(12-13-2019 06:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 05:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The issue is that the parcels of freedom in the Constitution apply to all forms of government investigative intrusion. There is literally zero difference about authorities falsifying (including deletions) evidence to get 'surveillance' or for those actions in any other law enforcement purpose.

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

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

That is a no win situation in any form.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(12-13-2019 07:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 06:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 05:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The issue is that the parcels of freedom in the Constitution apply to all forms of government investigative intrusion. There is literally zero difference about authorities falsifying (including deletions) evidence to get 'surveillance' or for those actions in any other law enforcement purpose.

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

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

That is a no win situation in any form.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad analogy. What I *am* saying is that there is no difference in culpability in using a gun to stick up an armored car for $600,000, and using a gun to stick up my neighbor's kid's lemonade stand for $1.35.

(12-13-2019 07:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

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

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

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

(12-13-2019 02:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The email was altered to present a radically different view of Page. Had Page been known by the agent affiming to the issue of what the email should have said, at the very least it would have set off alarm bells. And had the FISA court known the real contents, it likely would not have issued nor re-issued the warrant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(12-13-2019 07:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 07:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

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

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

(12-13-2019 04:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I guess my confusion is with the initial claim comparing the email editing to planting a gun, and asking if it was any different.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You’re suggesting planting a gun on someone is solely a government intrusion into your liberty? I would call it an attempt to deny you of your liberty by trying to frame and imprison you.

Quote:I would call it an attempt to deny you of your liberty

Quote:by trying to frame ... you

Quote:by trying to ... imprison you

(12-13-2019 07:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 07:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 06:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 05:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The issue is that the parcels of freedom in the Constitution apply to all forms of government investigative intrusion. There is literally zero difference about authorities falsifying (including deletions) evidence to get 'surveillance' or for those actions in any other law enforcement purpose.

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

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

That is a no win situation in any form.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad analogy. What I *am* saying is that there is no difference in culpability in using a gun to stick up an armored car for $600,000, and using a gun to stick up my neighbor's kid's lemonade stand for $1.35.

But in this case the end product was different too - so they didn’t use a gun to stick anyone up and steal from them. They used a gun to do something different.

Remember, the original metaphor was that evidence of a crime was planted by the FBI - did the FBI day Page committed a crime that he didn’t commit?

I agree regarding culpability - but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a difference between illegally surveilling someone and framing them for a crime.

(12-13-2019 05:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

(12-13-2019 08:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I find it funny that the people who make those comments dont see the implied superiority in those comments made about 'his base'.

When called on it they all run away from the comments without disavowing them, and at the same time never ever admitting the superior holier than thou tone embedded in them.

(12-14-2019 03:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I will leave it to you all to see the parallel:

Last night, as a result of the election there, the left staged a large demonstration against Boris Johnson and the Tories in central London.

What, one might ask, was the horrendous act that sparked that demonstration? Has Gary Busey Hair Johnson done anything since yesterday to justify the angry demonstration? A rational person would say no.

But obviously some wrong occurred that must the basis for demonstration.

Well from the same rational viewpoint it would seem that the leftists were protesting the fact that they lost the election.

I think based on that, and on the protests re: Shrub, and the massive protests starting on Day one of Trump, we might have entered the era of 'any outcome other than a left-wing victory is, to them, unacceptable.'

(12-14-2019 11:10 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Did we ever get to the bottom of that Greta tweet? What was the point of it?

(12-14-2019 11:10 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Did we ever get to the bottom of that Greta tweet? What was the point of it?

(12-14-2019 11:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont think any of us has a real clue what the point of it was.

(12-14-2019 12:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think it was pointless and should not have happened. Stupid move.

(12-14-2019 01:36 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(12-14-2019 11:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont think any of us has a real clue what the point of it was.

(12-14-2019 12:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think it was pointless and should not have happened. Stupid move.

Perfectly satisfactory answers, thanks.

I didn't understand why Trump would post that tweet, and I asked the question. That he was appealing to his base seemed like a plausible reason to me. You both take issue with the implication that his base might like it. Ok, scratch that potential explanation from the list then. It just remains a baffling choice. I pray for this guy.

(12-13-2019 02:24 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  My question was what is the point of Trump tweeting stuff like that? I don't get it. Is it a play to his base? Is he trolling the libs? Is he so threatened by her TIME cover that he has to respond? Genuinely curious what y'all think he's trying to accomplish here.

(12-14-2019 02:32 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 02:24 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  My question was what is the point of Trump tweeting stuff like that? I don't get it. Is it a play to his base? Is he trolling the libs? Is he so threatened by her TIME cover that he has to respond? Genuinely curious what y'all think he's trying to accomplish here.

Truly not being snide, just brainstorming since no one responded directly to my question. Seemed like a plausible explanation to me. Not an explanation I'd like, but one I could understand. Like I said, baffled.

By base, I guess I mean people he wants to vote for him? I don't know, I didn't give it much thought.