(06-06-2018 05:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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)

No immunity, subpoena him, and have him invoke the 5th repeatedly on national TV. That's a pretty strong visual.

Obama tried to give it all away

Obama lied.

If you guys want to look into collusion, the Obama-Iran connection is mighty smoky.

(06-07-2018 03:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Obama tried to give it all away

Obama lied.

If you guys want to look into collusion, the Obama-Iran connection is mighty smoky.

*Nothing* is smokier than collusion-gate you silly boy. And *that* is the de minimus you must meet....

(06-07-2018 03:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 03:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Obama tried to give it all away

Obama lied.

If you guys want to look into collusion, the Obama-Iran connection is mighty smoky.

*Nothing* is smokier than collusion-gate you silly boy. And *that* is the de minimus you must meet....

FBI-DNC is as smoky as any.

(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.

LOL, no there are many reasons they are not the same thing.

Trump does a dozen things every single week that would have caused apoplexy on the right if Obama or Clinton had done it. Neither side has a monopoly on "motivated reasoning" but I've never seen it like I have with Republicans who should now better defending Trump...

(06-07-2018 03:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Obama tried to give it all away

Obama lied.

If you guys want to look into collusion, the Obama-Iran connection is mighty smoky.

Another LOL. You'll have to do better than the NY Post spinning an already questionable GOP report.

In any case, I don't really have much interest in discussing the collusion/FBI "conspiracy"/pizzagate/tarmacgate any more. Just seems pointless, especially when there are plenty of more immediate issues about what Trump is doing currently...

(06-07-2018 04:00 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(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.

LOL, no there are many reasons they are not the same thing.

Name them.

(06-07-2018 04:12 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 03:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Obama tried to give it all away

Obama lied.

If you guys want to look into collusion, the Obama-Iran connection is mighty smoky.

Another LOL. You'll have to do better than the NY Post spinning an already questionable GOP report.

In any case, I don't really have much interest in discussing the collusion/FBI "conspiracy"/pizzagate/tarmacgate any more. Just seems pointless, especially when there are plenty of more immediate issues about what Trump is doing currently...

I think I understand why you and other Democrats are losing interest in the Russian/Trump conspiracy theory. Hard to keep the ol' conspiracymobile running on fumes.

In any case, the facts already known in the Obama/Iran and FBI/DNC cases are enough, regardless of who reports it. (try google if you want a more palatable source).

(06-07-2018 04:12 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Another LOL. You'll have to do better than the NY Post spinning an already questionable GOP report.

Why do you think the NYT prints only unbiased fact but the Post "spins"?

Sorry for starting those posts with LOLs. Not particularly constructive.

(06-07-2018 10:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why do you think the NYT prints only unbiased fact but the Post "spins"?

I never said NYT prints only unbiased fact, but the Post is a tabloid. No one would seriously use it as a source. It's like me trying to prove something to you with links from Daily Kos.

(06-07-2018 04:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 04:00 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  LOL, no there are many reasons they are not the same thing.

Name them.

I had several links but can't find them now, but in sum:

In one case we are talking about a campaign hiring a firm to do oppo research, the firm then hired a former a guy to do the research, and that guy talked to some Russians about things that have happened in the past. (Also the Russians wanted to defeat/weaken Hilary, why would they collude with her?)

In the other, we have high ranking members of the Trump campaign (including his son and campaign manager) meeting with envoys from a hostile foreign power who we know was actively trying to disrupt our election, possibly talking about *future* actions. It now appears Trump dictated Junior’s false statement about said meeting. Part of a pattern of lying about the links.

That doesn’t even get into all the dubious financial links. Do I think Trump will end up being charged with something? If I had to guess, I’d say no, I’m not sure why he keeps acting like he is guilty. My best guess is really sleazy dubious financial links with Russians, possibly crossing into illegality that he doesn't want revealed.

Would not be surprised if Junior and Kushner crossed lines that put them in legal jeopardy? No, neither of them seems like a rocket scientist. Manafort, I expect he either flips on Trump or goes to jail. That guy's a sleazebag. But I’m sure if Hilary’s campaign manager had been indicted on money laundering, witness tampering, etc. charges, you’d be OK with it.

(06-07-2018 05:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In any case, the facts already known in the Obama/Iran and FBI/DNC cases are enough, regardless of who reports it. (try google if you want a more palatable source).

You all can have the last word, I just don’t want to spend my time arguing back and forth on the various scandals and conspiracy theories any more, just so that we can all arrive back at the point we started.

Would rather spend limited Quad time on current policy issues and/or trying understand (bridge?) the divisions in the country.

Also, as patriotic Americans we should all be spending time preparing for war with our arch enemy, Canada.

(06-11-2018 08:52 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Sorry for starting those posts with LOLs. Not particularly constructive.

(06-07-2018 10:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why do you think the NYT prints only unbiased fact but the Post "spins"?

I never said NYT prints only unbiased fact, but the Post is a tabloid. No one would seriously use it as a source. It's like me trying to prove something to you with links from Daily Kos.

(06-07-2018 04:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 04:00 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  LOL, no there are many reasons they are not the same thing.

Name them.

I had several links but can't find them now, but in sum:

In one case we are talking about a campaign hiring a firm to do oppo research, the firm then hired a former a guy to do the research, and that guy talked to some Russians about things that have happened in the past. (Also the Russians wanted to defeat/weaken Hilary, why would they collude with her?)

In the other, we have high ranking members of the Trump campaign (including his son and campaign manager) meeting with envoys from a hostile foreign power who we know was actively trying to disrupt our election, possibly talking about *future* actions. It now appears Trump dictated Junior’s false statement about said meeting. Part of a pattern of lying about the links.

That doesn’t even get into all the dubious financial links. Do I think Trump will end up being charged with something? If I had to guess, I’d say no, I’m not sure why he keeps acting like he is guilty. My best guess is really sleazy dubious financial links with Russians, possibly crossing into illegality that he doesn't want revealed.

Would not be surprised if Junior and Kushner crossed lines that put them in legal jeopardy? No, neither of them seems like a rocket scientist. Manafort, I expect he either flips on Trump or goes to jail. That guy's a sleazebag. But I’m sure if Hilary’s campaign manager had been indicted on money laundering, witness tampering, etc. charges, you’d be OK with it.

(06-07-2018 05:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In any case, the facts already known in the Obama/Iran and FBI/DNC cases are enough, regardless of who reports it. (try google if you want a more palatable source).

You all can have the last word, I just don’t want to spend my time arguing back and forth on the various scandals and conspiracy theories any more, just so that we can all arrive back at the point we started.

Would rather spend limited Quad time on current policy issues and/or trying understand (bridge?) the divisions in the country.

Also, as patriotic Americans we should all be spending time preparing for war with our arch enemy, Canada.

It now does not APPEAR that Trump dictated the statement, it has now been ADMITTED by the Trump admin that he did dictate the statement.

So to clarify, Team Trump meets with Russian envoys. When that news breaks, they first say it was meeting about adoptions. That falls through quickly and Trump Jr admits that the Russian lawyer said she had some information. Then news breaks that Trump himself assisted with the response to help cover up the meeting premise, but that is rebuked by the admin a day later when POTUS' lawyer says he was not involved, at all. Then news broke that POTUS dictated the response, which was initially rebuked by the admin. And then finally, the admin admits that Trump did dictate the response.

So not only did Team Trump lie from the start about what the meeting was about, but they repeatedly lied about POTUS' involvement in covering up the initial meeting agenda.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/a-time...responses/

(06-11-2018 09:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 08:52 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Sorry for starting those posts with LOLs. Not particularly constructive.

(06-07-2018 10:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why do you think the NYT prints only unbiased fact but the Post "spins"?

I never said NYT prints only unbiased fact, but the Post is a tabloid. No one would seriously use it as a source. It's like me trying to prove something to you with links from Daily Kos.

(06-07-2018 04:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 04:00 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  LOL, no there are many reasons they are not the same thing.

Name them.

I had several links but can't find them now, but in sum:

In one case we are talking about a campaign hiring a firm to do oppo research, the firm then hired a former a guy to do the research, and that guy talked to some Russians about things that have happened in the past. (Also the Russians wanted to defeat/weaken Hilary, why would they collude with her?)

In the other, we have high ranking members of the Trump campaign (including his son and campaign manager) meeting with envoys from a hostile foreign power who we know was actively trying to disrupt our election, possibly talking about *future* actions. It now appears Trump dictated Junior’s false statement about said meeting. Part of a pattern of lying about the links.

That doesn’t even get into all the dubious financial links. Do I think Trump will end up being charged with something? If I had to guess, I’d say no, I’m not sure why he keeps acting like he is guilty. My best guess is really sleazy dubious financial links with Russians, possibly crossing into illegality that he doesn't want revealed.

Would not be surprised if Junior and Kushner crossed lines that put them in legal jeopardy? No, neither of them seems like a rocket scientist. Manafort, I expect he either flips on Trump or goes to jail. That guy's a sleazebag. But I’m sure if Hilary’s campaign manager had been indicted on money laundering, witness tampering, etc. charges, you’d be OK with it.

(06-07-2018 05:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In any case, the facts already known in the Obama/Iran and FBI/DNC cases are enough, regardless of who reports it. (try google if you want a more palatable source).

You all can have the last word, I just don’t want to spend my time arguing back and forth on the various scandals and conspiracy theories any more, just so that we can all arrive back at the point we started.

Would rather spend limited Quad time on current policy issues and/or trying understand (bridge?) the divisions in the country.

Also, as patriotic Americans we should all be spending time preparing for war with our arch enemy, Canada.

It now does not APPEAR that Trump dictated the statement, it has now been ADMITTED by the Trump admin that he did dictate the statement.

So to clarify, Team Trump meets with Russian envoys. When that news breaks, they first say it was meeting about adoptions. That falls through quickly and Trump Jr admits that the Russian lawyer said she had some information. Then news breaks that Trump himself assisted with the response to help cover up the meeting premise, but that is rebuked by the admin a day later when POTUS' lawyer says he was not involved, at all. Then news broke that POTUS dictated the response, which was initially rebuked by the admin. And then finally, the admin admits that Trump did dictate the response.

So not only did Team Trump lie from the start about what the meeting was about, but they repeatedly lied about POTUS' involvement in covering up the initial meeting agenda.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/a-time...responses/

And this shows collusion how?

One team met with Russians hoping for dirt, quickly realized there was none, and terminated the meeting.

The other team hired X to hire Y to get dirt from Russians, put all said dirt into a dossier, and used that dossier to start a specious investigation.

Now vote again.

I am always totally amazed by the way Democrats blow off the efforts by the DNC as nothing. I am also always amazed by how they find deep meaning in the Trump Tower meeting that ended with the Russian being shown the door.

(06-11-2018 08:52 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Sorry for starting those posts with LOLs. Not particularly constructive.

(06-07-2018 10:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why do you think the NYT prints only unbiased fact but the Post "spins"?

I never said NYT prints only unbiased fact, but the Post is a tabloid. No one would seriously use it as a source. It's like me trying to prove something to you with links from Daily Kos.

I think the point was that you deride the Post as an unreliable rag, but treat the NYT differently. The question is why is either more reliable than the National Enquirer?

[/quote]

(06-07-2018 04:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 04:00 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  LOL, no there are many reasons they are not the same thing.

Name them.

I had several links but can't find them now, but in sum:
In one case we are talking about a campaign hiring a firm to do oppo research, the firm then hired a former a guy to do the research, and that guy talked to some Russians about things that have happened in the past. (Also the Russians wanted to defeat/weaken Hilary, why would they collude with her?)
[/quote]

One might equally ask if “the Russians” collided with Hillary, why would they want to elect Trump?

Quote:In the other, we have high ranking members of the Trump campaign (including his son and campaign manager) meeting with envoys from a hostile foreign power who we know was actively trying to disrupt our election, possibly talking about *future* actions. It now appears Trump dictated Junior’s false statement about said meeting. Part of a pattern of lying about the links.

I think you are treating procedural differences that may very likely be nothing more than superficial as if they were material. Remember, Hillary and her staff are Washington insiders. Trump and a lot of his folks were newbies. Hillary is going to set things up to give deniability. I think you are splitting hairs here.

Quote:That doesn’t even get into all the dubious financial links. Do I think Trump will end up being charged with something? If I had to guess, I’d say no, I’m not sure why he keeps acting like he is guilty. My best guess is really sleazy dubious financial links with Russians, possibly crossing into illegality that he doesn't want revealed.
Would not be surprised if Junior and Kushner crossed lines that put them in legal jeopardy? No, neither of them seems like a rocket scientist. Manafort, I expect he either flips on Trump or goes to jail. That guy's a sleazebag. But I’m sure if Hilary’s campaign manager had been indicted on money laundering, witness tampering, etc. charges, you’d be OK with it

I’m okay with anyone who committed a crime being tried and, if convicted, punished. That includes Hillary, who has committed several based on Comey’s recitals. And remember, I voted for Hillary in the primary and was pretty undecided between her and Trump in the general, knowing this.

Quote:

(06-07-2018 05:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In any case, the facts already known in the Obama/Iran and FBI/DNC cases are enough, regardless of who reports it. (try google if you want a more palatable source).

You all can have the last word, I just don’t want to spend my time arguing back and forth on the various scandals and conspiracy theories any more, just so that we can all arrive back at the point we started.
Would rather spend limited Quad time on current policy issues and/or trying understand (bridge?) the divisions in the country.
Also, as patriotic Americans we should all be spending time preparing for war with our arch enemy, Canada.

The reasons I was undecided between Hillary and Trump included Trump’s positions on immigration and trade. I think I know what he is trying to accomplish, and his approach may work. But it’s high risk, and I think there are lower risk ways to accomplish it. I would start with a national consumption tax (VAT/GST/Fair Tax) that would level the playing field a lot across the board and also generate revenues that can be used to balance the budget, implement Bismarck universal private insurance, provide a guaranteed minimum income to replace our current welfare hodge-podge, and broaden, flatten, and lower income tax rates to world class levels or below. Then we can attract investment and upscale jobs in a big way.

(06-11-2018 08:52 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Sorry for starting those posts with LOLs. Not particularly constructive.

(06-07-2018 10:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why do you think the NYT prints only unbiased fact but the Post "spins"?

I never said NYT prints only unbiased fact, but the Post is a tabloid. No one would seriously use it as a source. It's like me trying to prove something to you with links from Daily Kos.

All I did was quote the one on MSN. But if you want a more credible source, try Google. I am sure you can find the same story in a dozen more credible to you sources.

Quote:

(06-07-2018 04:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 04:00 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  LOL, no there are many reasons they are not the same thing.

Name them.

I had several links but can't find them now, but in sum:

In one case we are talking about a campaign hiring a firm to do oppo research, the firm then hired a former a guy to do the research, and that guy talked to some Russians about things that have happened in the past. (Also the Russians wanted to defeat/weaken Hilary, why would they collude with her?)

In the other, we have high ranking members of the Trump campaign (including his son and campaign manager) meeting with envoys from a hostile foreign power who we know was actively trying to disrupt our election, possibly talking about *future* actions. It now appears Trump dictated Junior’s false statement about said meeting. Part of a pattern of lying about the links.

That doesn’t even get into all the dubious financial links. Do I think Trump will end up being charged with something? If I had to guess, I’d say no, I’m not sure why he keeps acting like he is guilty. My best guess is really sleazy dubious financial links with Russians, possibly crossing into illegality that he doesn't want revealed.

Would not be surprised if Junior and Kushner crossed lines that put them in legal jeopardy? No, neither of them seems like a rocket scientist. Manafort, I expect he either flips on Trump or goes to jail. That guy's a sleazebag. But I’m sure if Hilary’s campaign manager had been indicted on money laundering, witness tampering, etc. charges, you’d be OK with it.

Sounds like you think they hired the law firm and then sat back keeping themselves in the dark about how the law firm was proceeding.

I don't think so. I think they did it this for precisely the effect it seems to have had on you - that they were innocent victims of their own law firm.and therefore completely blameless.

I still do not see that digging up dirt on an opponent is some sort of nefarious activity, even if the source is not red, white and blue.

Quote:

(06-07-2018 05:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In any case, the facts already known in the Obama/Iran and FBI/DNC cases are enough, regardless of who reports it. (try google if you want a more palatable source).

You all can have the last word, I just don’t want to spend my time arguing back and forth on the various scandals and conspiracy theories any more, just so that we can all arrive back at the point we started.

Would rather spend limited Quad time on current policy issues and/or trying understand (bridge?) the divisions in the country.

Also, as patriotic Americans we should all be spending time preparing for war with our arch enemy, Canada.

Just couldn't resist throwing a last rock as you retreated, could you?

(05-30-2018 10:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  It just goes back to the fundamental deep levels of tribalism that define US politics these days.

You said it. Post of the year.

As an aside, I like how Trump is dealing with North Korea right now. Our security is far more vital than whether South Korea likes us or not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...ca020c2287

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” the lawyer, Lisa Page, wrote to Strzok.

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.


Let the spin begin.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...ca020c2287

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” the lawyer, Lisa Page, wrote to Strzok.

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.


Let the spin begin.

(06-14-2018 12:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...ca020c2287

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” the lawyer, Lisa Page, wrote to Strzok.

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.


Let the spin begin.

It's been proven that Strzok was biased against Trump - it's why Mueller removed him from his team when he found out about these text messages (I believe that was the rationale).

The thing is, we must know that officials will hold biases for/against people, it's human nature. It's how they handle those biases in their official work capacity that is important. Strzok's text message is ambiguous enough that "We'll" could either be taken to mean the American people, or the FBI. And I think that ambiguity is enough to, if necessary, look further into Strzok's actions while at the FBI and working on anything related to Trump.

The IG report also said this about the Clinton case:

Quote:The inspector general found “no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations.” The report acknowledged that certain emails appeared to contain classified information, but investigators determined the FBI’s conclusion that Clinton did not intend to expose classified information was legitimate.

(06-14-2018 12:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...ca020c2287

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” the lawyer, Lisa Page, wrote to Strzok.

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.


Let the spin begin.

Interesting that the former communication had been part of the disclosure oh-so-many months ago --- yet the Strzok response in the chain had either been redacted or just not produced.

In and of itself irrelevant; combined with all the other instances of stonewalling by the FBI/DOJ (on the side, any comments about Rod Rosensteins threat to subpoena Congress critters for their temerity to seek documents?) it is another drip in apparently ceaseless number of drips on the integrity thereof.

Just another brick in the wall. Like I have said,more evidence of collusion within the DOJ/FBI with the Democrats than in The Collusion probe.

Ladpoints out the tweet is ambiguous, yet also points out that Mueller fired Strock.

why fire him if this was innocent, rah-rah team stuff.

Lots of smoke. we need a special counsel to check this out, so we can be sure.