(05-23-2018 11:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-23-2018 11:09 AM)sts60 Wrote:  My goodness, there’s a lot to unpack in your penultimate post. I promise a diligent response, but I’m in about-once-a-day mode, so kindly bear with me.

I appreciate the response and will wait on you.

And now I'm envisioning OO as Fry's dog in Futurama. Ok then.

(Though I think sts60 will actually get back; that's just what popped to mind with the phrase "I will wait on you.")

Trump cancels Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/tru...ar-AAxIBx9

(05-24-2018 09:10 AM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(05-23-2018 11:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-23-2018 11:09 AM)sts60 Wrote:  My goodness, there’s a lot to unpack in your penultimate post. I promise a diligent response, but I’m in about-once-a-day mode, so kindly bear with me.

I appreciate the response and will wait on you.

And now I'm envisioning OO as Fry's dog in Futurama. Ok then.

(Though I think sts60 will actually get back; that's just what popped to mind with the phrase "I will wait on you.")

He asked for time, and I felt in the spirit of honest discussion, I should grant him as much time as he needs.

However, I am going out of town tomorrow for 5 days, and working from an IPad is not my forte, so I hope he hurries. I really am anxious to find out his narrative of the crime Mueller is investigating. Whatever crime that may be.

I will wait

Well I have an hour before I leave, so in the absence of 60's response, I will just enumerate what I am looking for.

1. What is the crime being investigated?

2. What is the narrative that ties Trump and/or his campaign to this crime?

3. what do all the money laundering and OOJ charges have to do with this crime?

4.a What is the quid pro quo - What was the benefit offered to the Russians in exchange for whatever they did?
4.b Why do you think Trump would be stupid enough to make that deal?
4.c.a Is there any evidence that it made a difference?
4.c.b If so, what is the evidence that trump was prescient enough to know that all he needed to get over the top was the publishing of the emails?




All I see is a bunch of people turning over rocks in an effort to answer the question, "How could this happen"? The equivalent in everyday person terms would be three squad cars of police coming to your door with search warrants, based on a neighbor's complaint that "Something just is not right over there", and searching through your life to see if you ever did anything wrong, and indicting your cousins to make them talk.

OK, 60, your turn. But don't give us the old tired "where there's smoke, there must be fire". (1) the ones blowing smoke are the ones wanting to find something, anything, t bring down Trump, and (b) plenty of smoke around the actions of the FBI and DOJ, so if smoke is the criteria, let's investigate them.

(05-25-2018 08:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well I have an hour before I leave, so in the absence of 60's response, I will just enumerate what I am looking for.
1. What is the crime being investigated?
2. What is the narrative that ties Trump and/or his campaign to this crime?
3. what do all the money laundering and OOJ charges have to do with this crime?
4.a What is the quid pro quo - What was the benefit offered to the Russians in exchange for whatever they did?
4.b Why do you think Trump would be stupid enough to make that deal?
4.c.a Is there any evidence that it made a difference?
4.c.b If so, what is the evidence that trump was prescient enough to know that all he needed to get over the top was the publishing of the emails?
All I see is a bunch of people turning over rocks in an effort to answer the question, "How could this happen"? The equivalent in everyday person terms would be three squad cars of police coming to your door with search warrants, based on a neighbor's complaint that "Something just is not right over there", and searching through your life to see if you ever did anything wrong, and indicting your cousins to make them talk.
OK, 60, your turn. But don't give us the old tired "where there's smoke, there must be fire". (1) the ones blowing smoke are the ones wanting to find something, anything, t bring down Trump, and (b) plenty of smoke around the actions of the FBI and DOJ, so if smoke is the criteria, let's investigate them.

I'd ask one other question. Suppose Trump had done absolutely nothing. What would have turned out differently?

To separate into sub-questions:
Would whoever hacked the DNC and Podesta not have done so?
Would the information not have been passed to Wikileaks?
Would Wikileaks not have published the information?

(05-25-2018 09:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 08:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well I have an hour before I leave, so in the absence of 60's response, I will just enumerate what I am looking for.
1. What is the crime being investigated?
2. What is the narrative that ties Trump and/or his campaign to this crime?
3. what do all the money laundering and OOJ charges have to do with this crime?
4.a What is the quid pro quo - What was the benefit offered to the Russians in exchange for whatever they did?
4.b Why do you think Trump would be stupid enough to make that deal?
4.c.a Is there any evidence that it made a difference?
4.c.b If so, what is the evidence that trump was prescient enough to know that all he needed to get over the top was the publishing of the emails?
All I see is a bunch of people turning over rocks in an effort to answer the question, "How could this happen"? The equivalent in everyday person terms would be three squad cars of police coming to your door with search warrants, based on a neighbor's complaint that "Something just is not right over there", and searching through your life to see if you ever did anything wrong, and indicting your cousins to make them talk.
OK, 60, your turn. But don't give us the old tired "where there's smoke, there must be fire". (1) the ones blowing smoke are the ones wanting to find something, anything, t bring down Trump, and (b) plenty of smoke around the actions of the FBI and DOJ, so if smoke is the criteria, let's investigate them.

I'd ask one other question. Suppose Trump had done absolutely nothing. What would have turned out differently?

To separate into sub-questions:
Would whoever hacked the DNC and Podesta not have done so?
Would the information not have been passed to Wikileaks?
Would Wikileaks not have published the information?

Lots of questions beyond what you and I have listed, and they need reasonable answers to justify this investigation, especially the direction it has taken.

(05-25-2018 09:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 08:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well I have an hour before I leave, so in the absence of 60's response, I will just enumerate what I am looking for.
1. What is the crime being investigated?
2. What is the narrative that ties Trump and/or his campaign to this crime?
3. what do all the money laundering and OOJ charges have to do with this crime?
4.a What is the quid pro quo - What was the benefit offered to the Russians in exchange for whatever they did?
4.b Why do you think Trump would be stupid enough to make that deal?
4.c.a Is there any evidence that it made a difference?
4.c.b If so, what is the evidence that trump was prescient enough to know that all he needed to get over the top was the publishing of the emails?
All I see is a bunch of people turning over rocks in an effort to answer the question, "How could this happen"? The equivalent in everyday person terms would be three squad cars of police coming to your door with search warrants, based on a neighbor's complaint that "Something just is not right over there", and searching through your life to see if you ever did anything wrong, and indicting your cousins to make them talk.
OK, 60, your turn. But don't give us the old tired "where there's smoke, there must be fire". (1) the ones blowing smoke are the ones wanting to find something, anything, t bring down Trump, and (b) plenty of smoke around the actions of the FBI and DOJ, so if smoke is the criteria, let's investigate them.

I'd ask one other question. Suppose Trump had done absolutely nothing. What would have turned out differently?

To separate into sub-questions:
Would whoever hacked the DNC and Podesta not have done so?
Would the information not have been passed to Wikileaks?
Would Wikileaks not have published the information?

Lots of questions beyond what you and I have listed, and they need reasonable answers to justify this investigation, especially the direction it has taken.

What is mind blowing about this whole Russia ordeal is how the HRC campaign actually did (FBI said as much) what Trump is accused of (with zero evidence to speak of), but Trump is the one who somehow who needs to be investigated. I can't imagine the backwards mental gymnastics required to resolve that incongruency and still be able to do normal human things on a daily basis.

(05-25-2018 10:13 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  What is mind blowing about this whole Russia ordeal is how the HRC campaign actually did (FBI said as much) what Trump is accused of (with zero evidence to speak of), but Trump is the one who somehow who needs to be investigated. I can't imagine the backwards mental gymnastics required to resolve that incongruency and still be able to do normal human things on a daily basis.

Yes, that is pretty amazing. But after the mental gymnastics that Comey had to jump through with Hillary (here is incontrovertible evidence that she committed several serious crimes, but let's not prosecute because of difficulty proving intent--which a required element of several of the crimes--and for which two strong indicia of proof--repetition and destruction of evidence--clearly did exist), how can anything surprise you?

You forget the non-intent crimes with gross negligence as the predicate that he hand-waved away.

(05-26-2018 02:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You forget the non-intent crimes with gross negligence as the predicate that he hand-waved away.

No, they just add to the total.

(05-25-2018 10:13 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  What is mind blowing about this whole Russia ordeal is how the HRC campaign actually did (FBI said as much) what Trump is accused of (with zero evidence to speak of), but Trump is the one who somehow who needs to be investigated. I can't imagine the backwards mental gymnastics required to resolve that incongruency and still be able to do normal human things on a daily basis.

Welcome to America 2018.

It just goes back to the fundamental deep levels of tribalism that define US politics these days.

(05-25-2018 10:13 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  What is mind blowing about this whole Russia ordeal is how the HRC campaign actually did (FBI said as much) what Trump is accused of (with zero evidence to speak of), but Trump is the one who somehow who needs to be investigated. I can't imagine the backwards mental gymnastics required to resolve that incongruency and still be able to do normal human things on a daily basis.

Not one person has come forward to refute your statement. silence is agreement.

FBI

I am sure the left's faith in the integrity of the FBI will be unshaken.

(06-06-2018 02:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  FBI

I am sure the left's faith in the integrity of the FBI will be unshaken.

Not enough smoke there.

I am positive that even the IG report will not have the requisite amount of smoke either.

(06-06-2018 02:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-06-2018 02:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  FBI

I am sure the left's faith in the integrity of the FBI will be unshaken.

Not enough smoke there.

I am positive that even the IG report will not have the requisite amount of smoke either.

From the prime source:

Quote:The draft of Horowitz's wide-ranging report specifically called out Comey for ignoring objections from the Justice Department when he disclosed in a letter to Congress just days before the 2016 presidential election that FBI agents had reopened the Clinton probe, according to sources. Clinton has said that letter doomed her campaign.

Before Comey sent the letter to Congress, at least one senior Justice Department official told the FBI that publicizing the bombshell move so close to an election would violate longstanding department policy, and it would ignore federal guidelines prohibiting the disclosure of information related to an ongoing investigation, ABC News was told...

The inspector general's office seemed to similarly view Lynch's announcement as strange, with the draft report criticizing her for how she handled the impromptu tarmac meeting and its aftermath, according to sources familiar with the findings.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/doj-watc...d=55670834

McCabe

Michael Bromwich, an attorney representing McCabe, sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, on Tuesday requesting that McCabe be granted immunity in exchange for testimony surrounding the inspector general’s report that he leaked information and lied about it to former FBI director James Comey.

(06-06-2018 02:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-06-2018 02:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-06-2018 02:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  FBI

I am sure the left's faith in the integrity of the FBI will be unshaken.

Not enough smoke there.

I am positive that even the IG report will not have the requisite amount of smoke either.

From the prime source:

Quote:The draft of Horowitz's wide-ranging report specifically called out Comey for ignoring objections from the Justice Department when he disclosed in a letter to Congress just days before the 2016 presidential election that FBI agents had reopened the Clinton probe, according to sources. Clinton has said that letter doomed her campaign.

Before Comey sent the letter to Congress, at least one senior Justice Department official told the FBI that publicizing the bombshell move so close to an election would violate longstanding department policy, and it would ignore federal guidelines prohibiting the disclosure of information related to an ongoing investigation, ABC News was told...

The inspector general's office seemed to similarly view Lynch's announcement as strange, with the draft report criticizing her for how she handled the impromptu tarmac meeting and its aftermath, according to sources familiar with the findings.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/doj-watc...d=55670834

Are you saying there is 'enough smoke' in your mind to warrant a criminal investigation? If so welcome to the chorus that some have been espousing for almost a year now.

(06-06-2018 05:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  McCabe

Michael Bromwich, an attorney representing McCabe, sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, on Tuesday requesting that McCabe be granted immunity in exchange for testimony surrounding the inspector general’s report that he leaked information and lied about it to former FBI director James Comey.

Holy shite OO -- you've been Fenderized!!!!!! (high five)