(08-15-2018 11:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad is making a distinction without a difference. Or is it the other way around?
The point is, he is making that distinction in order to not be evenhanded in his criticisms. The two situations are basically the same, but he cannot condemn one AND be OK with the other without a distinction between them, so he makes one up.

Lad is making the only distinction he can find to support his position. It is a patently absurd distinction, because is is a patently absurd position.

I'm reminded of the old joke where an attorney tells a friend he will be in court that day trying a rape case and the friend asks, "Well, are you representing the f***er or the f***ee?" Lad is trying to explain how being the do-ee is worse than being the do-er.

Being approached may or may not be collusion, but collusion is not a crime. Being approached, reaching agreement to do something illegal, and then completing at least one act in furtherance of that illegal objective is a crime, called conspiracy. We have evidence that the Trump campaign was approached. That's like the policewoman disguised as the hooker approaching the guy. That's it.

Wat do we have with Clinton? They approached intermediaries, who did their bidding by approaching others and the chain eventually gets to Fusion GPS and Steele, who reached agreement and carried out acts in furtherance of that agreement. The question is whether the objective was legal or illegal. If the object was illegal, then we have criminal conspiracy. And everybody in the chain is potentially criminally liable.

Now, here's where it gets interesting. Exactly how did the dossier get to the FBI and what did the FBI do with it? Did they just come up with it out of the blue, or were they somehow led to it? If the FBI used any part of the information, without independent verification, to support an ex parte FISA warrant application, then that application was improper and the warrant was improperly issued. Would any information obtained pursuant to the warrant be of at least suspect admissibility? Yes, and probably inadmissible. How far would the fruit of the poisonous tree extend? Who knows? Was that conduct improper? Clearly. Was it illegal? Maybe. Could you have a situation where the Clinton campaign engaged in criminal conspiracy with elements of the FBI (not "the FBI," but certain persons within the FBI)? Absolutely.

As far as "the Russians" having ulterior motives, where did Steele get his information? From "the Russians," with whom he had a cozy relationship. Would not "the Russians" have had those same ulterior motives in providing info to Steele? Did not Steele himself have ulterior motives?

I admit I haven't followed every single detail of the investigation, in part because I was out of the country for a few days, so my questions are serious, not rhetorical. If anyone can fill in facts to answer any of them, please do so.