CSNbbs
Trump Administration - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+------ Forum: Rice Archives (/forum-640.html)
+------ Thread: Trump Administration (/thread-797972.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 12-11-2019 05:25 PM

(12-11-2019 05:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-11-2019 04:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-11-2019 01:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(12-11-2019 07:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, read the executive summary of the document. You seem to misunderstand some things regarding the opening of the investigation - it clearly says that the FBI has sufficient evidence to open the investigation into the Trump campaign, and into the four individuals - Papadopolous, Page, Flynn, and Manafort. Page iii is where a lot of that information is located.

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

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6571534-OIG-Russia-Investigation-Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My fixation? How many posts did I make about it? 2. What a fixation!

Who brought up whether or not there was sufficient evidence? Ham. And Ham tried to say that the IG report didn't say that, when it CLEARLY did.

I corrected him and made sure he was aware that the IG report is VERY clear that the opening of the investigations into the Trump campaign's connections to Russia and 4 individuals, was proper.

If you want to quibble with whether or not the level of evidence is appropriate, that is a totally different issue. But that wasn't what Ham did.

I believe the IG in both instances - that opening the investigation was done properly, but that there were some serious issues with how the FISA application was handled.


RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 12-11-2019 05:29 PM

(12-11-2019 04:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That means that if it was proper to open an investigation, there was sufficient evidence, regardless of how you personally feel about the threshold for the investigation.

No, it doesn't mean that, not even close. The bar for starting an investigation is way, way lower than sufficient evidence. The bar for starting an investigation is some reason to believe that something might have happened. The purpose of the investigation is to determine whether there is in fact sufficient evidence to conclude that the thing did or did not happen.

You perform the investigation to determine whether there is sufficient evidence. If you already have sufficient evidence, then you don't need an investigation.


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 12-11-2019 05:52 PM

(12-11-2019 05:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-11-2019 04:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That means that if it was proper to open an investigation, there was sufficient evidence, regardless of how you personally feel about the threshold for the investigation.

No, it doesn't mean that, not even close. The bar for starting an investigation is way, way lower than sufficient evidence. The bar for starting an investigation is some reason to believe that something might have happened. The purpose of the investigation is to determine whether there is in fact sufficient evidence to conclude that the thing did or did not happen.

You perform the investigation to determine whether there is sufficient evidence. If you already have sufficient evidence, then you don't need an investigation.

In this conversation is the phrase "sufficient evidence" a legal term I'm unaware of in this context?

I read that to mean that the bar to open the investigation was met, because it was used in reference to opening the investigation. However, you seem to indicate that it's related to the ruling on a case (i.e. whether or not something happened) - but that wasn't what Ham was talking about. See:

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

I don't think that is referencing whether or not there is enough information to rule.

Maybe let Ham speak for himself?


RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 12-11-2019 06:04 PM

The only point I am trying to make is that sufficient evidence to start an investigation is a very low bar. It need not be evidence at all. For example, the whistleblower letter re: Ukraine does not constitute admissible evidence under most circumstances, but was deemed sufficient to start an investigation.

So saying that there was sufficient evidence to start an investigation is reciting an absurdly low standard to mean anything. You may not be able to indict a ham sandwich, but you could certainly investigate one.


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 12-11-2019 06:16 PM

(12-11-2019 06:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The only point I am trying to make is that sufficient evidence to start an investigation is a very low bar. It need not be evidence at all. For example, the whistleblower letter re: Ukraine does not constitute admissible evidence under most circumstances, but was deemed sufficient to start an investigation.

So saying that there was sufficient evidence to start an investigation is reciting an absurdly low standard to mean anything. You may not be able to indict a ham sandwich, but you could certainly investigate one.

Well, given that the conversation wasn't started because someone suggested that there wasn't a lot of evidence, but literally that the IG report didn't state there was sufficient evidence to start the investigation ("I mean seriously... If the report wanted to say there was sufficient evidence to investigate Trump, it would have very clearly said so."), your comment isn't really on topic.

Again, if you want to talk about whether or not that low bar is appropriate, fine. But don't explicitly say the IG didn't touch on whether or not the IG directly addressed the validity of the opening of the investigation into the campaign and four individuals related to the campaign.

Again, maybe let Ham speak for himself.


RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 12-11-2019 06:28 PM

(12-11-2019 06:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-11-2019 06:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The only point I am trying to make is that sufficient evidence to start an investigation is a very low bar. It need not be evidence at all. For example, the whistleblower letter re: Ukraine does not constitute admissible evidence under most circumstances, but was deemed sufficient to start an investigation.
So saying that there was sufficient evidence to start an investigation is reciting an absurdly low standard to mean anything. You may not be able to indict a ham sandwich, but you could certainly investigate one.
Well, given that the conversation wasn't started because someone suggested that there wasn't a lot of evidence, but literally that the IG report didn't state there was sufficient evidence to start the investigation ("I mean seriously... If the report wanted to say there was sufficient evidence to investigate Trump, it would have very clearly said so."), your comment isn't really on topic.
Again, if you want to talk about whether or not that low bar is appropriate, fine. But don't explicitly say the IG didn't touch on whether or not the IG directly addressed the validity of the opening of the investigation into the campaign and four individuals related to the campaign.
Again, maybe let Ham speak for himself.

My only point is that there are people posting in various places who are attempting to conflate "sufficient evidence to investigate" into "sufficient evidence to state a case." And that is the point I am making. I think Hambone's post would have been better stated had he referred to "sufficient evidence to make a case against Trump," but I'm not his proofreader.


RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 12-11-2019 06:28 PM

(12-11-2019 06:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-11-2019 06:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The only point I am trying to make is that sufficient evidence to start an investigation is a very low bar. It need not be evidence at all. For example, the whistleblower letter re: Ukraine does not constitute admissible evidence under most circumstances, but was deemed sufficient to start an investigation.
So saying that there was sufficient evidence to start an investigation is reciting an absurdly low standard to mean anything. You may not be able to indict a ham sandwich, but you could certainly investigate one.
Well, given that the conversation wasn't started because someone suggested that there wasn't a lot of evidence, but literally that the IG report didn't state there was sufficient evidence to start the investigation ("I mean seriously... If the report wanted to say there was sufficient evidence to investigate Trump, it would have very clearly said so."), your comment isn't really on topic.
Again, if you want to talk about whether or not that low bar is appropriate, fine. But don't explicitly say the IG didn't touch on whether or not the IG directly addressed the validity of the opening of the investigation into the campaign and four individuals related to the campaign.
Again, maybe let Ham speak for himself.

My only point is that there are people posting in various places who are attempting to conflate "sufficient evidence to investigate" into "sufficient evidence to state a case." And that is the point I am making. I think Hambone's post would have been better stated had he referred to "sufficient evidence to make a case against Trump," but I'm not his proofreader.

And more to the point that I think Hambone was trying to make, there are others who have attempted to conflate, "Russia interfered with the election," into, "Trump conspired with Russia." There is a considerable gulf between those two assertions, which so far has not been bridged.


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 12-11-2019 06:55 PM

(12-11-2019 06:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-11-2019 06:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-11-2019 06:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The only point I am trying to make is that sufficient evidence to start an investigation is a very low bar. It need not be evidence at all. For example, the whistleblower letter re: Ukraine does not constitute admissible evidence under most circumstances, but was deemed sufficient to start an investigation.
So saying that there was sufficient evidence to start an investigation is reciting an absurdly low standard to mean anything. You may not be able to indict a ham sandwich, but you could certainly investigate one.
Well, given that the conversation wasn't started because someone suggested that there wasn't a lot of evidence, but literally that the IG report didn't state there was sufficient evidence to start the investigation ("I mean seriously... If the report wanted to say there was sufficient evidence to investigate Trump, it would have very clearly said so."), your comment isn't really on topic.
Again, if you want to talk about whether or not that low bar is appropriate, fine. But don't explicitly say the IG didn't touch on whether or not the IG directly addressed the validity of the opening of the investigation into the campaign and four individuals related to the campaign.
Again, maybe let Ham speak for himself.

My only point is that there are people posting in various places who are attempting to conflate "sufficient evidence to investigate" into "sufficient evidence to state a case." And that is the point I am making. I think Hambone's post would have been better stated had he referred to "sufficient evidence to make a case against Trump," but I'm not his proofreader.

And more to the point that I think Hambone was trying to make, there are others who have attempted to conflate, "Russia interfered with the election," into, "Trump conspired with Russia." There is a considerable gulf between those two assertions, which so far has not been bridged.

Then maybe don't defend his position?

Ham was very clear that he was talking about the evidence to start the investigation into the Trump org. See item #2:

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

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

The problem is, in all likelihood, Ham didn't actually read the IG report. I mean, I didn't until Ham made that post and I thought it was weird that the IG was talking about the investigation into Russian interference and not the FBI's investigation into Trump and those 4 individuals.


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 12-11-2019 07:56 PM

I love listening to you three legal experts debate the meaning of words.


RE: Trump Administration - georgewebb - 12-11-2019 08:02 PM

(12-11-2019 07:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I love listening to you three legal experts debate the meaning of words.

And they're not even billing for it!


RE: Trump Administration - georgewebb - 12-11-2019 08:03 PM

... or are they?


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 12-11-2019 08:10 PM

(12-11-2019 08:03 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  ... or are they?

They are not billing me. I thought it was a free seminar.

Very impressed with the engineer holding his own with the two legal eagles.

A friend on mine used to say, if you cannot be right, be stubborn.


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 12-12-2019 12:49 AM

Notwithstanding all the arm flapping over 'sufficient evidence', here is the nub of the entire Horowitz report captured in one single question and one single answer:

Cruz: "A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies upon. Am I stating that accurately?"

Horowitz: "Thats correct. Thats what occurred"

No matter the arm flapping, nor Popup Poster comments, that is the deep reality of the report.

That is staggering if you bother to actually look at that question and simple answer.


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 12-12-2019 04:02 AM

So after the Popup Poster threw out his lines about 'no evidence' previously, I think today's testimony was fairly illuminating.

There were 17 instances of misconduct by the FBI in connection with the FISA proceess; note that is 17 on *only* the FISA process.

Horowitz did note that he found 'no evidence of intentional misconduct'. However, in later questioning, he noted that *none* of the agents could provide explanations for their actions that were 'satisfactory'. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

What does any rational person think when you have a series of say, 17 'bad acts', and NONE of the explanations were satisfactory. I can see giving a pass on one or two. Three and four.... not so easy. But we arent talking about 3 or 4 ---- we are talking about *seventeen* acts, none of which stands with *any* good explanation per the Inspector General.

If we were talking about seventeen acts of say, discrimination against a racial minority, I am absolutely positive that the string of seventeen acts that resulted in overt discrimination with *zero* good explanations would have every single liberal person yelling about it here --- I am sure Popup Poster would post a link to the finding of seventeen bad acts with *zero* good explanation and say that that is proof positive.

In fact, if this were actually a discrimination suit, the sheer number of acts *and* the evidence showing *no* decent explanation for those bad acts would be taken as positive evidence that the acts were intentional and in bad faith. But yet, there seems to be a crapload of arm waving over the 'oh, seemed enough to start' *and* items like Popup Posters litanies on the 'no evidence of bias'.

Again, funny that Popup Poster *doesnt* mention the absolute lack of a satisfactory (Horowitz's own phrase there, mind you) explanation for *any* of the 17 noted failures. Actually, come to think of it, no, it is not odd at all -- it is laughingly predictable.......


RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 12-12-2019 08:29 AM

(12-12-2019 04:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So after the Popup Poster threw out his lines about 'no evidence' previously, I think today's testimony was fairly illuminating.
There were 17 instances of misconduct by the FBI in connection with the FISA proceess; note that is 17 on *only* the FISA process.
Horowitz did note that he found 'no evidence of intentional misconduct'. However, in later questioning, he noted that *none* of the agents could provide explanations for their actions that were 'satisfactory'. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
What does any rational person think when you have a series of say, 17 'bad acts', and NONE of the explanations were satisfactory. I can see giving a pass on one or two. Three and four.... not so easy. But we arent talking about 3 or 4 ---- we are talking about *seventeen* acts, none of which stands with *any* good explanation per the Inspector General.
If we were talking about seventeen acts of say, discrimination against a racial minority, I am absolutely positive that the string of seventeen acts that resulted in overt discrimination with *zero* good explanations would have every single liberal person yelling about it here --- I am sure Popup Poster would post a link to the finding of seventeen bad acts with *zero* good explanation and say that that is proof positive.
In fact, if this were actually a discrimination suit, the sheer number of acts *and* the evidence showing *no* decent explanation for those bad acts would be taken as positive evidence that the acts were intentional and in bad faith. But yet, there seems to be a crapload of arm waving over the 'oh, seemed enough to start' *and* items like Popup Posters litanies on the 'no evidence of bias'.
Again, funny that Popup Poster *doesnt* mention the absolute lack of a satisfactory (Horowitz's own phrase there, mind you) explanation for *any* of the 17 noted failures. Actually, come to think of it, no, it is not odd at all -- it is laughingly predictable.......

I like the way you cut to the chase, counselor.


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 12-12-2019 10:20 AM

(12-12-2019 12:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Notwithstanding all the arm flapping over 'sufficient evidence', here is the nub of the entire Horowitz report captured in one single question and one single answer:

Cruz: "A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies upon. Am I stating that accurately?"

Horowitz: "Thats correct. Thats what occurred"

No matter the arm flapping, nor Popup Poster comments, that is the deep reality of the report.

That is staggering if you bother to actually look at that question and simple answer.



RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 12-12-2019 10:28 AM

Bears repeating.

Cruz: "A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies upon. Am I stating that accurately?"

Horowitz: "Thats correct. Thats what occurred"


Pretty unequivocal.

Pretty far from the cry that "we have been exonerated!" that Comey et all, plus the Democrat cheerleaders here have been leading.

Clearly, the leftists in government acted badly, in fact, fraudulently, to achieve a political goal.

And those same leftists want to impeach Trump for doing the same?

Double standard. Hypocrisy.


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 12-12-2019 10:50 AM

(12-12-2019 12:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Notwithstanding all the arm flapping over 'sufficient evidence', here is the nub of the entire Horowitz report captured in one single question and one single answer:

Cruz: "A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies upon. Am I stating that accurately?"

Horowitz: "Thats correct. Thats what occurred"

No matter the arm flapping, nor Popup Poster comments, that is the deep reality of the report.

That is staggering if you bother to actually look at that question and simple answer.

I think there are serious concerns regarding how many issues were identified in the FISA application.

I've just read through portions of the Executive Summary - does the report outline what that email was about and what alteration was made?


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 12-12-2019 11:06 AM

(12-12-2019 10:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Bears repeating.

Cruz: "A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies upon. Am I stating that accurately?"

Horowitz: "Thats correct. Thats what occurred"


Pretty unequivocal.

Pretty far from the cry that "we have been exonerated!" that Comey et all, plus the Democrat cheerleaders here have been leading.

Clearly, the leftists in government acted badly, in fact, fraudulently, to achieve a political goal.

And those same leftists want to impeach Trump for doing the same?

Double standard. Hypocrisy.

It actually isn't clear why any of those people acted how they did. Reading through the executive summary a bit more (it does discuss what edit was made to the email), it seems like the IG believes the primary cause for these errors was a lack of understanding of the Woods Procedure by agents, and then a lack of oversight by superiors in checking their work.

We know that agents within the FBI both supported Trump and Hillary, and it's most likely that biases were put aside on both ends. But who knows.


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 12-12-2019 11:18 AM

(12-12-2019 11:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-12-2019 10:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Bears repeating.

Cruz: "A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies upon. Am I stating that accurately?"

Horowitz: "Thats correct. Thats what occurred"


Pretty unequivocal.

Pretty far from the cry that "we have been exonerated!" that Comey et all, plus the Democrat cheerleaders here have been leading.

Clearly, the leftists in government acted badly, in fact, fraudulently, to achieve a political goal.

And those same leftists want to impeach Trump for doing the same?

Double standard. Hypocrisy.

It actually isn't clear why any of those people acted how they did. Reading through the executive summary a bit more (it does discuss what edit was made to the email), it seems like the IG believes the primary cause for these errors was a lack of understanding of the Woods Procedure by agents, and then a lack of oversight by superiors in checking their work.

We know that agents within the FBI both supported Trump and Hillary, and it's most likely that biases were put aside on both ends. But who knows.

Pretty clear to me, when considered in the context of all that has happened the last four years.

But if the Democrats want to put their eggs in the basket of FBI incompetence, that is their choice. I wonder which is worse, an incompetent FBI or a malevolent one. An agency run by the Marx brothers, or one run by the Deep State.