(08-07-2018 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 12:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 11:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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

OK, I don't disagree that there is enough to warrant an investigation of that meeting. What I'm not understanding is why investigations in Hillary's campaign are not similarly warranted.

At a minimum there is substantially more actual evidence (not speculation) that Hillary's campaign did in fact conspire with the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to fix the democrat primaries.

And there is ample reason to speculate that her campaign somehow was conspiring with "the Russians" to produce dirt on Trump. What you seem to be saying is that it's a no-no if you do it directly, but okay if it is handled through intermediaries.

Go ahead and investigate the primaries.

But there isn't even ample reason to speculate that the campaign was conspiring with the Russians. The only "reason" you can provide is that funds were used by the DNC to pay for opposition research, and that, well, you know, it's Clinton.

There's no evidence that Podesta/Clinton knew that the funds were being used to either hire a British intelligence officer, or use sources in Russia. That point right there is where the Trump campaign loses this battle - Don Jr. published the evidence that shows he knew that the Russian government would be supplying the oppo research.

Or is there something I'm missing? Cus I'm not buying what Tanq is selling based on my experiences working for attorneys and the fact that I don't tell them what driller I hire when I do field work for them.

So the instructions when the they hired Fusion were "Find dirt on Trump and don't tell us how or where you got it"?

Pretty good defense. Works all the time. "I am shocked, shocked, I tell you that our attorneys went to Russia for dirt on Trump. But my hands are clean - I just hired them." "I had no idea that my friend was going to hire a hit man to kill my wife, even though I gave him the money for it. I just wanted it to end. I'm innocent."

Yep, works all the time.

Yes Lad, your experience with attorneys makes you the fking expert I guess. Your 'experience' and your analogy is fking idiotic.

If the main purpose of them hiring you was the fking hole drilled, then yes, it is their job to know. The main purpose in them hiring you is *not* in the fking hole drilled, but in the installation of the equipment.

The main purpose and crown jewel of the Fusion excercise was 'dirt'. Whom you hire to collect that dirt is essential knowledge of the fking work product.

Put your thinking cap on and stop dancing. I dont know if you are simply dense on this concept or showing real-world naivete in this. When the general contractor is *not* the originator of the main locus of the expected work product, yes, a law firm and attorney expects real fing world information on the fing source of what the general is providing them. No ifs, ands, or buts.

And, to be blunt, this would be general fing common sense to any industry. Your conflation of ancilalry product or side action in no way, shape, or form makes sense when you actually ask yourself (and I suggest that you do) *what* the expected work product is, and how is it to be vetted on an ongoing basis.

I guess in LadCo, you would be more than happy to plop down 500k for political info, and want to have no idea at all or any fing clue where the main expected work product comes from. Sounds stupid as **** to me, but thats just me.

You're wrong on the analogy. Generally, the main purpose of hiring me is to interpret data that is collected from that hole in the ground - so they trust me to hire a sub to put the hole in the ground correctly, and then for me to interpret the data. The attorney's client does not care at all who puts the hole in the ground.

Not sure exactly how the working relationship between Fusion GPS and Steele's company was, but that doesn't seem to different. Fusion GPS outsources the drilling of the hole (gathering information on Russia related materials). Fusion GPS was providing oppo research on more than just Russia to the Washington Free Beacon and then DNC - it was just Steele's company that was hired to look into Russia.

If anything, doesn't it make sense when asking someone to gather oppo research to not inform you of their methods, so you can at least have plausible deniability with respect to how it was gathered? That's the same thing that may shield Trump himself from any potential issues - he wasn't in the loop, intentionally so.