(02-28-2018 10:07 AM)mrbig Wrote:  The Special Counsel's appointment is here. In pertinent part:

Quote:The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

So it did not use the word collusion or conspiracy, it used the phrase "links and/or coordination." I would say that is intentionally broad, and the second clause is intentionally broad to allow for things like the current indictments against Manafort, Gates, Flynn, and Papadopoulos.

I guess that would be the proper wording if one just wants to indict as many people as possible without proving collusion. Be as vague as possible. Would that be considered one of the hallmarks of a witch hunt? Go look for whatever?

It was called the Trump-Russia collusion in the press and in statements by officials. It is now called the investigation into Russian meddling. Yet the investigation into "Russian meddling" remains laser focused on Trump.

Could giving false information to Steele knowing it would be sent back to the Clinton Campaign be construed as meddling? If so, why is that not part of the investigation into "Russian meddling"? Could intentionally using a dossier with suspect information to get a FISA warrant be meddling? Looks to me like the Russians wildly succeeded with their meddling. This probe and all the attendant publicity have deeply divided our country and engendered a lot of distrust in our system. I have to tell you, the collusion theorists look to me like dupes in this endeavor - willing dupes.

When you discover you have bought Florida swampland, it is time to quit telling everyone you bought a gold mine.

(02-28-2018 09:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 01:04 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 12:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 12:25 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 05:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As far as number of people, bureaucracies have immense powers to circle the wagons when there is a problem. As I've said before, they see four categories of classified information--the usual confidential, secret, and top secret, plus embarrassing to the agency. And there's only one of those hills that they will die on.

I agree that a small group of individuals in an agency might have a "circle the wagons" mentality to protect the agency itself. But again, that only works if the group is really small. These investigations involve attorneys, agents, paralegals, legal assistants, and secretaries (at the very least), plus possibly contractors, Court personnel, grand juries, opposing counsel, etc. For a small case, maybe you could get this. But it would be hard (not impossible) for this to happen in a larger investigation. And I write this as someone who has, on occasion, been accused by pro se plaintiffs of being part of a conspiracy...

You hold those bureaucrats in higher regard than I do.

Not really, I just don't consider the people doing this kind of work to be "bureaucrats". Have you known many federal investigators or prosecutors, and it is upon them that you base your distrust? I have lesser opinions of employees in other federal agencies (some of whom I would consider bureaucrats) based on my interactions with them. I won't throw those agencies under the bus in a public forum.

I've known several FBI agents, don't know exact number. My brother used to live next door to one, have been to neighbor's house when he had friends over socially, no idea how many of them might have worked for FBI. Worked with a number of them regarding port security during Desert Storm. I would describe all of them as professional and I would think reliable--and not on Mueller's investigation team. And most of them at one time or another expressed frustration with the top. I know a number of guys in the field used to call Muller "Bobby Three Sticks" because he always signed things "Robert Mueller III" and they resented his blue blood Ivy League holier than thou attitude. I have heard but cannot confirm that Comey faced close to an open revolt from many in the rank and file over the free pass he gave Hillary. So I have reason to believe there is at least some disconnect between field agents and the guys at the top, and Mueller's team appears to be composed predominantly of the latter.

I would nave a much higher regard for federal investigators than prosecutors. And no, I did not practice criminal law, but did interact with a number of federal agencies over the years. My impression of federal prosecutors is if they don't like you, they will go out of their way to find trumped up process crimes to trip you with, and if they like you they'll look the other way a lot. I've heard more than once, being closed doors, "He's an *******, so let's screw him."

I would like to add that I have the highest regard of the lower level agents and attorneys, but I don't trust the uppermost echelon any farther than I can throw them. The tarmac meeting of the AG with the husband of a presidential nominee stinks in particular. who really believes thay they just accidentally were parked next to each other and discussed grandchildren. My opinion, unprovable, is that she was offered a Supreme Court nomination(right after Garland's) for her aid in derailing the investigation, and LO!, it came to pass. Even Comey had misgivings.

But add in all the other things, and I think the top of the DOJ/FBI was acting politically rather than professionally.

(02-27-2018 06:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, in that vein, tell me what exactly is so heinous about the June 9th meeting in Trump tower. A Russian met with Trump,Jr. under false pretenses, and was dismissed summarily. How is that collusion, or treason, or whatever people is trying to make of it? So he wanted dirt on Hillary. Didn't they want dirt on Trump? Isn't that why they hired Steele to get it from RUSSIANS? WHAT IS WRONG WITH WANTING DIRT ON THE OTHER SIDE, AS LONG AS IT IS TRUE AND NOT MADE UP STUFF? So why do the lefties keep harping on that meeting? Especially in the light of the Clinton campaign doing even worse, actually paying for made up stuff from Russians instead of dismissing them as TJ did? What did TJ do wrong in that meeting?

(02-28-2018 09:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am very tired of every contact with a Russian being hailed as evidence that this conspiracy exists, while at the same time the Clinton Campaign actually pays for somebody to gather dirt from Russians and is given a free pass because they craftily placed three degrees of separation between them.

(02-28-2018 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Could giving false information to Steele knowing it would be sent back to the Clinton Campaign be construed as meddling? If so, why is that not part of the investigation into "Russian meddling"? Could intentionally using a dossier with suspect information to get a FISA warrant be meddling? Looks to me like the Russians wildly succeeded with their meddling. This probe and all the attendant publicity have deeply divided our country and engendered a lot of distrust in our system. I have to tell you, the collusion theorists look to me like dupes in this endeavor - willing dupes.

(02-28-2018 10:35 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 06:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, in that vein, tell me what exactly is so heinous about the June 9th meeting in Trump tower. A Russian met with Trump,Jr. under false pretenses, and was dismissed summarily. How is that collusion, or treason, or whatever people is trying to make of it? So he wanted dirt on Hillary. Didn't they want dirt on Trump? Isn't that why they hired Steele to get it from RUSSIANS? WHAT IS WRONG WITH WANTING DIRT ON THE OTHER SIDE, AS LONG AS IT IS TRUE AND NOT MADE UP STUFF? So why do the lefties keep harping on that meeting? Especially in the light of the Clinton campaign doing even worse, actually paying for made up stuff from Russians instead of dismissing them as TJ did? What did TJ do wrong in that meeting?

(02-28-2018 09:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am very tired of every contact with a Russian being hailed as evidence that this conspiracy exists, while at the same time the Clinton Campaign actually pays for somebody to gather dirt from Russians and is given a free pass because they craftily placed three degrees of separation between them.

(02-28-2018 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Could giving false information to Steele knowing it would be sent back to the Clinton Campaign be construed as meddling? If so, why is that not part of the investigation into "Russian meddling"? Could intentionally using a dossier with suspect information to get a FISA warrant be meddling? Looks to me like the Russians wildly succeeded with their meddling. This probe and all the attendant publicity have deeply divided our country and engendered a lot of distrust in our system. I have to tell you, the collusion theorists look to me like dupes in this endeavor - willing dupes.

I think another term for it is pointing out hypocrisy and double standards.

(02-28-2018 10:35 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 06:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, in that vein, tell me what exactly is so heinous about the June 9th meeting in Trump tower. A Russian met with Trump,Jr. under false pretenses, and was dismissed summarily. How is that collusion, or treason, or whatever people is trying to make of it? So he wanted dirt on Hillary. Didn't they want dirt on Trump? Isn't that why they hired Steele to get it from RUSSIANS? WHAT IS WRONG WITH WANTING DIRT ON THE OTHER SIDE, AS LONG AS IT IS TRUE AND NOT MADE UP STUFF? So why do the lefties keep harping on that meeting? Especially in the light of the Clinton campaign doing even worse, actually paying for made up stuff from Russians instead of dismissing them as TJ did? What did TJ do wrong in that meeting?

(02-28-2018 09:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am very tired of every contact with a Russian being hailed as evidence that this conspiracy exists, while at the same time the Clinton Campaign actually pays for somebody to gather dirt from Russians and is given a free pass because they craftily placed three degrees of separation between them.

(02-28-2018 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Could giving false information to Steele knowing it would be sent back to the Clinton Campaign be construed as meddling? If so, why is that not part of the investigation into "Russian meddling"? Could intentionally using a dossier with suspect information to get a FISA warrant be meddling? Looks to me like the Russians wildly succeeded with their meddling. This probe and all the attendant publicity have deeply divided our country and engendered a lot of distrust in our system. I have to tell you, the collusion theorists look to me like dupes in this endeavor - willing dupes.

You are arguing that FBI/DOJ are fair and trustworthy, against those who are arguing political bias and motives. Therefore, if they provide evidence to support their assertion that a double standard exists, they are not engaging in whataboutery.

(02-28-2018 10:48 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  You are arguing that FBI/DOJ are fair and trustworthy, against those who are arguing political bias and motives. Therefore, if they provide evidence to support their assertion that a double standard exists, they are not engaging in whataboutery.

As an initial matter, I don't think he has really provided "evidence" of a double standard. He hasn't provided any legal analysis or linked to any legal analysis. He has just spouted his own opinion (which is fine, but isn't evidence). I don't believe OO has a law degree, and 69/70/75 and tanqtonic, both of whom have law degrees, have yet to jump on board with OO's opinion on this specific issue, even though they seem to agree with his general sentiment regarding the special counsel's investigation.

Second, I argued that there is sufficient public evidence to justify the special counsel's investigation. OO responded that he thinks it is a witch hunt because they are not also investigating the Clinton campaign, which is whataboutery. He also argued that the crimes that have been charged are minor infractions that don't really matter (my summary of his argument, not trying to put words in his mouth), which is not whataboutery.

I have again responded that there is sufficient public information to justify the ongoing investigation (including providing some light legal analysis), but also that I have a tendency to trust the law enforcement officials. OO says that he doesn't, pointing to the apparent lack of investigation into the Clinton campaign as evidence of bias. In this context, I guess you could say that his responses are not whataboutery, but in my mind, the trustworthiness of the federal law enforcement officers is secondary to the original discussion. Moreover, his bias argument doesn't attack the substance of the investigation, it just attempts to distract from it, which I would categorize as whataboutery.

No reason to get bogged down in the semantics of whether his opinion amounts to whataboutism / whataboutery. If there is evidence that the Clinton campaign had "links and/or coordination" with the Russian government, then I hope that gets investigated as well, and I will trust the law enforcement professionals' determination as well.

Incidentally, we have no idea whether the Clinton campaign is being investigated. These folks are notoriously close-mouthed about ongoing investigations. OO presumes no such investigation has taken place or is taking place. But he doesn't know that for certain.

(02-28-2018 12:59 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Nothing wrong for wanting dirt on the other side, the problem is how you get the dirt and who you get the dirt from. Some things are legal, some things aren't. You can't break-and-enter, you can't hack the other side, you can't get things from foreign nationals, etc.

Quote:I'll try to keep it short. As I quoted in post #2745:

Quote:Federal law prohibits a foreign national from giving anything of value to a campaign engaged in a U.S. election. It’s also a crime to solicit a foreign national to do so, or even to "knowingly provide substantial assistance" in receiving something of value.

While illegal foreign contributions typically take the form of money, legal experts told us it’s possible a court could find that "information" satisfies the legal requirement if it’s considered valuable to a campaign.

If you get the kind of job that requires gathering this information, then you sit down and spend a shitload of time getting the stuff as straight as you can. When you don't know exact dates, you make sure and provide the information you do have and estimate everything else. I suggest you not apply for any of these types of jobs. Your flippant attitude will get you in serious trouble. As Hillary Clinton's email security is a serious issue, so is failing to disclose foreign travel and meetings with certain kinds of foreign nationals (I doubt sitting next to someone at a bar or a cab driver counts).

Two quick comments here;

a) you can't get things from foreign nationals --- seems to me that is the absolute definition of the Steele memo providing 'information' is included. Russian sourced, British authored --- seems to meet that definition. Does 'washing' it through a US law firm keep it clean in that regard? If so, seems like regulating 'information' through the 'foreign nationals providing' statute seems like an utter waste of time if that simple step cleanses it.

b) at a broad glance, wouldnt the classification of 'information' not run afoul of the First Amendment? I mean, this would make every time Boris the Ukrainian Ambassador, and Natasha his wife, made any comment at any cocktail party on anything related to a candidate, a campaign, or people in the campaign, that would be a felony violation. Seems kind of a stretch there...

tanqtonic - I think one potential difference is whether the information is a contribution or donation. The Steele dossier not only had a few degrees of separation, but was oppo research that was paid for and was paid to a US firm. The June 9 Trump Tower meeting seems to be more of a contribution or donation, which could run afoul of 52 U.S.C. § 30121 ("It shall be unlawful for ... a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make ... a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election...." (emphasis added). I can understand someone not understanding or not liking the distinction, and perhaps that is a good reason to lobby Congress to change the law. But it doesn't change the law currently in place.

a) So the problem isn't the information itself, but whether it was a donation or contribution from a foreign national. If a Russian had shown up in Chappaqua and offered to give a pee pee tape to Paul DePodesta, Chelsea Clinton, and Mark Mezvinsky (Chelsea's husband), and those three hadn't immediately run to the FBI, then they would probably be in some serious ... pee pee.

b) Again, and I think this is my fault, the focus would be on whether this kind of comment at a cocktail party was a "contribution or donation" "in connection with a Federal ... election." I highly doubt it, though one could certainly tweak the facts.

(02-28-2018 12:15 PM)mrbig Wrote:  tanqtonic - I think one potential difference is whether the information is a contribution or donation. The Steele dossier not only had a few degrees of separation, but was oppo research that was paid for and was paid to a US firm. The June 9 Trump Tower meeting seems to be more of a contribution or donation, which could run afoul of 52 U.S.C. § 30121 ("It shall be unlawful for ... a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make ... a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election...." (emphasis added). I can understand someone not understanding or not liking the distinction, and perhaps that is a good reason to lobby Congress to change the law. But it doesn't change the law currently in place.

a) So the problem isn't the information itself, but whether it was a donation or contribution from a foreign national. If a Russian had shown up in Chappaqua and offered to give a pee pee tape to Paul DePodesta, Chelsea Clinton, and Mark Mezvinsky (Chelsea's husband), and those three hadn't immediately run to the FBI, then they would probably be in some serious ... pee pee.

b) Again, and I think this is my fault, the focus would be on whether this kind of comment at a cocktail party was a "contribution or donation" "in connection with a Federal ... election." I highly doubt it, though one could certainly tweak the facts.

So the takeaway is, when offered information, pay for it. Or better yet, shut the visitors up upon arrival, tell them you will pay for information, then pay them for it. Or give them a ham sandwich as payment.

Additionally, I have a hard time getting over the very obvious 1st Amendment issues with 'information', whether paid for or a donation.

If we are going to hardline 'information' as a defined 'thing of value' in the foreign nationals law, seems to me we need to do the same when dealing with information for US nationals as a donation of 'in kind' and have the purveyors mark it up and send it to the FEC to count as a donation of 'thing of value'.

(02-28-2018 12:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Additionally, I have a hard time getting over the very obvious 1st Amendment issues with 'information', whether paid for or a donation.

If we are going to hardline 'information' as a defined 'thing of value' in the foreign nationals law, seems to me we need to do the same when dealing with information for US nationals as a donation of 'in kind' and have the purveyors mark it up and send it to the FEC to count as a donation of 'thing of value'.

I'm not advocating for this interpretation of "thing of value", just noting that there is an argument that information might be a thing of value. I think it is worth investigating. Maybe an offer of information isn't sufficient, and I could live with that interpretation. But it gets murky. Using my pee pee tape example, a Russian handing the tape to someone in the Clinton campaign seems to be a violation. But what about saying, "Joe Russian has the tape. If you can find him and pay him a bunch of money, he would probably sell it to you."? Just information, but very valuable information.

Personally, my guess is that the law enforcement folks would rather not charge in that instance if they can find something else to charge stemming from the same fact pattern (conspiracy, lying to the FBI, obstruction of justice, etc.). Then they avoid the questionable legal argument about whether information is a "thing of value" and the first amendment implications, but can still charge crimes related to activity that was at best legally murky but is certainly (IMO), not the kind of thing we want political campaigns doing.

***Incidentally, I'm not using the pee pee tape example because I believe it exists, or care one way or another. I just think its a good counterpoint example to the Trump Tower meeting, to help remove political leanings from the discussion.

(02-28-2018 11:46 AM)mrbig Wrote:  OO responded that he thinks it is a witch hunt because they are not also investigating the Clinton campaign, which is whataboutery.

Wrong. It is a witch hunt on its own merit. Has nothing to with your "because" clause.

I would think it is a witch hunt even if they investigated both campaign for collusion. Two witch hunts. More equitable perhaps, but neither is warranted by the facts nor justified by a few OOJ indictments.

If any of us were investigated for anything on the flimsy reasons that this probe was convened, I believe any of us would use the words "witch hunt".

Nope, not a lawyer. Forty years in the import business. I will leave the technical arguments to you lawyers, like the ones you presented on the Trump Tower meeting. I will just play the part of a juror, and ask, where's the beef? None of the technicalities presented at all go to support the idea of collusion/conspiracy. If I am a juror on a conspiracy case, give me some facts, like A and B and C had this agreement to do this and that in return for this and that, not silly technicalities like technically, getting information could be considered something of value and it would be Ok for americans but this was a Russian.

If you object to the phrase witcxh hunt, feel free to to call it a well considered and much needed investigation into a major spy ring operating on our shores. I'm sticking to witch hunt.

(02-28-2018 12:40 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Using my pee pee tape example, a Russian handing the tape to someone in the Clinton campaign seems to be a violation.

I hate to use these words, but in your professional opinion, what if the Russian hands the tape to a Brit who hands it to his employer who hands it to the Clinton campaign. Does the exchange of money at various points change anything?

I guess what I don’t understand is what information did the Trump campaign get. I thought the information allegedly hacked by “the Russians” was in fact released by Wikileaks, not the Trump campaign. And didn’t Wikileaks insist that their source was not “the Russians”? So I’m having a bit of a problem understanding what the substance is. Also, if the allegation is that “the Russians” somehow provided information that they hacked from the democrats, don’t you have to provide some proof of what information and how “the Russians” got it? Right now I don’t see any proof that “the Russians” actually gave or sold the Trump campaign anything, or that they in fact had anything to give or sell.

(02-28-2018 03:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I guess what I don’t understand is what information did the Trump campaign get. I thought the information allegedly hacked by “the Russians” was in fact released by Wikileaks, not the Trump campaign. And didn’t Wikileaks insist that their source was not “the Russians”? So I’m having a bit of a problem understanding what the substance is. Also, if the allegation is that “the Russians” somehow provided information that they hacked from the democrats, don’t you have to provide some proof of what information and how “the Russians” got it? Right now I don’t see any proof that “the Russians” actually gave or sold the Trump campaign anything, or that they in fact had anything to give or sell.

All reasons to investigate the issue(s). I haven't heard public information to answer your questions. But that is why they do investigations. Perhaps the investigation turns up no evidence to support additional criminal charges. Perhaps they find something.

(02-28-2018 03:39 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 03:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I guess what I don’t understand is what information did the Trump campaign get. I thought the information allegedly hacked by “the Russians” was in fact released by Wikileaks, not the Trump campaign. And didn’t Wikileaks insist that their source was not “the Russians”? So I’m having a bit of a problem understanding what the substance is. Also, if the allegation is that “the Russians” somehow provided information that they hacked from the democrats, don’t you have to provide some proof of what information and how “the Russians” got it? Right now I don’t see any proof that “the Russians” actually gave or sold the Trump campaign anything, or that they in fact had anything to give or sell.

All reasons to investigate the issue(s). I haven't heard public information to answer your questions. But that is why they do investigations. Perhaps the investigation turns up no evidence to support additional criminal charges. Perhaps they find something.

But nobody is investigating wikileaks.

I think the idea that we must investigate to prove people innocent of outlandish charges is the best excuse for a witch hunt I have ever heard.

Everybody is guilty until an investigation proves them innocent.

(02-28-2018 04:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 03:39 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 03:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I guess what I don’t understand is what information did the Trump campaign get. I thought the information allegedly hacked by “the Russians” was in fact released by Wikileaks, not the Trump campaign. And didn’t Wikileaks insist that their source was not “the Russians”? So I’m having a bit of a problem understanding what the substance is. Also, if the allegation is that “the Russians” somehow provided information that they hacked from the democrats, don’t you have to provide some proof of what information and how “the Russians” got it? Right now I don’t see any proof that “the Russians” actually gave or sold the Trump campaign anything, or that they in fact had anything to give or sell.

All reasons to investigate the issue(s). I haven't heard public information to answer your questions. But that is why they do investigations. Perhaps the investigation turns up no evidence to support additional criminal charges. Perhaps they find something.

But nobody is investigating wikileaks.
I think the idea that we must investigate to prove people innocent of outlandish charges is the best excuse for a witch hunt I have ever heard.
Everybody is guilty until an investigation proves them innocent.

That's my point. Normally you investigate crimes. You have the crime first then you investigate it. Here we seem to be having an investigation to find a crime. And so far none as come up. Except for some process crimes which deserve a slap on the wrist.

I commend mrbig for both his perseverance and for working in a Bosstones reference.

In other non-Mueller Trump Administration news:

Kushner's security clearance is being downgraded, but he will still apparently be in charge of a lot of stuff. Also, other countries were requesting to negotiate with him specifically because they thought he was easily manipulated.

Surprising. Giving official positions to Jared, Ivanka, Omarosa, and Hope seemed like such a good idea...

Speaking of which, Hope Hicks has resigned after refusing to answer most questions at a Congressional hearing but, oddly, admitting to telling lies for Trump. Only white ones, though.

(02-28-2018 06:58 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Hope Hicks has resigned after refusing to answer most questions at a Congressional hearing but, oddly, admitting to telling lies for Trump. Only white ones, though.

Possible responses include:
(1) She didn't want to tell any black lies because she heard black lies matter.
(2) Further proof of the Trump administration's racism, that they won't even tell black lies.

(02-28-2018 07:49 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 06:58 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Hope Hicks has resigned after refusing to answer most questions at a Congressional hearing but, oddly, admitting to telling lies for Trump. Only white ones, though.

Possible responses include:
(1) She didn't want to tell any black lies because she heard black lies matter.
(2) Further proof of the Trump administration's racism, that they won't even tell black lies.

#1 is funny.

I would not be surprised if somebody didn't include #2 in their list of racist things Trump has done.

so why do we we assume the opposite of white lies is black lies?