(04-12-2018 07:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 06:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 06:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad, are you daft that you dont see the innuendo in the term 'connected'? But thank you for clarifying that your definition encompasses literally a good proportion of NYC. Do those other millions of people share your prediction of being involved in illegal activity because of the laughable 'connection', or do you just reserve that judgement for the subject of your special enmity?

If those same people hired former mafia figures, built casinos in Atlantic City, built high rise buildings in Manhattan, sold some real estate at way above market rate, AND were denied a building permit in a foreign country because of their mafia ties, then yep, I would have the same opinion.
I would think that someone who met all of those criteria was likely to have done something illegal with regards to the mob/mafia. Is that such a stretch?

Refresh my memory, please, when and where was who denied a building permit in what foreign country?

And is your conclusion a stretch? Maybe, maybe not. Would depend on more facts than you have here.

Scroll up a bit - I posted a link (on mobile so hard to do that).

And agreed about your latter statement - I’m not saying Trump should be charged for anything, this all started with me saying I would bet he has done something illegal with the mob/mafia.

(04-12-2018 07:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Scroll up a bit - I posted a link (on mobile so hard to do that).

And agreed about your latter statement - I’m not saying Trump should be charged for anything, this all started with me saying I would bet he has done something illegal with the mob/mafia.

I would not doubt that he was the beneficiary of some bid rigging or other out of market transactions at some point in his history, especially in the late 80s early 90s when some of his properties were distressed and he was more desperate. But I am equally as sure that he probably had bagmen for his bagmen and it would be impossible to tie anything back to him or his various shell companies.

I still don't think it disqualifies him from office, and I would not disagree with people who believe otherwise. I do think it is inappropriate to investigate that type of activity under the pretense of this special counsel, and I would strongly disagree with anyone who thinks otherwise.

(04-12-2018 09:15 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 07:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Scroll up a bit - I posted a link (on mobile so hard to do that).

And agreed about your latter statement - I’m not saying Trump should be charged for anything, this all started with me saying I would bet he has done something illegal with the mob/mafia.

I would not doubt that he was the beneficiary of some bid rigging or other out of market transactions at some point in his history, especially in the late 80s early 90s when some of his properties were distressed and he was more desperate. But I am equally as sure that he probably had bagmen for his bagmen and it would be impossible to tie anything back to him or his various shell companies.

I still don't think it disqualifies him from office, and I would not disagree with people who believe otherwise. I do think it is inappropriate to investigate that type of activity under the pretense of this special counsel, and I would strongly disagree with anyone who thinks otherwise.

I agree if it was someone’s intention from the outset to use one investigation to really carry out another. But my understanding is that if, at some point Mueller finds evidence of other crimes being committed by individuals (see Cohen) he is compelled to act by sharing that information with others. And that is what appears to have happened here.

So then we have two perspectives - the “naive” one that I keep being accused of and the “cynical” one that those on the other side have. And the problem is, we’ll never know which was right with regards to intent, regardless of the outcome of the investigation(s).

(04-12-2018 06:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Do you think the backlash against Trump’s brand is something he anticipated? Because I doubt that. And there’s been an interesting mix of pros and cons for husband wealth - there are other examples where his hotels have overperformed (DC property) and organizations have moved conferences and gatherings to trump properties. Plus, he no longer has to pay for his travel down to Florida each weekend.

And I understand the concern about a meandering investigation - it’s why I too hope the lawyer raids result in a serious conviction of Cohen. Right now, all of the mistrust in the government is based on partisan opinions. Because the investigation hasn’t not finished, we don’t know what the final charges will be, so if you’re honest, the teeth gnashing we see about how horrible the investigation is and how it is a witch hunt is just built on opinion. If the investigation finishes and there is really no big shoe to drop, it is going to be legitimately awful for our populace’s trust in government.

I just don’t see these career investigators not realizing this, especially Mueller. He threw Strozk off his team for a reason, ya know?

Trump may not have anticipated the backlash, but it was apparent very early (basically when he made his Mexican immigrant speech) that there was going to be a widespread backlash against his brand. Who knows what his true hit will be since his numbers are made up anyways.

I am glad that you hold out hope that Mueller's team is on the up and up and I agree that all of this meandering will be worth it if we get a multi-count felony indictment out of this for something other than perjury about who ate dinner with who 2 years ago. My distrust of government is not informed by partisan opinions, but by the deep historical record of the FBI & DOJ being corrupt when dealing with political investigations and generally inept for other investigations. Right now, the evidence points to Mueller having nothing. This whole thing was leaking like a Bailiff pass defense before the Dossier was public and during the Hillary investigation; now it is crickets. A lot of other things previously discussed point to Mueller still being on a fishing trip with nothing on the stringer as of yet.

I also think you are naive in that if this is a failed special counsel (no collusion, no money laundering, no campaign finance fraud, no mob owned concrete shops being operated out of Mar-a-lago) that this will somehow sway public opinion. It might sway some small minority in the middle, but generally leftists will continue to trust the state (they will celebrate a failed counsel just on the grounds of applying a heavy hand to Trump's throat; similar to Whoopi cheering on a riot) and right wingers and libertarians will continue to have deep mistrust in the state. Trust in the state is the primary difference between these ideologies.

Mueller had to fire Strozk in order to maintain the "Trump can't fire me" firewall; I doubt Mueller really gives a honk about what Joe the plumber thinks about the integrity of DOJ/FBI investigations.

(04-12-2018 06:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  . Because the investigation hasn’t not finished, we don’t know what the final charges will be, so if you’re honest, the teeth gnashing we see about how horrible the investigation is and how it is a witch hunt is just built on opinion.

Of course it is my opinion. Duh.

And of course, you have your opinion.

Does not mean either of us is required to be silent about our opinions.

Why did we have an investigation, anyway? To search for money laundering and decades old contacts with organized crime? No. But that is what is happening. Maybe we can investigate later his auto registration in 1979. He may have been late with it. We will not know unless we investigate. It's possible,, too, he slapped a woman on the rear. We must investigate that. Raid his office. He may have kept a video of it.

The story line, however improbable, for the investigation was collusion. That has been abandoned. So there is no reason to keep investigating. But they keep looking for something, anything, to charge anybody with. That is called a witch hunt.

Your team has nothing of substance on charges of substance. Just live with it.

I will say it again, for perhaps the ninth time: There will be no findings of collusion. Some minor people will be indicted on minor "gotcha" charges. Big waste, for the American people. The only people to gain will be the Democrats, if they can use the hoopla and innuendo of the investigation to parlay the retaking Congress. That is now the reason for the investigation, the goal.

Of course, I guess there is a chance that there was a recording in Cohen's office of Putin calling Trump and offering his help in winning the election for Trump via publishing truth, in return for Trump standing back and letting Russia run wild, and Trump agreeing to the terms. Just maybe. We need an investigation to find out.

(04-12-2018 09:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 06:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  . Because the investigation hasn’t not finished, we don’t know what the final charges will be, so if you’re honest, the teeth gnashing we see about how horrible the investigation is and how it is a witch hunt is just built on opinion.

Of course it is my opinion. Duh.

And of course, you have your opinion.

Does not mean either of us is required to be silent about our opinions.

Why did we have an investigation, anyway? To search for money laundering and decades old contacts with organized crime? No. But that is what is happening. Maybe we can investigate later his auto registration in 1979. He may have been late with it. We will not know unless we investigate. It's possible,, too, he slapped a woman on the rear. We must investigate that. Raid his office. He may have kept a video of it.

The story line, however improbable, for the investigation was collusion. That has been abandoned. So there is no reason to keep investigating. But they keep looking for something, anything, to charge anybody with. That is called a witch hunt.

Your team has nothing of substance on charges of substance. Just live with it.

I will say it again, for perhaps the ninth time: There will be no findings of collusion. Some minor people will be indicted on minor "gotcha" charges. Big waste, for the American people. The only people to gain will be the Democrats, if they can use the hoopla and innuendo of the investigation to parlay the retaking Congress. That is now the reason for the investigation, the goal.

Of course, I guess there is a chance that there was a recording in Cohen's office of Putin calling Trump and offering his help in winning the election for Trump via publishing truth, in return for Trump standing back and letting Russia run wild, and Trump agreeing to the terms. Just maybe. We need an investigation to find out.

It is false that the only people that will gain will be the Democrats. Putin and his government are dancing a jig even as we speak.

(04-12-2018 06:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And I understand the concern about a meandering investigation - it’s why I too hope the lawyer raids result in a serious conviction of Cohen.

If the converse happens,

a) what should be the proper response of the progressives (i.e. the instigators of the collusion will o wisp);

b) if there is an answer at all given for a) (aside from cricket calls), do you really think that response will be forthcoming?

Quote:Right now, all of the mistrust in the government is based on partisan opinions. Because the investigation hasn’t not finished, we don’t know what the final charges will be, so if you’re honest, the teeth gnashing we see about how horrible the investigation is and how it is a witch hunt is just built on opinion. If the investigation finishes and there is really no big shoe to drop, it is going to be legitimately awful for our populace’s trust in government.

A lot of the teeth gnashing is that, should the investigation boil down to crap Stormy Daniels charges and a fistful of ancillary **** 'money laundering' charges be the final result, is that the actions of the intelligence community, the DOJ, and the progressives will have literally set in stone the normalizing of the political weaponization of the two aforementioned branches. The progressives are willing to throw those dice here. (In actuality, Rice, Powers, and Clapper already did....)

Quote:I just don’t see these career investigators not realizing this, especially Mueller. He threw Strozk off his team for a reason, ya know?

Have you been reading the Rice and Powers emails pried loose this week by FOIA actions? And yes, Strzok was 'thrown off a team', but suffered no serious blowback for the other actions undertaken and evidenced by the texts and emails. Nor was McCabe. Nor was the DOJ General Counsel Baker.

So please, dont whitewash the situation with the simple adage of 'well Strzok was thrown off the Mueller team.' The pattern runs far deeper and far wider than that, and your statement of 'well Peabody was thrown off the team' given that pattern is like saying a bandaid will fix a severed leg.

Quote:Trust in the state is the primary difference between these ideologies.

It is the fundamental difference.

(04-12-2018 06:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If the investigation finishes and there is really no big shoe to drop, it is going to be legitimately awful for our populace’s trust in government.

This is exactly why, like all witch hunts of the past from Salem to McCarthy, this one never going to stop until someone with the authority to stop it says "enough is enough."

Look where this is going - from investigating collusion with the Russians, to hush money payments to past sexual liasons, to raiding a lawyer's office just to see what there is to see in his records, to investigating business transactions of the 1980's to see if there might be a mob connection - on and on, from subject to subject, broad nonspecific search warrants that allow investigators to dig up dirt completely unrelated to the original intent of the investigation. Add to that inventing new crimes to charge people with just to get something to stick, and indicting people for unrelated minor crimes as the investigation goes widens ever farther afield and farther into the past.

What is your definition of a witch hunt, if this doesn't meet it?

It's the second one

They're out to get him at any cost

McCarthyism



"McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence."

Hmm. Sound familiar to anybody? Treason/subversion was the reason for the investigation, and the evidence was that Hillary lost.

So if Lad doesn't like the term "witch hunt", perhaps he would be more partial to the term "McCarthyism"?

All this "witch hunt" stuff might be taken more seriously if Republicans had not impeached Bill for lying about a blow job that was uncovered in an investigation into a real estate deal from 10 years before he became President. I'm not defending what Clinton did, but you can't support the Whitewater investigation and then say "money laundering, everyone does it!" or "Who doesn't have MOB connections?" and "Campaign finance laws aren't real laws, it's ridiculous to enforce them!"

Or in more recent history, even after the first 479 Benghazi! investigations turned up nothing, starting yet another one because we just *know* Hillary was there attacking the embassy herself.

I'm not saying this investigation is just payback - I would not support it, if I thought that were the case - just explaining why the other side mostly chuckles and rolls their eyes at the "witch hunt" claims.

We should throw Trump into the Potomac and see if he sinks. If he floats, he is definitely a witch and should be burned at the stake.

- Every member of the political class and their supporters

(04-13-2018 08:51 AM)flash3200 Wrote:  We should throw Trump into the Potomac and see if he sinks. If he floats, he is definitely a witch and should be burned at the stake.

- Every member of the political class and their supporters

Maybe he turned someone into a newt.

(04-13-2018 08:50 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  All this "witch hunt" stuff might be taken more seriously if Republicans had not impeached Bill for lying under oathabout a blow job that was uncovered in an investigation into a real estate deal from 10 years before he became President. I'm not defending what Clinton did, but you can't support the Whitewater investigation and then say "money laundering, everyone does it!" or "Who doesn't have MOB connections?" and "Campaign finance laws aren't real laws, it's ridiculous to enforce them!"

Or in more recent history, even after the first 479 Benghazi! investigations turned up nothing, starting yet another one because we just *know* Hillary was there attacking the embassy herself.

I'm not saying this investigation is just payback - I would not support it, if I thought that were the case - just explaining why the other side mostly chuckles and rolls their eyes at the "witch hunt" claims.

Yeah, it was much the same when OJ was acquitted.

Made one small correction to your statement.

The parallels between the (Bill) Clinton investigation and this one have crossed my mind.

One big difference: This one is wrecking our legal system, the (Bill) Clinton investigation followed the law. He was safe until he committed perjury. Trump will never be safe until he is out of office.

I agree it is not "just" payback, although I am sure many Dems feel at least a little like that. It is more about retaking the Congress by any means, and a 7/24 assault on the Administration is a very good means.

As for the (Hillary) Clinton investigation(s), I don't think we have seen the truth yet, and likely never will. Perhaps that is another reason for the blitz against Trump: keep him too busy to think about reopening any of the (Hillary) Clinton investigations. As much evidence for that as for collusion.

(04-13-2018 08:50 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  All this "witch hunt" stuff might be taken more seriously if Republicans had not impeached Bill for lying about a blow job that was uncovered in an investigation into a real estate deal from 10 years before he became President. I'm not defending what Clinton did, but you can't support the Whitewater investigation and then say "money laundering, everyone does it!" or "Who doesn't have MOB connections?" and "Campaign finance laws aren't real laws, it's ridiculous to enforce them!"

Or in more recent history, even after the first 479 Benghazi! investigations turned up nothing, starting yet another one because we just *know* Hillary was there attacking the embassy herself.

I'm not saying this investigation is just payback - I would not support it, if I thought that were the case - just explaining why the other side mostly chuckles and rolls their eyes at the "witch hunt" claims.

I might agree with you about Bill Clinton, except that you overlook the salient detail about being under oath and subject to perjury when he lied. I am always amazed how that tiny little point is swept over by some (and when you limit the analyzed population to democrats and progressives, that 'some' becomes the 'vast majority' interestingly....)

Clinton lying about 'never had sex with that woman' on TV -- no problem with your assessment. But the second that happens under oath with the chief law enforcement official in the country it changes that calculus for me. But that is amazingly glossed over in your defense of the processes at play here.

Quote: I'm not defending what Clinton did, but you can't support the Whitewater investigation and then say "money laundering, everyone does it!" or "Who doesn't have MOB connections?" and "Campaign finance laws aren't real laws, it's ridiculous to enforce them!"

I guess you are okay with the ideal of 'dont file a piece of paper' and every simple bank transaction becomes 'money laundering'? Using that logic, if my law degree lapses, I commit a crime of practicing law without a license; a misdemeanor in most cases. If in the three days it is suspended I give legal advice, and subsequently I receive a check for $12.50 and deposit it, you are seemingly okay with money laundering? Because the statute covers that. But thank you for glossing that over with your pithy, relatively uninformed comment. I guess you are for criminalizing the mere act of depositing money, and enacting legitimate transactions with it.

So yes, I feel absolutely comfortable saying that the President (of all people) lying under oath is and should be an impeachable offense. And I feel absolutely comfortable in characterizing 90 per cent of the current indictments as 'Martha Stewart' charges. So I do find it quaint that you omit salient facts when making the Bill's lying (under oath) seem like nothing more than a simple prosecution of adultery, and your simultaneous characterization of your litany of other items seem far more serious. Good for you.

So to flip it around, should Trump lie under oath, count me in the first row to support impeachment. But your argument falls short in many, many areas. I suggest you either retool it for this more discerning audience, of use it for those less discerning.

And, as a final note, you have to realize that all the people here who are calling this a 'witch hunt' are very explicit in using the Whitewater to *** spot on dress as a poster child for special prosecutors 'gone crazy'. And you seemingly overlook that salient point as well.

(04-13-2018 09:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 08:50 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  All this "witch hunt" stuff might be taken more seriously if Republicans had not impeached Bill for lying about a blow job that was uncovered in an investigation into a real estate deal from 10 years before he became President. I'm not defending what Clinton did, but you can't support the Whitewater investigation and then say "money laundering, everyone does it!" or "Who doesn't have MOB connections?" and "Campaign finance laws aren't real laws, it's ridiculous to enforce them!"

Or in more recent history, even after the first 479 Benghazi! investigations turned up nothing, starting yet another one because we just *know* Hillary was there attacking the embassy herself.

I'm not saying this investigation is just payback - I would not support it, if I thought that were the case - just explaining why the other side mostly chuckles and rolls their eyes at the "witch hunt" claims.

I might agree with you about Bill Clinton, except that you overlook the salient detail about being under oath and subject to perjury when he lied. I am always amazed how that tiny little point is swept over by some....

Yeah, they act like it was just a little white lie to his wife, perfectly understandable.

They also act like it was a singular act - a blow job - and not a pattern of actions.

Regarding "under oath" - earlier in this thread the idea that Mueller might charge people for lying under oath/perjury has been dismissed as not a "real" crime. And that would at least be for lying about something related to the investigation.

So which is it?

Having said that, I will be surprised if that's all that comes out of this. It would ironic if there is no "there" there and the only reason it's gone on this long is because Trump keeps acting like he's trying to cover up something. To paraphrase one of his own supporters, "if you are innocent, act like it."

(04-13-2018 09:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  They also act like it was a singular act - a blow job - and not a pattern of actions.

Fair point. I will note that you are on the record approving of investigations and even impeachment as part of a "pattern of actions"...

(04-13-2018 09:14 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Regarding "under oath" - earlier in this thread the idea that Mueller might charge people for lying under oath/perjury has been dismissed as not a "real" crime. And that would at least be for lying about something related to the investigation.

So which is it?

Having said that, I will be surprised if that's all that comes out of this. It would ironic if there is no "there" there and the only reason it's gone on this long is because Trump keeps acting like he's trying to cover up something. To paraphrase one of his own supporters, "if you are innocent, act like it."

Why do you say he is acting like he is trying to cover up something? His reactions seem perfectly normal to me for somebody being persecuted by a government cabal.

I think the only reason it has gone on this long is that the investigators need something to show for their time. Collusion has long been abandoned.

OK, so the Democratic position is that perjury is OK. Let's dismiss all those changes of lying to investigators.

I have said there will be no collusion shown - the ostensible reason for this investigation - but a lot of "little" indictments for minor things. By minor things, I mean unrelated to the collusion accusation. I am sure they are not minor to the guys accused. But it's like charging a guy with treason, then convicting his brother of jaywalking.