(08-06-2018 10:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  [quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='15417177' dateline='1533566927']
Russia and Steele were not in in parallel positions. Steele is analogous to Junior - the person hunting for dirt. Russia is the source in both cases.
Except that Steele bought and paid for the Russians' stuff, and Junior rejected it. Steele spent weeks - Junior wasted 15 minutes.

Sure, Russia was motivated to promote their own interests. But there is no evidence the lawyer was an agent of the Russian government. Much more evidence of Russian agents talking to Steele.

Yes, no evidence that the lawyer was an agent, besides, well, her own words:
"Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer who met with top members of the Trump campaign team in June of 2016, has admitted to funneling information to the Kremlin starting in 2013. She had denied any such connection since the discovery of the meeting in July of last year.

The admission came after emails surfaced showing Veselnitskaya working closely with Russian legal authorities. In an interview with NBC News that aired Friday, Veselnitskaya said “I am a lawyer and I am an informant,” and that she has been communicating with Russia’s prosecutor general, Yuri Y. Chaika, since 2013.

http://fortune.com/2018/04/28/veselnitsk...lin-agent/

Quote:The truth seems to be that Russia just wanted to , an objective they are meeting quite well with the aid of the Mueller investigation and its proponents, thank you very much.

Possible collusion? You have gone daft again. How many quid pro quos do you think were offered, negotiated, and exchanged in a surprise 15 minute meeting under false pretenses? If anybody was going to exchange quid pro quos, it would be Steele, who went to Russia as an emissary of Clinton, and had all the time and money in the world. In fact he did exchange quid pro quos, at least in the form of money. You must be a whiz at making deals. Want to buy a used car? We can get this done quickly. You don't even need to see the car.[\quote]

Your entire premise is built on the idea that the meeting was short and unproductive, which we are only hearing about through Trump Jr. As I've mentioned before, the Trump's have lied about this meeting multiple times - something you seem to be in disbelief about.

After the NYTimes broke the story on July 8, Trump Jr. release this statement on the same day: It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared (Kushner) and Paul (Manafort) to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up.

A day later, Trump Jr. changed his tune and released this statement: After pleasantries were exchanged the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Mrs. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information. She then changed subjects and began discussing the adoption of Russian children and mentioned the Magnitsky Act. It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting.

A day later the tune changed, and Trump Jr.s attorney said that Jr. was email ahead of time about information on Hillary.

A day later Trump Jr. then released his email exchanges, where it shows that he was excited by the prospect of receiving opposition research on Clinton.

A few days later, Jay Sekulow told CNN that Trump was not involved with drafting Jr's statement on July 8.

About 2 weeks later, the WH admits that Trump had helped draft the initial statement.

So in this time frame we have Trump Jr lying about what the initial meeting was about and the WH lying about their involvement with that initial attempted coverup. The WH is still saying Trump didn't know about the meeting, but that facade will certainly come down still, especially since Trump was bragging about having information about Hillary that would change the election, a day or two before the meeting was to happen (but after the emails setting up the meeting had been sent).

Quote:Instead of yapping about vague "ulterior" motives, tell us what you think they were. I think Junior's motive was to help his dad by getting some dirt on Hillary. who knows? Maybe he thought the lawyer had knowledge of the Benghazi cover up. That would be explosive in the campaign. But it turned out to be crap, he dismissed her, and it was over in a quarter hour. You are making up crap like a jealous husband. "You spent 15 MINUTES alone with that man. How many times did you have sex? When are you meeting him again?" It is disappointing to see you reaching so far for so little.

Russia may, or may not, have wanted Trump to win, or they may, or may not have, wanted Clinton to lose. They damn sure have gotten precious little from Trump, and probably would have done better with Hillary "reset button" Clinton. But if the motivation was to sow distrust in our system, the Mueller investigation is the gift that just keeps on giving.

The TT meeting was nothing. The solicitation and compilation of the Steele dossier was something. Your insistence that those roles are reversed says nothing good about you, Lad.

I haven't been vague about the ulterior motives. Russia was motivated to help Trump in order to get what they wanted - I listed three very ulterior motives earlier. The Trump campaign had no ulterior motives - they just wanted to help Trump win and were willing to (based on what is public) at least entertain assistance by a hostile, foreign power.

I'm not reaching very far, over so little - I'm providing you with reasons as to why I believe the Mueller probe into the campaign is warranted. You just refuse to accept the rationale I provide and delusionally dismiss it as nothing.

And to the bold, are you serious? Our intelligence community and ol' Putin himself have said Russia wanted Trump to win. It makes way more sense for them to have wanted him to win than Clinton - why even try and suggest otherwise? By what logic would Russia have wanted Clinton (not Sanders, not the Dems, Clinton specifically) to win?

And OO, you're insistence that there is absolutely no evidence to support the Mueller probe, or that there was absolutely nothing wrong with willingly accepting a meeting with Russian officials offering dirt on an opponent, or that there's no reasonable rationale for potential collusion between the campaign and Russia, says nothing good about you.

It says I have common sense.

Your scenario is that Junior willingly accepted a meeting with Russian officials is based on one thing - that she represented herself as a Russian "official" to get the meeting(she did not), and then she walked in and Said, hello, I am __________ and I represent Putin, and here is what he is offering (no dirt) in exchange for him to publish some stolen emails that contain nothing incriminating, and Junior said Wow and jumped at the chance, because he is stupid, and made the deal on the spot for his Dad, who considered it binding.

None of that happened.

But poor Steele, who just happened to be vacationing in russia on the clinton dime, with no particular agenda, just had stuff thrust upon him.

any news on the space invaders?

I say the bolded, because it is entirely possible that Putin was more AGAINST Clinton than he was FOR Trump. How would you tell the difference? There is evidence that some of the meddling was for/agasinst both sides.

all that supports the Mueller investigation is conspiracy theories like this.

You're acting as if I'm suggesting we indict Trump Jr based on this - I am not.

I am suggesting that the Mueller investigation is warranted because a Russian agent found a willing target that high up the chain of command inside the Trump campaign.

It is NOT a conspiracy that a Russian operative made inroads with the Trump campaign using potentially damaging information. I personally find an investigation into whether or not there was a meeting where information was exchanged, or a quid pro quo established, based off of that fact alone, appropriate.

That doesn't consider the softening of the Ukraine position by the RNC, at the behest of the Trump campaign. Nor how other campaign officials, like Papadopoulus, were being fed information about the stolen emails and kept attempting to set up a meeting between Trump and Russian officials.

My question for you is, why do you not want an investigation into these Russian actions and whether any campaign officials attempted to conspire with the Russian government to influence the election or public policy? Why do you feel comfortable taking the Trump campaign's word for it, that nothing happened?

(08-06-2018 11:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My question for you is, why do you not want an investigation into these Russian actions and whether any campaign officials attempted to conspire with the Russian government to influence the election or public policy? Why do you feel comfortable taking the Trump campaign's word for it, that nothing happened?

I know you didn't ask me, but I want to respond.

I don't have the slightest problem with this being investigated, and any wrongdoing punished to the maximum extent of the law.

My only concern is that the same rule be applied with equal vigor to all. And if you believe that the same rule is being applied with equal vigor to both the Hillary and Trump campaigns, then boy do we have a difference of opinion. I hear the argument, "Hillary is old news because she lost, so forget her." Anyone making that argument has got to be kidding. It's okay to cheat as long as you lose? Really?

And equal vigor means you hold the FBI and the intel agencies accountable too. You say Trump lies. Of course he does. If lying disqualified politicians, we'd have damn precious few in office. Certainly not, "you can keep your doctor," Obama. But lying under oath is a different matter. Why is James Clapper a free man today?

It's pretty clear that there were a number of higher-ups in the FBI who wanted Hillary to win--Strzok, Page, and "Andy," for starters. Pointing that out is not attacking the FBI or law enforcement or America--it's identifying bad actors who happened to be in certain positions of power. There is, quite simply, a swamp inside the DC beltway that does not want to be drained--and is willing to resort to any measures to avoid being drained. IMO that simply makes it even more imperative that it be drained.

That is not whataboutism, it's simply pointing out the the scales of justice are supposed to be level, and lady justice is supposed to be blindfolded, and right now that pretty clearly is not happening. If you believe that justice is being applied equally, then please start by explaining the difference between MM1 Kristian Saucier's transgressions and those of Hillary Clinton.

Lad:

Did the lawyer say she was representative of the Russian government for matters of state to get the meeting?

if the answer is yes, provide a link.

If the answer is no, then how do you come to the conclusion that Junior "willingly" met with a russian agent?

As for as her being a russian agent, was she representing the government of russia when she walked into the meeting? basing that off action years ago seems to me a lot like saying Steele was representing the UK while working for clinton because he used to.

Your suppositions are not fact. Thinking they are is the basis of conspiracy theory.

The whole investigation is built on innuendo and supposition.

(08-06-2018 11:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 11:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My question for you is, why do you not want an investigation into these Russian actions and whether any campaign officials attempted to conspire with the Russian government to influence the election or public policy? Why do you feel comfortable taking the Trump campaign's word for it, that nothing happened?

I know you didn't ask me, but I want to respond.

I don't have the slightest problem with this being investigated, and any wrongdoing punished to the maximum extent of the law.

My only concern is that the same rule be applied with equal vigor to all. And if you believe that the same rule is being applied with equal vigor to both the Hillary and Trump campaigns, then boy do we have a difference of opinion. I hear the argument, "Hillary is old news because she lost, so forget her." Anyone making that argument has got to be kidding. It's okay to cheat as long as you lose? Really?

And equal vigor means you hold the FBI and the intel agencies accountable too. You say Trump lies. Of course he does. If lying disqualified politicians, we'd have damn precious few in office. Certainly not, "you can keep your doctor," Obama. But lying under oath is a different matter. Why is James Clapper a free man today?

It's pretty clear that there were a number of higher-ups in the FBI who wanted Hillary to win--Strzok, Page, and "Andy," for starters. Pointing that out is not attacking the FBI or law enforcement or America--it's identifying bad actors who happened to be in certain positions of power. There is, quite simply, a swamp inside the DC beltway that does not want to be drained--and is willing to resort to any measures to avoid being drained. IMO that simply makes it even more imperative that it be drained.

That is not whataboutism, it's simply pointing out the the scales of justice are supposed to be level, and lady justice is supposed to be blindfolded, and right now that pretty clearly is not happening. If you believe that justice is being applied equally, then please start by explaining the difference between MM1 Kristian Saucier's transgressions and those of Hillary Clinton.

I understand your point, but it's hard to argue justice isn't being applied equally and comparing two unrelated cases (Clinton email vs. Trump campaign collusion). And if you're saying we need to investigate both campaigns for collusion with equal vigor, I'd agree, if there was equal evidence. We should scrutinize both equally, but unless there's evidence to warrant an investigation, we shouldn't start one. I'd support an investigation into the Steele dossier for a number of reasons, though.

As to your comments about Strozk, Page, and McCabe - just because they wanted Hillary to win, does not mean they acted in a biased manner. We should be careful to not let political opinions result in a cleaning out of government agencies, unless there is proof, beyond a doubt, that those opinions biased actions. I think placing people on unrelated groups (how Mueller did with Strozk) is the right call if those biases are made public - unless they escalate to active bias, at which point, throw them out. Ironically, a good example of this is the NY field office, where field agents who had a deep and visceral dislike of Clinton leaked information to Nunes about the Weiner laptop. So I imagine you would support cleaning shop up there, right? (https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/06/18...-election/)

And finally, with Clinton the Clinton emails, we've had similar cases to Clinton's that had similar outcomes - Petraeus avoided felony charges and prison time when he was equally (if not more) careless with classified information as Clinton. I agree that we should strive for equal treatment under the law, but I don't get why Clinton is the focus all of the time, when there are plenty of other powerful people who get past the justice system.

I agree Lad, they are unequal since Clinton actually had emails.

(08-06-2018 11:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad:

Did the lawyer say she was representative of the Russian government for matters of state to get the meeting?

if the answer is yes, provide a link.

If the answer is no, then how do you come to the conclusion that Junior "willingly" met with a russian agent?

As for as her being a russian agent, was she representing the government of russia when she walked into the meeting? basing that off action years ago seems to me a lot like saying Steele was representing the UK while working for clinton because he used to.

Your suppositions are not fact. Thinking they are is the basis of conspiracy theory.

The whole investigation is built on innuendo and supposition.

Wow, so all foreign governments have to do, in order to work in the country with impunity, is to never tell anyone they're a foreign agent?

Because if they never tell the source they're cultivating they work for the Russian government, an investigation will never be able to be opened! Dang, I wonder if they've figured out that work around.

But to your question, here are some quotes, directly from the emails Trump Jr received:

June 6 -

Quote: Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting. The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/statu...index.html

June 8 -

Quote: Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow this Thursday. I believe you are aware of the meeting.

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/statu...index.html

So, um, yeah, it was pretty clear that this meeting was being set up with a representative of the Russian government. Literally, straight from the horse's mouth.

(08-06-2018 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I understand your point, but it's hard to argue justice isn't being applied equally and comparing two unrelated cases (Clinton email vs. Trump campaign collusion). And if you're saying we need to investigate both campaigns for collusion with equal vigor, I'd agree, if there was equal evidence. We should scrutinize both equally, but unless there's evidence to warrant an investigation, we shouldn't start one. I'd support an investigation into the Steele dossier for a number of reasons, though.

So you'd support an investigation into the Steele dossier but not the Clinton campaign? And if that investigation were conducted pursuant to an "relating to" mandate similar to the existing one, exactly how would you expect the Clinton campaign to be excluded?

Quote:As to your comments about Strozk, Page, and McCabe - just because they wanted Hillary to win, does not mean they acted in a biased manner.

Well, it certainly doesn't mean that they acted in an unbiased manner, now does it? And how does one possibly conclude that they acted in an unbiased manner, without knowing exactly what was meant by the "insurance policy" comment?

Quote:And finally, with Clinton the Clinton emails, we've had similar cases to Clinton's that had similar outcomes - Petraeus avoided felony charges and prison time when he was equally (if not more) careless with classified information as Clinton.

Petraeus didn't avoid negative consequences. I suppose Hillary didn't either, if you assume the backlash against her preference treatment cost her a couple of midwestern states (which I think is highly possible). And i would not argue that he was equally (if not more) careless. I believe the person to whom he disclosed the information had a clearance but not need to know. That is very much different from putting the information on an uncovered server for all the world to hack.

(08-06-2018 01:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I understand your point, but it's hard to argue justice isn't being applied equally and comparing two unrelated cases (Clinton email vs. Trump campaign collusion). And if you're saying we need to investigate both campaigns for collusion with equal vigor, I'd agree, if there was equal evidence. We should scrutinize both equally, but unless there's evidence to warrant an investigation, we shouldn't start one. I'd support an investigation into the Steele dossier for a number of reasons, though.

So you'd support an investigation into the Steele dossier but not the Clinton campaign? And if that investigation were conducted pursuant to an "relating to" mandate similar to the existing one, exactly how would you expect the Clinton campaign to be excluded?

Quote:As to your comments about Strozk, Page, and McCabe - just because they wanted Hillary to win, does not mean they acted in a biased manner.

Well, it certainly doesn't mean that they acted in an unbiased manner, now does it? And how one possibly conclude that they didn't, without knowing exactly what was meant by the "insurance policy" comment?

Quote:And finally, with Clinton the Clinton emails, we've had similar cases to Clinton's that had similar outcomes - Petraeus avoided felony charges and prison time when he was equally (if not more) careless with classified information as Clinton.

Petraeus didn't avoid negative consequences. I suppose Hillary didn't either, if you assume the backlash against her preference treatment cost her a couple of midwestern states (which I think is highly possible). And i would not argue that he was equally (if not more) careless. I believe the person to whom he disclosed the information had a clearance but not need to know. That is very much different from putting the information on an uncovered server for all the world to hack.

I don't see the rationale into investigating the Clinton campaign - what potential crimes do you think they committed? If you show me compelling evidence that a crime may have been committed, I'll change my tune. Do you think there may have been crimes committed? Or even show me something we need to understand better from a national security perspective. I just don't see smoke right now.

I understand investigating the Steele dossier to understand which claims were true and if the Russian government peddled lies with the hope of them being spread in the US.

(08-06-2018 01:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 01:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I understand your point, but it's hard to argue justice isn't being applied equally and comparing two unrelated cases (Clinton email vs. Trump campaign collusion). And if you're saying we need to investigate both campaigns for collusion with equal vigor, I'd agree, if there was equal evidence. We should scrutinize both equally, but unless there's evidence to warrant an investigation, we shouldn't start one. I'd support an investigation into the Steele dossier for a number of reasons, though.

So you'd support an investigation into the Steele dossier but not the Clinton campaign? And if that investigation were conducted pursuant to an "relating to" mandate similar to the existing one, exactly how would you expect the Clinton campaign to be excluded?

Quote:As to your comments about Strozk, Page, and McCabe - just because they wanted Hillary to win, does not mean they acted in a biased manner.

Well, it certainly doesn't mean that they acted in an unbiased manner, now does it? And how one possibly conclude that they didn't, without knowing exactly what was meant by the "insurance policy" comment?

Quote:And finally, with Clinton the Clinton emails, we've had similar cases to Clinton's that had similar outcomes - Petraeus avoided felony charges and prison time when he was equally (if not more) careless with classified information as Clinton.

Petraeus didn't avoid negative consequences. I suppose Hillary didn't either, if you assume the backlash against her preference treatment cost her a couple of midwestern states (which I think is highly possible). And i would not argue that he was equally (if not more) careless. I believe the person to whom he disclosed the information had a clearance but not need to know. That is very much different from putting the information on an uncovered server for all the world to hack.

I don't see the rationale into investigating the Clinton campaign - what potential crimes do you think they committed? If you show me compelling evidence that a crime may have been committed, I'll change my tune. Do you think there may have been crimes committed? Or even show me something we need to understand better from a national security perspective. I just don't see smoke right now.
I understand investigating the Steele dossier to understand which claims were true and if the Russian government peddled lies with the hope of them being spread in the US.

So you don't care about how the Steele dossier came to be created or how it ended up being used as the basis for FISA court proceedings? And there may very well be something or things criminal about the Clinton campaign's role in this. At this point, I'd say that there is as much evidence of criminal activity by the Clinton campaign as by the Trump campaign.

(08-06-2018 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 01:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 01:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I understand your point, but it's hard to argue justice isn't being applied equally and comparing two unrelated cases (Clinton email vs. Trump campaign collusion). And if you're saying we need to investigate both campaigns for collusion with equal vigor, I'd agree, if there was equal evidence. We should scrutinize both equally, but unless there's evidence to warrant an investigation, we shouldn't start one. I'd support an investigation into the Steele dossier for a number of reasons, though.

So you'd support an investigation into the Steele dossier but not the Clinton campaign? And if that investigation were conducted pursuant to an "relating to" mandate similar to the existing one, exactly how would you expect the Clinton campaign to be excluded?

Quote:As to your comments about Strozk, Page, and McCabe - just because they wanted Hillary to win, does not mean they acted in a biased manner.

Well, it certainly doesn't mean that they acted in an unbiased manner, now does it? And how one possibly conclude that they didn't, without knowing exactly what was meant by the "insurance policy" comment?

Quote:And finally, with Clinton the Clinton emails, we've had similar cases to Clinton's that had similar outcomes - Petraeus avoided felony charges and prison time when he was equally (if not more) careless with classified information as Clinton.

Petraeus didn't avoid negative consequences. I suppose Hillary didn't either, if you assume the backlash against her preference treatment cost her a couple of midwestern states (which I think is highly possible). And i would not argue that he was equally (if not more) careless. I believe the person to whom he disclosed the information had a clearance but not need to know. That is very much different from putting the information on an uncovered server for all the world to hack.

I don't see the rationale into investigating the Clinton campaign - what potential crimes do you think they committed? If you show me compelling evidence that a crime may have been committed, I'll change my tune. Do you think there may have been crimes committed? Or even show me something we need to understand better from a national security perspective. I just don't see smoke right now.
I understand investigating the Steele dossier to understand which claims were true and if the Russian government peddled lies with the hope of them being spread in the US.

So you don't care about how the Steele dossier came to be created or how it ended up being used as the basis for FISA court proceedings? And there may very well be something or things criminal about the Clinton campaign's role in this. At this point, I'd say that there is as much evidence of criminal activity by the Clinton campaign as by the Trump campaign.

Um, what?

It's public knowledge how the Steele dossier came to be created (Republican's against Trump started it).

And we're already looking into how it was used in the FISA app (hello Nunes and Schiff memos). But I'd be fine if that got rolled into an investigation into the Steele dossier - my guess is that we'll find out that the FISA application process is more at issue, as opposed to the Steele dossier.

No idea why you think the Clinton campaign had a role in the FISA app - is there evidence suggesting that it may have been involved?

And what evidence is there that the Clinton campaign did something criminal?

You somehow seem to be drawing a connection between the Steele dossier and the Clinton campaign that doesn't exist - a mythical connection that says the Clinton campaign decided to try and snoop on Carter Page, an ex-campaign adviser.

(08-06-2018 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Um, what?
It's public knowledge how the Steele dossier came to be created (Republican's against Trump started it).
And we're already looking into how it was used in the FISA app (hello Nunes and Schiff memos). But I'd be fine if that got rolled into an investigation into the Steele dossier - my guess is that we'll find out that the FISA application process is more at issue, as opposed to the Steele dossier.
No idea why you think the Clinton campaign had a role in the FISA app - is there evidence suggesting that it may have been involved?
And what evidence is there that the Clinton campaign did something criminal?
You somehow seem to be drawing a connection between the Steele dossier and the Clinton campaign that doesn't exist - a mythical connection that says the Clinton campaign decided to try and snoop on Carter Page, an ex-campaign adviser.

Started by republicans opposed to Trump, through early March 2016, yes. But taken over and nurtured by the Clinton campaign, through Fusion GPS in April 2016, and their hiring of Steele in June 2016, also true. We keep being told that nobody knew anything about the details of this arrangement outside Fusion GPS--ergo, no knowledge of each other by Clinton campaign or Steele. But are those self-serving statements more reliable than others which you reject from the other side? If so, why?

What is not clear to me at all is exactly the timing and method by which this dossier came to be in the possession of the FBI, and who paid whom exactly what to get it there. I've heard several accounts, which are at least somewhat contradictory. I've heard that Steele worked for Fusion GPS who worked for the Clinton campaign up until the 2016 election, and that Steele continued his investigation without Clinton campaign funding after the election, but I've also heard that the FBI was acting on the dossier before the election. If you understand exactly how all this came down, I'd appreciate it if you could clarify.

(08-06-2018 02:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Um, what?
It's public knowledge how the Steele dossier came to be created (Republican's against Trump started it).
And we're already looking into how it was used in the FISA app (hello Nunes and Schiff memos). But I'd be fine if that got rolled into an investigation into the Steele dossier - my guess is that we'll find out that the FISA application process is more at issue, as opposed to the Steele dossier.
No idea why you think the Clinton campaign had a role in the FISA app - is there evidence suggesting that it may have been involved?
And what evidence is there that the Clinton campaign did something criminal?
You somehow seem to be drawing a connection between the Steele dossier and the Clinton campaign that doesn't exist - a mythical connection that says the Clinton campaign decided to try and snoop on Carter Page, an ex-campaign adviser.

Started by republicans opposed to Trump, through early March 2016, yes. But taken over and nurtured by the Clinton campaign, through Fusion GPS in April 2016, and their hiring of Steele in June 2016, also true. We keep being told that nobody knew anything about the details of this arrangement outside Fusion GPS--ergo, no knowledge of each other by Clinton campaign or Steele. But are those self-serving statements more reliable than others which you reject from the other side? If so, why?

What is not clear to me at all is exactly the timing and method by which this dossier came to be in the possession of the FBI, and who paid whom exactly what to get it there. I've heard several accounts, which are at least somewhat contradictory. I've heard that Steele worked for Fusion GPS who worked for the Clinton campaign up until the 2016 election, and that Steele continued his investigation without Clinton campaign funding after the election, but I've also heard that the FBI was acting on the dossier before the election. If you understand exactly how all this came down, I'd appreciate it if you could clarify.

I don't see how those claims are contradictory. The Steele dossier is made up of multiple memos, some of which were distributed prior to the publication of the full dossier by Buzzfeed.

That's how some of the dossier was used in the FISA app for Carter Page. Steele laid out some of his work in July 2016 to the FBI (https://abcnews.go.com/US/fbi-vets-missi...d=52309501) and that likely is what they used in the FISA app.

Your recollection appears to be pretty spot on - you can read a lot about the timeline on the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%8...ion_events) all of which provides primary sources.

When and where did Hillary and her crew meet with the GPS peoples to conveniently facilitate the use of Russian sourced campaign intelligence for use in a US election? Is there a tidy Wiki for that? Or does that not matter because we are with her? All is well as long as you use enough bag men and your typical idiot American can't follow the three card monte.

(08-06-2018 11:38 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  When and where did Hillary and her crew meet with the GPS peoples to conveniently facilitate the use of Russian sourced campaign intelligence for use in a US election? Is there a tidy Wiki for that? Or does that not matter because we are with her? All is well as long as you use enough bag men and your typical idiot American can't follow the three card monte.

As I’ve said, the difference to me is the potential ulterior motives of the people who provided intel. That’s why I support investigating the Steele dossier, to evaluate if any of the sources were being used by the Russian government to peddle false information, intentionally.

If evidence comes to light that suggests the Clinton campaign was involved with the gathering of the information by Steele and was influencing it somehow (like say directing Steele to people to talk to), then it would make sense to bring them into the fold. So far what we know is that the Clinton camp wasn’t in the loop. And remember, Russia released thousands of emails from the DNC and Podesta, and I’ve not seen any of those suggest otherwise. Suggesting otherwise is relying completely on your own personal opinion and biases.

(08-07-2018 07:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 11:38 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  When and where did Hillary and her crew meet with the GPS peoples to conveniently facilitate the use of Russian sourced campaign intelligence for use in a US election? Is there a tidy Wiki for that? Or does that not matter because we are with her? All is well as long as you use enough bag men and your typical idiot American can't follow the three card monte.

As I’ve said, the difference to me is the potential ulterior motives of the people who provided intel. That’s why I support investigating the Steele dossier, to evaluate if any of the sources were being used by the Russian government to peddle false information, intentionally.
If evidence comes to light that suggests the Clinton campaign was involved with the gathering of the information by Steele and was influencing it somehow (like say directing Steele to people to talk to), then it would make sense to bring them into the fold. So far what we know is that the Clinton camp wasn’t in the loop. And remember, Russia released thousands of emails from the DNC and Podesta, and I’ve not seen any of those suggest otherwise. Suggesting otherwise is relying completely on your own personal opinion and biases.

But I think you are suggesting a vastly different standard for Hillary than for Trump. I've seen no indication that anyone in the Trump campaign had the kind of direction authority that you are suggesting as a threshold for investigating the Clinton campaign.

(08-07-2018 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 07:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 11:38 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  When and where did Hillary and her crew meet with the GPS peoples to conveniently facilitate the use of Russian sourced campaign intelligence for use in a US election? Is there a tidy Wiki for that? Or does that not matter because we are with her? All is well as long as you use enough bag men and your typical idiot American can't follow the three card monte.

As I’ve said, the difference to me is the potential ulterior motives of the people who provided intel. That’s why I support investigating the Steele dossier, to evaluate if any of the sources were being used by the Russian government to peddle false information, intentionally.
If evidence comes to light that suggests the Clinton campaign was involved with the gathering of the information by Steele and was influencing it somehow (like say directing Steele to people to talk to), then it would make sense to bring them into the fold. So far what we know is that the Clinton camp wasn’t in the loop. And remember, Russia released thousands of emails from the DNC and Podesta, and I’ve not seen any of those suggest otherwise. Suggesting otherwise is relying completely on your own personal opinion and biases.

But I think you are suggesting a vastly different standard for Hillary than for Trump. I've seen no indication that anyone in the Trump campaign had the kind of direction authority that you are suggesting as a threshold for investigating the Clinton campaign.

Say what?

Trump Jr. released his own personal emails in which he welcomed and organized a meeting with a known representative of Russia with the explicit knowledge that the sovereign power of Russia was trying to assist the Trump campaign.

How is that not an indication that someone in the Trump campaign was aware that a sovereign state (and a hostile one at that) was providing, or involved with the gathering of, said information?

edit: and to show that this isn't a double standard, based on what we know, the Clinton Campaign didn't even know Steele had been hired, let alone that he had talked to people in Russia. If the Clinton Campaign had been in the loop, that information would have almost certainly come to light because they, and the DNC, had thousands of emails stolen.

(08-07-2018 09:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 07:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 11:38 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  When and where did Hillary and her crew meet with the GPS peoples to conveniently facilitate the use of Russian sourced campaign intelligence for use in a US election? Is there a tidy Wiki for that? Or does that not matter because we are with her? All is well as long as you use enough bag men and your typical idiot American can't follow the three card monte.

As I’ve said, the difference to me is the potential ulterior motives of the people who provided intel. That’s why I support investigating the Steele dossier, to evaluate if any of the sources were being used by the Russian government to peddle false information, intentionally.
If evidence comes to light that suggests the Clinton campaign was involved with the gathering of the information by Steele and was influencing it somehow (like say directing Steele to people to talk to), then it would make sense to bring them into the fold. So far what we know is that the Clinton camp wasn’t in the loop. And remember, Russia released thousands of emails from the DNC and Podesta, and I’ve not seen any of those suggest otherwise. Suggesting otherwise is relying completely on your own personal opinion and biases.

But I think you are suggesting a vastly different standard for Hillary than for Trump. I've seen no indication that anyone in the Trump campaign had the kind of direction authority that you are suggesting as a threshold for investigating the Clinton campaign.

Say what?
Trump Jr. released his own personal emails in which he welcomed and organized a meeting with a known representative of Russia with the explicit knowledge that the sovereign power of Russia was trying to assist the Trump campaign.
How is that not an indication that someone in the Trump campaign was aware that a sovereign state (and a hostile one at that) was providing, or involved with the gathering of, said information?
edit: and to show that this isn't a double standard, based on what we know, the Clinton Campaign didn't even know Steele had been hired, let alone that he had talked to people in Russia. If the Clinton Campaign had been in the loop, that information would have almost certainly come to light because they, and the DNC, had thousands of emails stolen.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood you to be suggesting that the threshold for investigating the Clinton campaign would be that her campaign was somehow directing the gathering of information "(like say directing Steele to people to talk to)". There is no indication that anyone in Trump's camp went anywhere near that far. In fact, it would appear that whatever information was discussed in the TT meeting had already been gathered.

And having a meeting may or may not have been collusion (which is not a crime) but it does not arise to conspiracy (which is). Conspiracy requires that the meeting produced a plan to do something, and that at least one act in furtherance of that plan was done. I don't see evidence of that yet. Do you? If in fact Don Jr. is correct in stating that no agreement was reached and he walked out, then that closes the door on conspiracy.

I don't know whether Don Jr. is telling the truth, and neither do you.

(08-06-2018 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And finally, with Clinton the Clinton emails, we've had similar cases to Clinton's that had similar outcomes - Petraeus avoided felony charges and prison time when he was equally (if not more) careless with classified information as Clinton. I agree that we should strive for equal treatment under the law, but I don't get why Clinton is the focus all of the time, when there are plenty of other powerful people who get past the justice system.

Perhaps because her violation of the law is just such an amazing and explicit violation of the law that really exists, and in which her position allowed her to absolutely circumvent criminal proceedings. I mean, seriously, you even had a director of the FBI explicitly changing language of a memo to fing tapdance around the explicit language of a statute.

It is a picture perfect example to the just about the utmost degree of bending the rules to the break based upon a person's position.

Yet you are astonished at the reaction....

(08-07-2018 09:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  edit: and to show that this isn't a double standard, based on what we know, the Clinton Campaign didn't even know Steele had been hired, let alone that he had talked to people in Russia. If the Clinton Campaign had been in the loop, that information would have almost certainly come to light because they, and the DNC, had thousands of emails stolen.

Please show us your proof positive that "Clinton Campaign didn't even know Steele had been hired, let alone that he had talked to people in Russia".

Last I knew, Perkins Coie, has an absolute duty to keep a client informed on all aspects of their representation of a client --- which this is, mind you. Or is Perkins Coie the best fing cutout scheme ever to do this type of ****, which has been one issue some of us have noted for some time.

To be blunt, it would boggle the fing mind of any competent attorney or firm to knowingly keep those facts from the client in the course of it representation. Just saying.

Hate to say this Lad, but your supposed 'lack of anything we see' statement once again cuts against every single attorney practice in the real-world sense. Again, just saying.

(08-07-2018 10:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 09:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 07:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 11:38 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  When and where did Hillary and her crew meet with the GPS peoples to conveniently facilitate the use of Russian sourced campaign intelligence for use in a US election? Is there a tidy Wiki for that? Or does that not matter because we are with her? All is well as long as you use enough bag men and your typical idiot American can't follow the three card monte.

As I’ve said, the difference to me is the potential ulterior motives of the people who provided intel. That’s why I support investigating the Steele dossier, to evaluate if any of the sources were being used by the Russian government to peddle false information, intentionally.
If evidence comes to light that suggests the Clinton campaign was involved with the gathering of the information by Steele and was influencing it somehow (like say directing Steele to people to talk to), then it would make sense to bring them into the fold. So far what we know is that the Clinton camp wasn’t in the loop. And remember, Russia released thousands of emails from the DNC and Podesta, and I’ve not seen any of those suggest otherwise. Suggesting otherwise is relying completely on your own personal opinion and biases.

But I think you are suggesting a vastly different standard for Hillary than for Trump. I've seen no indication that anyone in the Trump campaign had the kind of direction authority that you are suggesting as a threshold for investigating the Clinton campaign.

Say what?
Trump Jr. released his own personal emails in which he welcomed and organized a meeting with a known representative of Russia with the explicit knowledge that the sovereign power of Russia was trying to assist the Trump campaign.
How is that not an indication that someone in the Trump campaign was aware that a sovereign state (and a hostile one at that) was providing, or involved with the gathering of, said information?
edit: and to show that this isn't a double standard, based on what we know, the Clinton Campaign didn't even know Steele had been hired, let alone that he had talked to people in Russia. If the Clinton Campaign had been in the loop, that information would have almost certainly come to light because they, and the DNC, had thousands of emails stolen.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood you to be suggesting that the threshold for investigating the Clinton campaign would be that her campaign was somehow directing the gathering of information "(like say directing Steele to people to talk to)". There is no indication that anyone in Trump's camp went anywhere near that far. In fact, it would appear that whatever information was discussed in the TT meeting had already been gathered.

And having a meeting may or may not have been collusion (which is not a crime) but it does not arise to conspiracy (which is). Conspiracy requires that the meeting produced a plan to do something, and that at least one act in furtherance of that plan was done. I don't see evidence of that yet. Do you? If in fact Don Jr. is correct in stating that no agreement was reached and he walked out, then that closes the door on conspiracy.

I don't know whether Don Jr. is telling the truth, and neither do you.

You're right - which is why I'm not suggesting a crime was committed based on the evidence at hand. Instead, I'm suggesting there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. Why try and make me defend a position I haven't taken?

We know a meeting took place where a conspiracy could very well have been initiated, so reason says that an investigation is warranted, right? We know a situation arose where Trump Jr and other campaign leaders could have very well started a conspiracy, and we know that those members lied about the meeting when it came to light and did not inform the authorities before hand.

So this is my whole point - that the TT meeting alone is enough to warrant the Mueller probe. We deserve an answer as to whether a conspiracy was established that doesn't rely solely on the word of someone who has already lied about the meeting multiple times.

And to your first point, I offered one potential hypothetical as to why an investigation into the Clinton Campaign would be warranted - it wasn't all encompassing. Do you have e