(04-25-2020 01:00 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Married for 17+ years

(04-25-2020 09:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-24-2020 09:22 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(04-24-2020 07:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And in retrospect, I think I mangled the informal meaning as used in the post a bit. After a tad of thought, the refers to extreme anger producing speechlessness. I think the extreme anger can be inferred, but obviously they are definitely not speechless because of it.

No anger here bro! I find it insulting, but kind of par for the course regarding your discourse. I just don't think you (or anyone else) demeaning women should pass without comment. I'm fine pointing out my problem with it and moving on. Is my approach copacetic?

If what we see on here is how you speak when you are NOT angry, I'd hate to see how you behave when you are angry.

(04-25-2020 01:00 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Married for 17+ years to fellow Rice Alum mrsbig.

(04-30-2020 08:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  A day in the life of the 'Russiagate' issue, General Flynn version.

So, all the 'smoke' about how fing pure the FBI is/was:

New documents related to the General Flynn 'investigation' note, prior to the interview with him, the question was aked 'is the goal to get him to lie'? To get to how utterly disgusting these docs show are, considering what is already known

1. The FBI had no REASON to interview Flynn. It already had transcripts of his conversations with Kislyak.

2. The new docs show the FBI had already cleared Flynn of claims that he was agent of Russian power; it moved to close that investigation on Jan 4 2017.

3. But then DOJ cooked up a 'Logan Act' claim, the notion Flynn had violated an obscure 1799 law. Only two indictments have ever been handed down under the Logan Act. The first occurred in 1803, the other in 1852.

4. If they thought Flynn violated the Logan Act, all they had to do was prosecute. They had the transcript.

5. The problem? Ask yourself if you think that horseshit would eever fly.

6. The released notes show the agents pondering the question: so how how else to nail Flynn? As the notes show, Logan just became the pretext for interview.

7. Per the notes, the real goal was trap him into saying something at odds with transcript, to "get him to lie."
To do that we have Comey bragging that they went around WH legal counsel, so Flynn would have no representation.

8. We have a new email from Lisa Page asking how FBI can get around issuing to Flynn the standard admonition against lying, suggesting Strzok just "casually slip that in."

9. We have the McCabe docs showing he discouraged him from getting lawyer.

10. Undaunted, FBI decided to get rid of standard admonition altogether. They also never bothered to tell Flynn he was being interviewed in an "investigatory" context, suggesting this was a chat between gov officials.

11. As for liberal commentators/legal scholars saying all this is "routine," well, let's sure as hell hope not. The FBI exists to investigate crimes--not create them.

12. On top of this mountain of crap, and coverup of the crap, the documents also reveal that Strzok had previously stopped the FBI from ending Flynn probe despite lack of ‘derogatory’ evidence

But those of us critics of this at the time, and whom warned of FBI interventionism were pooh-poohed; because of the sheer urgency of that of course we were paranoid about this, and that we were making stuff up to 'cover up' the overall bent of the Russia investigation.

These documents show that this exculpatory evidence was *never* made available to Flynn, as it sure as fk should have; nor was it made available to the court during sentencing -- again when they sure as fk should have. Putting a layer of grotesque and sick coverup on top of the horseshit that the newly unmasked items explicitly show were the actions and intentions of the FBI re: Flynn.

Right, nothing at all under this bridge, move along, nothing to see. How gd slimy does the FBI sink to in these matters?

The FBI in this matter is dirty as fk. The FBI people involved in this saga need to go to prison.

(04-30-2020 09:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-30-2020 08:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  A day in the life of the 'Russiagate' issue, General Flynn version.

So, all the 'smoke' about how fing pure the FBI is/was:

New documents related to the General Flynn 'investigation' note, prior to the interview with him, the question was aked 'is the goal to get him to lie'? To get to how utterly disgusting these docs show are, considering what is already known

1. The FBI had no REASON to interview Flynn. It already had transcripts of his conversations with Kislyak.

2. The new docs show the FBI had already cleared Flynn of claims that he was agent of Russian power; it moved to close that investigation on Jan 4 2017.

3. But then DOJ cooked up a 'Logan Act' claim, the notion Flynn had violated an obscure 1799 law. Only two indictments have ever been handed down under the Logan Act. The first occurred in 1803, the other in 1852.

4. If they thought Flynn violated the Logan Act, all they had to do was prosecute. They had the transcript.

5. The problem? Ask yourself if you think that horseshit would eever fly.

6. The released notes show the agents pondering the question: so how how else to nail Flynn? As the notes show, Logan just became the pretext for interview.

7. Per the notes, the real goal was trap him into saying something at odds with transcript, to "get him to lie."
To do that we have Comey bragging that they went around WH legal counsel, so Flynn would have no representation.

8. We have a new email from Lisa Page asking how FBI can get around issuing to Flynn the standard admonition against lying, suggesting Strzok just "casually slip that in."

9. We have the McCabe docs showing he discouraged him from getting lawyer.

10. Undaunted, FBI decided to get rid of standard admonition altogether. They also never bothered to tell Flynn he was being interviewed in an "investigatory" context, suggesting this was a chat between gov officials.

11. As for liberal commentators/legal scholars saying all this is "routine," well, let's sure as hell hope not. The FBI exists to investigate crimes--not create them.

12. On top of this mountain of crap, and coverup of the crap, the documents also reveal that Strzok had previously stopped the FBI from ending Flynn probe despite lack of ‘derogatory’ evidence

But those of us critics of this at the time, and whom warned of FBI interventionism were pooh-poohed; because of the sheer urgency of that of course we were paranoid about this, and that we were making stuff up to 'cover up' the overall bent of the Russia investigation.

These documents show that this exculpatory evidence was *never* made available to Flynn, as it sure as fk should have; nor was it made available to the court during sentencing -- again when they sure as fk should have. Putting a layer of grotesque and sick coverup on top of the horseshit that the newly unmasked items explicitly show were the actions and intentions of the FBI re: Flynn.

Right, nothing at all under this bridge, move along, nothing to see. How gd slimy does the FBI sink to in these matters?

The FBI in this matter is dirty as fk. The FBI people involved in this saga need to go to prison.

agree with the last paragraph.



Two points:

1. The democrats on TV keep saying that Flynn pled guilty as if that proved he was guilty. But people take pleas all the time, as the best/cheapest way out of a situation, especially if they think they have a no jail deal. Also heard they threatened his son.

2. So this is the "smoke" that justified the Russia probe?

(05-01-2020 08:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-30-2020 09:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-30-2020 08:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  A day in the life of the 'Russiagate' issue, General Flynn version.

So, all the 'smoke' about how fing pure the FBI is/was:

New documents related to the General Flynn 'investigation' note, prior to the interview with him, the question was aked 'is the goal to get him to lie'? To get to how utterly disgusting these docs show are, considering what is already known

1. The FBI had no REASON to interview Flynn. It already had transcripts of his conversations with Kislyak.

2. The new docs show the FBI had already cleared Flynn of claims that he was agent of Russian power; it moved to close that investigation on Jan 4 2017.

3. But then DOJ cooked up a 'Logan Act' claim, the notion Flynn had violated an obscure 1799 law. Only two indictments have ever been handed down under the Logan Act. The first occurred in 1803, the other in 1852.

4. If they thought Flynn violated the Logan Act, all they had to do was prosecute. They had the transcript.

5. The problem? Ask yourself if you think that horseshit would eever fly.

6. The released notes show the agents pondering the question: so how how else to nail Flynn? As the notes show, Logan just became the pretext for interview.

7. Per the notes, the real goal was trap him into saying something at odds with transcript, to "get him to lie."
To do that we have Comey bragging that they went around WH legal counsel, so Flynn would have no representation.

8. We have a new email from Lisa Page asking how FBI can get around issuing to Flynn the standard admonition against lying, suggesting Strzok just "casually slip that in."

9. We have the McCabe docs showing he discouraged him from getting lawyer.

10. Undaunted, FBI decided to get rid of standard admonition altogether. They also never bothered to tell Flynn he was being interviewed in an "investigatory" context, suggesting this was a chat between gov officials.

11. As for liberal commentators/legal scholars saying all this is "routine," well, let's sure as hell hope not. The FBI exists to investigate crimes--not create them.

12. On top of this mountain of crap, and coverup of the crap, the documents also reveal that Strzok had previously stopped the FBI from ending Flynn probe despite lack of ‘derogatory’ evidence

But those of us critics of this at the time, and whom warned of FBI interventionism were pooh-poohed; because of the sheer urgency of that of course we were paranoid about this, and that we were making stuff up to 'cover up' the overall bent of the Russia investigation.

These documents show that this exculpatory evidence was *never* made available to Flynn, as it sure as fk should have; nor was it made available to the court during sentencing -- again when they sure as fk should have. Putting a layer of grotesque and sick coverup on top of the horseshit that the newly unmasked items explicitly show were the actions and intentions of the FBI re: Flynn.

Right, nothing at all under this bridge, move along, nothing to see. How gd slimy does the FBI sink to in these matters?

The FBI in this matter is dirty as fk. The FBI people involved in this saga need to go to prison.

agree with the last paragraph.



Two points:

1. The democrats on TV keep saying that Flynn pled guilty as if that proved he was guilty. But people take pleas all the time, as the best/cheapest way out of a situation, especially if they think they have a no jail deal. Also heard they threatened his son.

2. So this is the "smoke" that justified the Russia probe?

Another major reason was the Carter Page crap. There was another news report today detailing a deposition of Steele (in a defamation case) in which Steele noted that some of the contents of *that* report were actually predicated on sources *from* the Clinton Campaign.

Tack this pile of slime on, the additional pile of slime on the abuse of the FISA process, and god knows what else will be revealed the further Durham goes --- yep, no malfeasance, nothing there, be quiet, move along.

Quote:After years of President Trump and his allies claiming that the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election was a witch hunt and that federal law enforcement systematically targeted Trump and those around him, Wednesday brought what many of them labeled a bombshell.

New documents turned over by the legal team of former national security adviser Michael Flynn show an unnamed official preparing for the interview in which Flynn lied to the FBI by musing about whether the goal was “to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

Flynn’s legal team labeled the documents a “smoking gun” that indicate this was a perjury trap, and however likely Trump was to pardon Flynn, he appears even likelier now.

But just how truly damning are the new documents?

First, let’s walk through what they show. Basically, they indicate there was an internal debate about whether to present Flynn with evidence against him in that Jan. 24, 2017, interview. Exactly what type of evidence is redacted, but it seems logical to believe it was transcripts of Flynn’s December 2016 phone calls with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, which is what Flynn later pleaded guilty to lying about.

On calls, Flynn and Kislyak discussed sanctions that the Obama administration had just imposed on Russia for its 2016 election interference. This risked running afoul of the Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from conducting diplomacy on behalf of the United States. Flynn was due to be Trump’s national security adviser, but this was during the transition period between Trump’s election and inauguration, so he wasn’t yet a government official.

In the handwritten notes from an unidentified official, that official indicates being previously opposed to showing Flynn the evidence but rethinking that decision.

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [redacted] if he didn’t admit," the official says. “I thought [about] it last night, [and] I believe we should rethink this.”

The official goes on: “What’s our argument? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"

That right there is what Flynn’s defenders are labeling the long-suggested “perjury trap” — i.e. the idea that the officials entrapped Flynn into lying.

But it’s worth looking at the timeline here and what else the official said in those handwritten notes.

The official goes on to suggest that not showing Flynn the evidence would make the White House “furious” because it would be viewed as “playing games.”

“We regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit their wrongdoing," the official says. “I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on them.”

What the documents make clear — which we’ve previously known — is that the FBI believed it had strong evidence against Flynn going into the interview. This official apparently believed the evidence to be so strong that either Flynn would admit to his wrongdoing or be forced to lie about it. But either way, the case could be referred to the Justice Department for prosecution.

The term “perjury trap” has been thrown around a lot — often carelessly. In this case, though, it didn’t seem to be a matter of actually tricking Flynn into lying, but rather giving him a choice between admitting what the FBI already believed it could prove and letting him lie about it. This official believed not showing him the evidence and choosing the latter course would make the Trump White House “furious."

And here’s the important point: The official had very good reason to believe Flynn would lie about this … because he already had.

On Jan. 12, 2017 — 12 days before the Flynn interview — The Washington Post’s David Ignatius first reported the contact between Flynn and Kislyak and raised the prospect of a Logan Act violation. The next day, Jan. 13, incoming White House press secretary Sean Spicer denied Flynn had discussed sanctions with Kislyak, saying they had just discussed a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. “That was it, plain and simple," Spicer said.

Two days later, on Jan. 15, Vice President-elect Mike Pence was even more explicit in denying Flynn and Kislyak had discussed sanctions. “They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia," Pence said.

After Trump was inaugurated, Spicer in a Jan. 23 White House briefing again denied it — this time citing Flynn’s own denial to him. Spicer said he spoke to Flynn “again last night” and that Flynn had told him the call focused on four subjects, none of which was sanctions.

By this point, intelligence officials had already become aware of the contents of the Flynn-Kislyak call, meaning they knew the denials were false. On Jan. 19, top intelligence and law enforcement officials debated whether to disclose the evidence to the incoming White House. Then-acting attorney general Sally Yates would later tell the White House that Flynn had misled it and that this opened him up to potential blackmail by the Russians, since they would have known the actual contents of the calls.

In other words, the FBI had a pretty good idea that Flynn would lie about this, because he had apparently already been lying about it. Even Trump later acknowledged that Flynn had lied to Pence. It was then a matter of seeing if he would double down to FBI agents or come clean — either way, giving the agents something they believed to be a crime.

Whether that tactic is appropriate is a fair question, but as had been noted by legal experts, it’s not a terribly unusual approach to such situations when you have strong evidence.

It is generally accepted that as long as law enforcement is pursuing a legitimate investigation, the “perjury trap” claim doesn’t apply. The Justice Department’s manual for U.S. attorneys states that, while such claims are commonplace, as long as law enforcement is “attempting to obtain useful information in furtherance of its investigation, the perjury trap doctrine does not apply.”

A 2018 report from the Congressional Research Service states, “The doctrine poses no bar to prosecution in most cases, however, because the government is usually able to identify some valid reason for” the inquiries.

One very valid question raised by the new documents, though, comes when the unnamed official muses about whether the goal is to “get him fired.” It’s one thing to choose between letting Flynn admit his wrongdoing or lie about it; it’s another to suggest a potential aim is his removal from his White House post. That would seem to be something that is beyond the purview of law enforcement, and it’s key to claims that Flynn was personally targeted.

But also keep in mind the Yates development: There was real concern around this time that Flynn had not just done something wrong, but that he had opened himself up to blackmail by the Russians because of his actions. In that case, it may be more understandable that the FBI saw some value in getting him removed from such a high-profile post, irrespective of whether he had committed a crime because of the possibility that he was compromised.

(05-01-2020 11:19 AM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:After years of President Trump and his allies claiming that the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election was a witch hunt and that federal law enforcement systematically targeted Trump and those around him, Wednesday brought what many of them labeled a bombshell.

New documents turned over by the legal team of former national security adviser Michael Flynn show an unnamed official preparing for the interview in which Flynn lied to the FBI by musing about whether the goal was “to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

Flynn’s legal team labeled the documents a “smoking gun” that indicate this was a perjury trap, and however likely Trump was to pardon Flynn, he appears even likelier now.

But just how truly damning are the new documents?

First, let’s walk through what they show. Basically, they indicate there was an internal debate about whether to present Flynn with evidence against him in that Jan. 24, 2017, interview. Exactly what type of evidence is redacted, but it seems logical to believe it was transcripts of Flynn’s December 2016 phone calls with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, which is what Flynn later pleaded guilty to lying about.

On calls, Flynn and Kislyak discussed sanctions that the Obama administration had just imposed on Russia for its 2016 election interference. This risked running afoul of the Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from conducting diplomacy on behalf of the United States. Flynn was due to be Trump’s national security adviser, but this was during the transition period between Trump’s election and inauguration, so he wasn’t yet a government official.

In the handwritten notes from an unidentified official, that official indicates being previously opposed to showing Flynn the evidence but rethinking that decision.

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [redacted] if he didn’t admit," the official says. “I thought [about] it last night, [and] I believe we should rethink this.”

The official goes on: “What’s our argument? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"

That right there is what Flynn’s defenders are labeling the long-suggested “perjury trap” — i.e. the idea that the officials entrapped Flynn into lying.

But it’s worth looking at the timeline here and what else the official said in those handwritten notes.

The official goes on to suggest that not showing Flynn the evidence would make the White House “furious” because it would be viewed as “playing games.”

“We regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit their wrongdoing," the official says. “I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on them.”

What the documents make clear — which we’ve previously known — is that the FBI believed it had strong evidence against Flynn going into the interview. This official apparently believed the evidence to be so strong that either Flynn would admit to his wrongdoing or be forced to lie about it. But either way, the case could be referred to the Justice Department for prosecution.

The term “perjury trap” has been thrown around a lot — often carelessly. In this case, though, it didn’t seem to be a matter of actually tricking Flynn into lying, but rather giving him a choice between admitting what the FBI already believed it could prove and letting him lie about it. This official believed not showing him the evidence and choosing the latter course would make the Trump White House “furious."

And here’s the important point: The official had very good reason to believe Flynn would lie about this … because he already had.

On Jan. 12, 2017 — 12 days before the Flynn interview — The Washington Post’s David Ignatius first reported the contact between Flynn and Kislyak and raised the prospect of a Logan Act violation. The next day, Jan. 13, incoming White House press secretary Sean Spicer denied Flynn had discussed sanctions with Kislyak, saying they had just discussed a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. “That was it, plain and simple," Spicer said.

Two days later, on Jan. 15, Vice President-elect Mike Pence was even more explicit in denying Flynn and Kislyak had discussed sanctions. “They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia," Pence said.

After Trump was inaugurated, Spicer in a Jan. 23 White House briefing again denied it — this time citing Flynn’s own denial to him. Spicer said he spoke to Flynn “again last night” and that Flynn had told him the call focused on four subjects, none of which was sanctions.

By this point, intelligence officials had already become aware of the contents of the Flynn-Kislyak call, meaning they knew the denials were false. On Jan. 19, top intelligence and law enforcement officials debated whether to disclose the evidence to the incoming White House. Then-acting attorney general Sally Yates would later tell the White House that Flynn had misled it and that this opened him up to potential blackmail by the Russians, since they would have known the actual contents of the calls.

In other words, the FBI had a pretty good idea that Flynn would lie about this, because he had apparently already been lying about it. Even Trump later acknowledged that Flynn had lied to Pence. It was then a matter of seeing if he would double down to FBI agents or come clean — either way, giving the agents something they believed to be a crime.

Whether that tactic is appropriate is a fair question, but as had been noted by legal experts, it’s not a terribly unusual approach to such situations when you have strong evidence.

It is generally accepted that as long as law enforcement is pursuing a legitimate investigation, the “perjury trap” claim doesn’t apply. The Justice Department’s manual for U.S. attorneys states that, while such claims are commonplace, as long as law enforcement is “attempting to obtain useful information in furtherance of its investigation, the perjury trap doctrine does not apply.”

A 2018 report from the Congressional Research Service states, “The doctrine poses no bar to prosecution in most cases, however, because the government is usually able to identify some valid reason for” the inquiries.

One very valid question raised by the new documents, though, comes when the unnamed official muses about whether the goal is to “get him fired.” It’s one thing to choose between letting Flynn admit his wrongdoing or lie about it; it’s another to suggest a potential aim is his removal from his White House post. That would seem to be something that is beyond the purview of law enforcement, and it’s key to claims that Flynn was personally targeted.

But also keep in mind the Yates development: There was real concern around this time that Flynn had not just done something wrong, but that he had opened himself up to blackmail by the Russians because of his actions. In that case, it may be more understandable that the FBI saw some value in getting him removed from such a high-profile post, irrespective of whether he had committed a crime because of the possibility that he was compromised.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/30/michael-flynn-revelation-bombshell-or-business-as-usual/

(05-01-2020 04:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Based on a reading of this alone, if I understand it... It seems fairly clear that a 'technical' violation of an almost never used statute occurred.... and that Flynn, when pressed by the FBI, lied about it.

Here are the bigger questions to me.
1) Has something like this really almost NEVER happened before... where an incoming administration had conversations with other nations? I find that impossible to believe. While the term 'negotiation' hasn't really been defined... let's assume that he actually negotiated... He was not negotiating as a private citizen, but as a representative of the elected and incoming administration.... so I'm not really convinced that the act applies... but he DID lie about it.

2) Is this really what the FBI does or should do though? We're talking about an incoming administration with almost no experience in politics. I get that this presents issues like this, but shouldn't our government have been looking to HELP the incoming administration avoid making such errors, rather than seeming to set them up? Trump, Obama, Hillary whomever... the fact that the government seemed intent on 'getting' the incoming administration really gives me a lot of concern.

It does seem that the Russia Russia Russia collusion falsehood set the government against the incoming administration... to the point where they were letting them commit technical crimes so that they could hopefully get evidence and /or leverage, rather than working with the incoming administration to keep them from making errors of inexperience or haste.

It's pretty rare in any industry or even personal life where an incoming new owner/leader would not have at least some basic conversations with the people he was about to start leading... when I started a job in Cali, I went to a staff meeting and presented my vision a week before my start date... so it doesn't surprise me a bit that Flynn may have been trying to get a head start....

But Flynn was appointed to Director of Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama. Why would he risk his career to knowingly illegally 'go to bat' for Trump a few weeks early? It seems obvious that had he known/been told/suspected that what he was doing was an issue, that he would have simply waited a few weeks to say exactly the same things.

(05-01-2020 04:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Here are the bigger questions to me.
1) Has something like this really almost NEVER happened before... where an incoming administration had conversations with other nations? I find that impossible to believe.

Quote:2) Is this really what the FBI does or should do though?

(04-30-2020 08:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  1. The FBI had no REASON to interview Flynn. It already had transcripts of his conversations with Kislyak.

(05-02-2020 03:19 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(04-30-2020 08:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  1. The FBI had no REASON to interview Flynn. It already had transcripts of his conversations with Kislyak.

Do you really believe this? I am only tangentially knowledgeable about how investigations are conducted by law enforcement, but it seems like they frequently want to interview witnesses even if they have tapes and/or transcripts.

(05-01-2020 06:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-01-2020 04:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Here are the bigger questions to me.
1) Has something like this really almost NEVER happened before... where an incoming administration had conversations with other nations? I find that impossible to believe.

It's unbelievable because it's untrue. In a well-known instance, the incoming Reagan administration clearly had discussions with Iran about the release of the embassy hostages.

Quote:

Quote:2) Is this really what the FBI does or should do though?

No, of course not. But these people don't care about that. By the time career bureaucrats get to DC, they think they are invincible and can do anything they want. And they pretty much are. That total lack of accountability is one of the biggest problems in our system. And congress doesn't want oversight, because they don't want to have to vote on the record and in so doing jeopardize their re-election chances.

(05-03-2020 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  IF the Democrats succeed in putting Biden in the WH, I wonder if they will refrain from any contact with foreign powers until January 20, 2021.

Or will they enforce the Democratic Double Standard, and do business as usual.

(05-03-2020 03:14 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(05-03-2020 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  IF the Democrats succeed in putting Biden in the WH, I wonder if they will refrain from any contact with foreign powers until January 20, 2021.

Or will they enforce the Democratic Double Standard, and do business as usual.

Is this really the standard that existed before Trump? I thought "contact" wasn't the problem but negotiating actual policy that was different than the current administration was a problem because such discussions are not authorized under law.

(05-03-2020 03:14 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(05-03-2020 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  IF the Democrats succeed in putting Biden in the WH, I wonder if they will refrain from any contact with foreign powers until January 20, 2021.

Or will they enforce the Democratic Double Standard, and do business as usual.

Is this really the standard that existed before Trump? I thought "contact" wasn't the problem but negotiating actual policy that was different than the current administration was a problem because such discussions are not authorized under law.

(05-04-2020 10:23 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-03-2020 03:14 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(05-03-2020 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  IF the Democrats succeed in putting Biden in the WH, I wonder if they will refrain from any contact with foreign powers until January 20, 2021.

Or will they enforce the Democratic Double Standard, and do business as usual.

Is this really the standard that existed before Trump? I thought "contact" wasn't the problem but negotiating actual policy that was different than the current administration was a problem because such discussions are not authorized under law.

Yes, it is the standard that existed before Trump. See Reagan as an obvious and fairly well known example. I don't believe for a moment that this was the only time such a thing took place. How is the incoming administration adopting a different policy than it's predecessor not authorized by law? Heck, how is a member of an incoming administration (duly elected by law) a 'private citizen'? They should be able to negotiate anything they want.... but it can't take effect until they actually take office.

The application of that act is inarguably capricious enforcement of a previously almost never enforced law that only people who deal with such things probably knew about... and the comments we're reading seem to clearly imply that rather than inform him that he might be violating this relative unknown 'practice' that he clearly didn't know anything about... they used it to get leverage on him to pursue their 'other' investigation of collusion.

That's how you treat criminals, not decorated civil servants.