(08-07-2018 12:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (08-07-2018 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (08-07-2018 11:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: (08-07-2018 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: You're right - which is why I'm not suggesting a crime was committed based on the evidence at hand. Instead, I'm suggesting there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. Why try and make me defend a position I haven't taken?
We know a meeting took place where a conspiracy could very well have been initiated, so reason says that an investigation is warranted, right? We know a situation arose where Trump Jr and other campaign leaders could have very well started a conspiracy, and we know that those members lied about the meeting when it came to light and did not inform the authorities before hand.
So this is my whole point - that the TT meeting alone is enough to warrant the Mueller probe. We deserve an answer as to whether a conspiracy was established that doesn't rely solely on the word of someone who has already lied about the meeting multiple times.
And to your first point, I offered one potential hypothetical as to why an investigation into the Clinton Campaign would be warranted - it wasn't all encompassing. Do you have e
OK, I don't disagree that there is enough to warrant an investigation of that meeting. What I'm not understanding is why investigations in Hillary's campaign are not similarly warranted.
At a minimum there is substantially more actual evidence (not speculation) that Hillary's campaign did in fact conspire with the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to fix the democrat primaries.
And there is ample reason to speculate that her campaign somehow was conspiring with "the Russians" to produce dirt on Trump. What you seem to be saying is that it's a no-no if you do it directly, but okay if it is handled through intermediaries.
Go ahead and investigate the primaries.
But there isn't even ample reason to speculate that the campaign was conspiring with the Russians. The only "reason" you can provide is that funds were used by the DNC to pay for opposition research, and that, well, you know, it's Clinton.
There's no evidence that Podesta/Clinton knew that the funds were being used to either hire a British intelligence officer, or use sources in Russia. That point right there is where the Trump campaign loses this battle - Don Jr. published the evidence that shows he knew that the Russian government would be supplying the oppo research.
Or is there something I'm missing? Cus I'm not buying what Tanq is selling based on my experiences working for attorneys and the fact that I don't tell them what driller I hire when I do field work for them.
So the instructions when the they hired Fusion were "Find dirt on Trump and don't tell us how or where you got it"?
Pretty good defense. Works all the time. "I am shocked, shocked, I tell you that our attorneys went to Russia for dirt on Trump. But my hands are clean - I just hired them." "I had no idea that my friend was going to hire a hit man to kill my wife, even though I gave him the money for it. I just wanted it to end. I'm innocent."
Yep, works all the time.
Yes Lad, your experience with attorneys makes you the fking expert I guess. Your 'experience' and your analogy is fking idiotic.
If the main purpose of them hiring you was the fking hole drilled, then yes, it is their job to know. If the main purpose in them hiring you is *not* in the fking hole drilled, but in the installation of the equipment, then you would be correct that they probably wont care that Pepe the Hole Driller did that ancillary work.
The main purpose and crown jewel of the Fusion excercise was 'dirt'. Whom you hire to collect that dirt is essential to the value the fking work product. Kind of a big difference between what Boris ex-GRU agent says, and what Petrov the shoe shiner on the street, and Natasha the local water polo coach says about Trump relative to that work product, tbh. But if you think that insignificant, I would suggest you eschew corporate intelligence work as a vocation.
And, tbh, attorneys have duty well beyond 'good business practice' to report to the client things that are not ancillary in nature. But please, disbelieve that as well, since you seemingly like to make up legal standards willy nilly here and there at times.....
And, attorneys also have an implied duty to make sure that the 'experts' provided arent chain smoking, liver addled, dyslexic boobs who provide worthless information. Kind a malpractice thingy at issue there....
Put your thinking cap on and stop dancing. I dont know if you are simply dense on this concept or showing real-world naivete in this. When the general contractor is *not* the originator of the main locus of the expected work product, yes, a law firm and attorney expects real fing world information on the fing source of what the general is providing them. No ifs, ands, or buts.
And, to be blunt, this would be general fing common sense to any industry. Your conflation of ancillary product or side action in no way, shape, or form makes sense when you actually ask yourself (and I suggest that you do) *what* the expected work product is, and how is it to be vetted on an ongoing basis.
I guess in LadCo, you would be more than happy to plop down 500k for political info, and want to have no idea at all or any fing clue where the main expected work product comes from. Sounds stupid as **** to me, but thats just me.