(05-09-2018 11:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 11:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 10:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think Kerry made a mistake trying to stick his nose in this after he was no longer part of the admin.

I do think there is a difference between someone lobbying, but not representing the US (Kerry), and someone trying to represent the US (Flynn), in foreign relations. However, I don't think that is enough of a distinction with respect to the Logan Act, but as many pointed out regarding Flynn, it doesn't really matter because the Logan Act is never actually used.

Don't you think another difference is that one of them was going to be representing the US in the near future, and the other is a has-been?

The Logan Act was a pretext to get Flynn so they could use him to get Trump.

That is the difference, as I basically spelled it out, and I think it's a worse situation for the incoming person to be working behind that scenes.

That's because the person who is incoming can more actively undermine the current admin, because those they are negotiating with know that the incoming person will have power and the ability to affect change.

The person who is no longer in power doesn't really have any sway - the person they're negotiating with knows that and understands that the person won't be able to affect change. So at that point, it's less negotiating and more lobbying.

Neither are really good, though.

If the Dems win in 2020,, I wonder if they will abstain from any communication with foreign powers until after the Inauguration. That is what is being advocated here, right?

It is, because it is *much* more terrible and horrific if you are an incoming Administration, from what is being advocated here.

Your penchant for inflicting hyperbole onto my opinion is in rare form here.

I provided rationale as to why I think it's worse for someone from an incoming administration attempting to influence international policy is worse than someone who is not in the administration. I did not say anything about it be much more terrible or horrific.

If you'd like to disagree with me on that stance, feel free to provide a counter point. But I really think your stretching of my statement to the land of hyperbole is a bit much.

Man, the Democrats sure find themselves in bed with a lot of questionable people:

Iran,
Stormy Daniels
Her lawyer
Comey
Christopher Steele
Hillary Clinton
Antony Weiner
Blumenthal

the list goes on and on.

(05-09-2018 11:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Man, the Democrats sure find themselves in bed with a lot of questionable people:

Iran,
Stormy Daniels
Her lawyer
Comey
Christopher Steele
Hillary Clinton
Antony Weiner
Blumenthal

the list goes on and on.

Bahahaahahaahaha. Pot, kettle? This is the exact thing that really isn't constructive - trying to debase an entire party for bad actors (and some non-bad actors as well) that are associated with it. The Dems have recently been quick to cast out the people they chose to be associated with when troubling, and questionable, actions arise (see: Franken, Schneiderman).

And to get into the details - Comey is a Republican that Dems hated following the Clinton letter. Stormy Daniels is someone fighting Trump, not really a bed fellow of the Dems.

And what makes Stormy and her lawyer questionable?

The 'technicality' is full disclosure. Iran never bothered with that full disclosure.

I love to hear people state that when an agreement is couched specifically and fundamentally on full disclosure, that lack of what is specifically called for in the agreement (and that lack thereof is somewhat material -- I guess that overlooking whole weapons programs and sites is a mere 'technicality') is deemed to be superfluous.

Lad, the reason that full disclosure isnt just a cute little bow on the package is because that 'full disclosure' allows a fuller and comprehensive snap inspection by the IAEA thingy....

You might be correct that the 'dates on the documents' arent evidence *current* Iranian breaches. The vast trove (100 fing k documents) indicate that Iran was far less than honest and forthcoming about the extent of the programs; and that 'gee I fing forgot about those 100 fing k documents *and* the programs and sites that they 'just forgot about' seem to evidence Iranian efforts to keep whole swaths of the issue away from the snap inspections by the IAEA mandated by the agreement.

In essence, if this were a divorce case, you would be saying that the husband's failure to provide documentation on 300k worth of assets and monies would be a 'technicality' when the divorce agreement is predicated on a full and honest disclosure of everything. But, I guess, in Lad world if the husband hadnt actually accessed that bank account (i.e. the dates werent *after* the divorce decreee) then it should go swimmingly okay for the husband, since that hiding of assets int the past should in no way 'indict [the husband's] current actions' and '[he] is currently abiding by the agreement.'

Hate to tell you that in many real world agreements, full, comprehensive, and accurate recitals of past actions are the basis for many of the issues that are performed in the agreement. In this case, since Iran agreed to snap inspections by the IAEA, this absolutely falls in that category, since only a full, comprehensive, and accurate recital of Iranian nuclear history allows that function to operate.

Technicality? My ass....

(05-09-2018 11:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 11:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 11:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Don't you think another difference is that one of them was going to be representing the US in the near future, and the other is a has-been?

The Logan Act was a pretext to get Flynn so they could use him to get Trump.

That is the difference, as I basically spelled it out, and I think it's a worse situation for the incoming person to be working behind that scenes.

That's because the person who is incoming can more actively undermine the current admin, because those they are negotiating with know that the incoming person will have power and the ability to affect change.

The person who is no longer in power doesn't really have any sway - the person they're negotiating with knows that and understands that the person won't be able to affect change. So at that point, it's less negotiating and more lobbying.

Neither are really good, though.

If the Dems win in 2020,, I wonder if they will abstain from any communication with foreign powers until after the Inauguration. That is what is being advocated here, right?

It is, because it is *much* more terrible and horrific if you are an incoming Administration, from what is being advocated here.

Your penchant for inflicting hyperbole onto my opinion is in rare form here.

I provided rationale as to why I think it's worse for someone from an incoming administration attempting to influence international policy is worse than someone who is not in the administration. I did not say anything about it be much more terrible or horrific.

If you'd like to disagree with me on that stance, feel free to provide a counter point. But I really think your stretching of my statement to the land of hyperbole is a bit much.

Im not the one dancing on pin head on the issue. And should you wish a counterpoint, one was provided in a previous post that you decided not to include here.

Edited to add the things you apparently either forgot or did not bother with:

Quote:Seems to me that the incoming Administration should have the ability to have free and clear access to foreign leaders, in order to tell them what to expect. Seems utterly stupid to argue the contrary. Seems even more utterly stupid to tell the incoming Administration that they cannot say or utter anything, and should just be forced to sandbag other foreign regimes *only* on their first day in office. That end effect makes *perfect* sense.....

That is the effect you are advocating for Lad, when you say that "it is *much* more terrible and horrific if you are an incoming Administration to deal with foreign regimes" than other persons.

Tanq, I really hate chatting with you on here. I ask a reasonable question for you to explain why, what I viewed as a technicality being breached was rationale for voiding the agreement, and the response is full of tone dripping, in what I can only imagine, is utter disdain. It has been fun in the past going back and fort, but yeah, I think I'm going to take a break for a bit.

Enjoy the circular conversations for a while.

(05-09-2018 12:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tanq, I really hate chatting with you on here. I ask a reasonable question for you to explain why, what I viewed as a technicality being breached was rationale for voiding the agreement, and the response is full of tone dripping, in what I can only imagine, is utter disdain. It has been fun in the past going back and fort, but yeah, I think I'm going to take a break for a bit.

Enjoy the circular conversations for a while.

Well, we still have JAAO.

What's that old saying about heat and kitchens?

May I suggest you do what I do - put the person you don't want to engage with on Ignore and then do not open his posts.

There are two Rice Owls I do this with, and a half dozen in other boards. If I want to hear what they said, it is my option. I used to have you on Ignore, but after reflection, I took you off. You have things to say.

The Iran deal was one of the worst in the history of the US. The best any proponent of it can say is that it postponed Armegeddon by a decade, as it was meant to do. Peace in our time.

In my life, from time to time, bad things have happened. Usually the best thing to do is to face it now and take care of the problem. I believe in handling problems NOW, and not leaving them for the people who follow.

No, I don't think this will lead to war, nor do I think that anybody wants that war. I do think that when you stand up to a bully, things may not go the way you want, but if you don't stand up, nothing good will happen.

(05-09-2018 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 10:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think Kerry made a mistake trying to stick his nose in this after he was no longer part of the admin.
I do think there is a difference between someone lobbying, but not representing the US (Kerry), and someone trying to represent the US (Flynn), in foreign relations. However, I don't think that is enough of a distinction with respect to the Logan Act, but as many pointed out regarding Flynn, it doesn't really matter because the Logan Act is never actually used.

Don't you think another difference is that one of them was going to be representing the US in the near future, and the other is a has-been?
The Logan Act was a pretext to get Flynn so they could use him to get Trump.

That is the difference, as I basically spelled it out, and I think it's a worse situation for the incoming person to be working behind that scenes.
That's because the person who is incoming can more actively undermine the current admin, because those they are negotiating with know that the incoming person will have power and the ability to affect change.
The person who is no longer in power doesn't really have any sway - the person they're negotiating with knows that and understands that the person won't be able to affect change. So at that point, it's less negotiating and more lobbying.
Neither are really good, though.

So the incoming administration should just come in, cold turkey, and have no contact with foreign governments until after the inauguration?

Because that appears to be what you are advocating. If that is not, please spell out how what you advocate is different. If that is in fact what you are advocating, please explain how you would expect to overcome the obvious transitional difficulties around the break point in relations.

(05-09-2018 12:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tanq, I really hate chatting with you on here. I ask a reasonable question for you to explain why, what I viewed as a technicality being breached was rationale for voiding the agreement, and the response is full of tone dripping, in what I can only imagine, is utter disdain. It has been fun in the past going back and fort, but yeah, I think I'm going to take a break for a bit.

Enjoy the circular conversations for a while.

Sorry but having that utter swath of non-disclosure categorized as a 'technicality' by many (not just you) is mind-boggling considering the structure of the agreement.

Having IAEA snap inspections is a cornerstone of the agreement. Having full disclosure of *all* past actions (as called for in the agreement) is a cornerstone for effective IAEA inspections.

If this were onesy, twosy, twenty, or a hundred documents I might agree with that characterization as a 'technicality' as proffered by you. 100,000 is really hard to characterize as such.

Overlooking specific programs and sites with those programs that the documents refer to is especially hard to characterize as a 'technicality' with reference to full disclosure, that disclosure being the cornerstone of of an effective inspection regime.

If you want to steadfastly refer this as a 'technicality' you are free to do so; free country and all.

But, there are things inherent in fact and in the structure and goals of the agreement that one would be seriously hard pressed to justify the contents of the Israeli trove as such. If you are so willing to label this as a technicality, be prepared to face the opposition to that, both in fact and in analogy.

If you wish to view my return points as 'dripping [] in utter disdain', your choice on what to read into it. Bringing real world into the comments. At least I am not the person responding *explicitly* as characterizing another as a 'blowhard attorney who thinks he knows everything better since [he] is an attorney' (or somefink like that...) as some on this board have done..... So the comments about your perceived slight to a supposed 'tone .... dripping in utter disdain' dont have a lot of push with me, nor much sympathy given that track record, tbh.

(05-09-2018 11:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Man, the Democrats sure find themselves in bed with a lot of questionable people:

Iran,
Stormy Daniels
Her lawyer
Comey
Christopher Steele
Hillary Clinton
Antony Weiner
Blumenthal

the list goes on and on.

Technically, I think it was Trump who was in bed with Stormy.

I'll be here all week, folks!

(05-10-2018 09:16 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 11:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Man, the Democrats sure find themselves in bed with a lot of questionable people:

Iran,
Stormy Daniels
Her lawyer
Comey
Christopher Steele
Hillary Clinton
Antony Weiner
Blumenthal

the list goes on and on.

Technically, I think it was Trump who was in bed with Stormy.

I'll be here all week, folks!

Good one. Made me smile. But now, it is the Democrats, teaming up with Stormy and her lawyer to _____ Trump, which is the goal of the Democrats.

Too bad there isnt another porn star named Dark who hooked up with Trump ---- then we could have the best sentence to *ever* make the political stories:

"It was a Dark and Stormy night."

I guess the new rule is that we must treat leftists with kid gloves, else they will retreat to their safe space.

Too bad, but if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

(05-09-2018 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That is the difference, as I basically spelled it out, and I think it's a worse situation for the incoming person to be working behind that scenes.

That's because the person who is incoming can more actively undermine the current admin, because those they are negotiating with know that the incoming person will have power and the ability to affect change.

The person who is no longer in power doesn't really have any sway - the person they're negotiating with knows that and understands that the person won't be able to affect change. So at that point, it's less negotiating and more lobbying.

Neither are really good, though.

Wow.. I don't think I could possibly disagree more, especially in a situation like this where (like Iraq or Scalia's replacement) if Iran or Republicans didn't like the deal they were given, they could merely hold their breath and see what the next option was.

It's funny though..., Your claim seems dependent upon Trump seeking to void the deal with Iran day one, which obviously didn't happen... otherwise he's not working to undermine the existing deal in November 2016 any more than he was in January 2017. Why do you presume that he was working to undermine it as opposed to merely gathering pertinent, previously classified information and introducing himself as the incoming SOS to key players?

I'd also note that a former SOS has zero power, while a SOS in transition HAS some power. So why you see the latter as being worse is odd. If CANDIDATE Trump's SOS selection had done it, I'd see them as essentially the same. This was President Elect Trump's selection. Not at all the same

(05-14-2018 03:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That is the difference, as I basically spelled it out, and I think it's a worse situation for the incoming person to be working behind that scenes.

That's because the person who is incoming can more actively undermine the current admin, because those they are negotiating with know that the incoming person will have power and the ability to affect change.

The person who is no longer in power doesn't really have any sway - the person they're negotiating with knows that and understands that the person won't be able to affect change. So at that point, it's less negotiating and more lobbying.

Neither are really good, though.

Wow.. I don't think I could possibly disagree more, especially in a situation like this where (like Iraq or Scalia's replacement) if Iran or Republicans didn't like the deal they were given, they could merely hold their breath and see what the next option was.

It's funny though..., Your claim seems dependent upon Trump seeking to void the deal with Iran day one, which obviously didn't happen... otherwise he's not working to undermine the existing deal in November 2016 any more than he was in January 2017. Why do you presume that he was working to undermine it as opposed to merely gathering pertinent, previously classified information and introducing himself as the incoming SOS to key players?

I'd also note that a former SOS has zero power, while a SOS in transition HAS some power. So why you see the latter as being worse is odd. If CANDIDATE Trump's SOS selection had done it, I'd see them as essentially the same. This was President Elect Trump's selection. Not at all the same

I'm trying to keep on hiatus, but Ham, we haven't really interacted much recently, so I figured I'd clarify my comments.

One - I wasn't specifically talking about the Iran deal, but I think some of your comments are still pertinent regardless.

Two - I think we're on the same page here, but to flesh it out more, since there are no incoming SOS's based on the way we handle our Cabinet, it would be a bit careless to have someone acting as a incoming SOS when their nomination could be voted down by Congress and they never actually hold that position.

Three - I'm not advocating that the incoming administration is not privy to classified information or the current intelligence/foreign service structure that is already in place. Someone in an incoming administration can be preparing themselves to begin meeting and negotiating with foreign leaders during the transition, using information that they should be allowed to review.

Four - I would advocate that, should the incoming admin want to hit the ground running on reaching goals on day 1 and do introductions during the transition, it should be done in conjunction with the outgoing admin. The outgoing admin should facilitate meetings of all three parties to assure a smooth transition and make it clear what current policies are, and that their time in office hasn't quite ended yet.

Five - I've said that I'm opposed to both situations, when you have people who are not representatives of the current executive branch trying to insert themselves into international diplomacy before their administration has started. Perhaps I muddied the waters by stating that I find one more problematic than the other, but the more important aspect is that I think they're both behaviors that should be discouraged and avoided.

This is one of the issues with a lame duck period, as a sort of gray area is created. But it's my thought that we should assume the acting POTUS is the acting POTUS, regardless of whether there is an incoming administration. And if the incoming administration wants to have a head start in their relations with foreign countries, that they go through the established channels of the incoming administration, and therefore, the incoming administration should be willing to facilitate those meetings.

If anything, that stance helps make it clear who is in charge, should an international crisis break out during the transition period.

Back to the break - but I hope that clarifies things a bit.

Thanks lad and I appreciate your perspective... however you still haven’t addressed the simple fact that we really don’t know what the context of the conversations were, or even if he represented himself as anything other than a representative of the incoming administration

Again it seems obvious that if he went there with the purpose of undermining the then current administration, that it wouldn’t have taken 18 months to do so

I do believe that they might have wanted to get a head start on understanding erthe perspective of Iran in the deal, but that’s not the same thing

In this particular instance I can’t see that a worst case scenario of him saying... I know this iS the deal, but it won’t be the deal going forward is ‘working to undermine the desl’ Any more that Trump did when he campaigned on it... but I’m trying to figure out what Kerry had to promise, since he wasn’t assured to be representative of the next Democrat in office

Doesn’t make you wrong and I don’t think we’re far off... but we clearly have some differences

Cheers to respectful differences

"If our leaders seek to conceal the truth and we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then as an American people we are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom," Tillerson said.

Alternative realities not grounded in facts...what a perfect description of the Russian collusion conspiracy theory, now known as the investigation into lying to the investigation.

I know some of you think he is talking about Trump, and he might be, but the words could just as easily fit a lot of other people - Comey, the FBI, et al.

Poking my head out from my "safe space" for a moment - family/job/travel just keeping me super busy of late. Will hopefully be able to return regular programming in a week or two...

(05-17-2018 11:47 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Poking my head out from my "safe space" for a moment - family/job/travel just keeping me super busy of late. Will hopefully be able to return regular programming in a week or two...

Very good alternatives to a cesspit of summer bloviating and disdain dripping, imo.

(05-16-2018 03:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "If our leaders seek to conceal the truth and we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then as an American people we are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom," Tillerson said.

Alternative realities not grounded in facts...what a perfect description of the Russian collusion conspiracy theory, now known as the investigation into lying to the investigation.

I know some of you think he is talking about Trump, and he might be, but the words could just as easily fit a lot of other people - Comey, the FBI, et al.

I think given that he applied his comment to public, for profit and even non-profit organizations... that he intended for it to mean far more than simply Trump