard doesn't change its spots. It is up to the hunter to change his tactics.... and if the leopard keeps winning, he will keep growing and getting bigger and hungrier.

BUT for the context of this discussion... it DOESN"T MAKE IT OKAY to break the law/politicize the FBI etc just because you REALLY want to get this leopard. You STILL have to follow the laws... and if you can't get him under the laws... then you need to change the laws.

I don't know how many more times I have to say things like this before you stop whining about 30+ year old run-ins with the same ass-hole... At SOME point, you need to recognize that Trump and to a lesser degree, Biden, Hillary, Pelosi et al are the RESULT, and not the cause.

(06-27-2023 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 11:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 10:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 10:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What instances are you talking about above? If done for a jaywalking ticket I would concur. If done for a potential violent issue, or done to execute a warrant on a crime of violence, that might be appropriate.



Dawn execution of warrants.... I am sorry I dont have a problem with.

People led away in handcuffs -- yes, when arrests are made that is typically what happens in serving an arrest warrant.

Im sorry but your broad statements rally dont shed light on the explanation.


Steele dossier was not fabricated by the DOJ -- that was a Perkins Coie issue, and an private investigatory outfit firm.

It was proffered. And I dont have a problem with them looking at that proffer -- do you?

I do have an issue with the breadth and depth it was taken. But, that is *not* the DOJ fabricating. If the DOJ at the outset knew it was fabricated, your changing Lad's question from 'fabricating' to 'using fabricated' might be more of an issue from the get go.

As for Carter Page -- terrible that the FISA warrant was done. People lost their jobs and careers over that episode -- as they should.

Is one person doing that one time 'fabricating on an ad hoc basis' at this point?

Can you tell me what is suspected of being fabricated with regard to MAL, or is this just a generalized unsupported statement from you as it pertains to MAL?


To be fair, lad, documents were not found in the ballroom during the search and seizure.

Dont mistake Donald's desk with a ballroom. The ballroom and bathroom were temporary stopovers for the boxes. Had to start using the bathroom, and that high security was a real ***** when you had to take a #1.

Aside from that generalized 'I dont have a clue', is there any particularized underlying reason to think the DOJ had armies of midgets carrying in highly sensitive documents?


Defying a subpoena and lying under a sworn statement tends to defeat the sense of negotiation. Just saying.

Tends to make the other party losing patience a tad more tolerable.

Still looking for a background on why "eastman = fantasy" as well.

Eastman was a poorly constructed fantasy position in pursuit of a political goal.

The Russia hoax was a poorly constructed fantasy in pursuit of a political goal.

Sometimes you have to use your head.

Perhaps it also might help to be a little less cryptic at the outset.

I'll refrain from making an equivalent snide end statement.

Thank you for the more detailed explanation. I would concur in part. Trump and his team actively believed the op would work and duper diligently tried to implement a detailed action plan.

My view is that at some point Hills and Perkins Coie realized they had garbage fantasy. I dont think the Trump crowd ever viewed Eastman as such.

At some point = the inception. It was the plan from the git-go. The whole three years of Trumpomania was planned, and judging from statements here, worked very well on a population that doesn't think critically.

I don't think my original statement was cryptic in the least - your mind was set, to the point you could not see the forest for the trees.

Be snide all you want. you have the right. I expect it. I can handle it, with the help of my army of midgets. How many does it take to be an army, anyway?

"eastman = steele = fantasy" has numerous problems with clarity, good sir. I can think of at least 3 interpretations, maybe 4.

In that manner, and for that matter, perhaps you may not see the forest for the trees.

Again -- the pithy "eastman = steele = fantasy" is far from as clear as you ostensibly think it is, and as you are so predisposed to knock anyone who doesnt see that pithy and unclear statement as the pure insight into one and only one thing as you seemingly do.


Thank you for clarifying and thank you for your passive aggressive indication of my ignorance -- twice in a day mind you on that last point.

Try substituting "is the same as" for the equal signs.

I can see only one interpretation. What are the others?

(06-27-2023 05:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The press showed up. Funny thing, searches mean LE, means shutting areas down. Not like MAL is some nowhere space.

Missed the point again.

The press was pre-alerted. DOJ wanted them there.

when the cops broke into Breona Taylors, the press was not waiting with their video cams.

See the difference? It not the after the fact coverage that I am talking about. It's the difference between covering an accident and having a news team in place to record the accident as it happens.

(06-27-2023 08:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 05:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The press showed up. Funny thing, searches mean LE, means shutting areas down. Not like MAL is some nowhere space.

Missed the point again.

Nope.

Quote:The press was pre-alerted. DOJ wanted them there.

Evidence please. The only issue I *missed* was *your* assumption of that.

Quote:See the difference?

I was aware of the difference as I typed it. Considering zero evidence of a 'press ride along', I didnt include that. Much in the same fashion I did not include mention of Oprah greeting the search team in the foyer of MAL.

(06-27-2023 08:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 11:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 10:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Eastman was a poorly constructed fantasy position in pursuit of a political goal.

The Russia hoax was a poorly constructed fantasy in pursuit of a political goal.

Sometimes you have to use your head.

Perhaps it also might help to be a little less cryptic at the outset.

I'll refrain from making an equivalent snide end statement.

Thank you for the more detailed explanation. I would concur in part. Trump and his team actively believed the op would work and duper diligently tried to implement a detailed action plan.

My view is that at some point Hills and Perkins Coie realized they had garbage fantasy. I dont think the Trump crowd ever viewed Eastman as such.

At some point = the inception. It was the plan from the git-go. The whole three years of Trumpomania was planned, and judging from statements here, worked very well on a population that doesn't think critically.

I don't think my original statement was cryptic in the least - your mind was set, to the point you could not see the forest for the trees.

Be snide all you want. you have the right. I expect it. I can handle it, with the help of my army of midgets. How many does it take to be an army, anyway?

"eastman = steele = fantasy" has numerous problems with clarity, good sir. I can think of at least 3 interpretations, maybe 4.

In that manner, and for that matter, perhaps you may not see the forest for the trees.

Again -- the pithy "eastman = steele = fantasy" is far from as clear as you ostensibly think it is, and as you are so predisposed to knock anyone who doesnt see that pithy and unclear statement as the pure insight into one and only one thing as you seemingly do.


Thank you for clarifying and thank you for your passive aggressive indication of my ignorance -- twice in a day mind you on that last point.

Try substituting "is the same as" for the equal signs.

I can see only one interpretation. What are the others?

The true conspiracy nutter position -- Russiagate was a fantasy (to some degree a truism), Trump plotting to circumvent the certification vote is a fantasy.

There are people who actually believe that the Eastman plan wasnt written, nor do they believe that Pence was pressured to short circuit slates of electors by fiat.

That is that the subject itself is delusional. Not that implementing it successfully was a delusional goal, as I now take your position.

(06-27-2023 09:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 08:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-27-2023 05:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The press showed up. Funny thing, searches mean LE, means shutting areas down. Not like MAL is some nowhere space.

Missed the point again.

Nope.

Quote:The press was pre-alerted. DOJ wanted them there.

Evidence please. The only issue I *missed* was *your* assumption of that.

Quote:See the difference?

I was aware of the difference as I typed it. Considering zero evidence of a 'press ride along', I didnt include that. Much in the same fashion I did not include mention of Oprah greeting the search team in the foyer of MAL.

So you didn't see the CNN film of the DOJ cars pulling up to MAL with lights flashing?