(10-29-2019 07:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As an aside, I find it amazing that the liberals who decry O’Keefe (his techniques) dont seem to show the same type or level of concern over the edited, secretly recorded (and possibly illegal) tapes that Donald Trump and Mitt Romney were the victims of. Why is that?

This is a joke, right?

(10-29-2019 07:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As an aside, I find it amazing that the liberals who decry O’Keefe (his techniques) dont seem to show the same type or level of concern over the edited, secretly recorded (and possibly illegal) tapes that Donald Trump and Mitt Romney were the victims of. Why is that?

Because the liberals are all about the double standard.

(10-29-2019 07:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 04:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 01:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 09:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And what difference would that make? Would it change the fact that the people speaking actually said the words that they said?
If the only complaint is "editing," then why is that same complaint not lodged against ever other news agency in the world, because every one of them edits selectively? One of the most celebrated and long-running news shows, 60 Minutes, does it repeatedly.
You're going to have to get more substantive than "edits selectively" to get much of a response from me. Now, Person XYZ didn't say the words that Person XYZ is shown on video as having said, that would be a different matter. But so far I haven't seen any indication of that. If I've missed it, please provide a link.
My question to those who say "edited selectively" or "taken out of context" is very simple. In what context would those words be appropriate?

In ACORN's case, my understanding is that the ACORN employee was basically trying to entrap O'Keefe because he thought O'Keefe was a legitimate actor and therefore wanted a criminal to be behind bars.
So, yeah, it would completely change the context of what the employee was saying and make it 100% ok.

My understanding is that in the Acorn case, at least some of the employees involved were fired. That would tend very strongly to suggest to me that there is fire underneath the smoke.

That seems to have settled it.

Yeah, how an org handles bad press doesn’t really mean much in the grand scheme of things...

A summary from Wikipedia:

Quote: The New York Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, began an investigation on September 15, 2009, to ensure that state grants given to ACORN were properly spent.[104][105] The New York City Council suspended all ACORN grants while the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office conducted an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the videos.[106] On March 1, 2010, the District Attorney's office for Brooklyn determined that the videos were "heavily edited" to give a misleading impression,[5] and concluded that there was no criminal wrongdoing by the ACORN Brooklyn staff filmed in the videos.[6] A law enforcement source said, "They edited the tape to meet their agenda."[7][107]

\Wiki? Seriously?

Law enforcement source (anonymous!!!) That could be a prison guard or a secretary in the Sheriff's office.

(10-29-2019 07:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 04:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 01:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 09:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And what difference would that make? Would it change the fact that the people speaking actually said the words that they said?
If the only complaint is "editing," then why is that same complaint not lodged against ever other news agency in the world, because every one of them edits selectively? One of the most celebrated and long-running news shows, 60 Minutes, does it repeatedly.
You're going to have to get more substantive than "edits selectively" to get much of a response from me. Now, Person XYZ didn't say the words that Person XYZ is shown on video as having said, that would be a different matter. But so far I haven't seen any indication of that. If I've missed it, please provide a link.
My question to those who say "edited selectively" or "taken out of context" is very simple. In what context would those words be appropriate?

In ACORN's case, my understanding is that the ACORN employee was basically trying to entrap O'Keefe because he thought O'Keefe was a legitimate actor and therefore wanted a criminal to be behind bars.
So, yeah, it would completely change the context of what the employee was saying and make it 100% ok.

My understanding is that in the Acorn case, at least some of the employees involved were fired. That would tend very strongly to suggest to me that there is fire underneath the smoke.

That seems to have settled it.

Yeah, how an org handles bad press doesn’t really mean much in the grand scheme of things...

A summary from Wikipedia:

Quote: The New York Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, began an investigation on September 15, 2009, to ensure that state grants given to ACORN were properly spent.[104][105] The New York City Council suspended all ACORN grants while the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office conducted an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the videos.[106] On March 1, 2010, the District Attorney's office for Brooklyn determined that the videos were "heavily edited" to give a misleading impression,[5] and concluded that there was no criminal wrongdoing by the ACORN Brooklyn staff filmed in the videos.[6] A law enforcement source said, "They edited the tape to meet their agenda."[7][107]

Funny, you present 1 finding about 1 office. From the 12 or so that had the undercover sting run on them on the series of tapes. And *you* are upset and seriously up in arms about 'selective editing'........ good fing grief. Do you see the lil' ol' problem there?

(10-29-2019 08:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 07:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As an aside, I find it amazing that the liberals who decry O’Keefe (his techniques) dont seem to show the same type or level of concern over the edited, secretly recorded (and possibly illegal) tapes that Donald Trump and Mitt Romney were the victims of. Why is that?

This is a joke, right?

Your beef is over the GARBAGE techniques that PV uses. Just pulling up exemplars of the same techniques. I take it from your comment you arent nearly as enraged over those techniques from the Trump and Romney tapes. Why am I not surprised. Lolz.

(10-29-2019 09:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 08:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 07:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As an aside, I find it amazing that the liberals who decry O’Keefe (his techniques) dont seem to show the same type or level of concern over the edited, secretly recorded (and possibly illegal) tapes that Donald Trump and Mitt Romney were the victims of. Why is that?

This is a joke, right?

Your beef is over the GARBAGE techniques that PV uses. Just pulling up exemplars of the same techniques. I take it from your comment you arent nearly as enraged over those techniques from the Trump and Romney tapes. Why am I not surprised. Lolz.

Double standard. OK for the left, evil for the right.

(10-29-2019 12:29 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a Ukraine expert assigned to the National Security Council, is testifying in the House impeachment inquiry Tuesday, offering new details on the push for investigations of President Trump’s political rivals and corroborating other witnesses with his firsthand account of the alleged attempt at a quid pro quo.
Vindman is the first impeachment witness to have listened in on the July 25 call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump said he wanted a “favor” after Zelensky brought up the topic of nearly $400 million in promised American military aid. Vindman was listening from the Situation Room along with other NSC officials and members of Vice President Pence’s staff, he said in prepared remarks released late Monday, and was so “concerned by the call” — and that the president’s request could be seen as “a partisan play” that could “undermine U.S. national security” — that he reported it to the NSC’s lead counsel.
Vindman’s prepared testimony touched a nerve with Trump. The president took to Twitter early Tuesday to deride the Iraq War veteran, who appeared for his testimony in uniform, calling him a “Never Trumper” and questioning his recollection of events.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...story.html
Vindman's opening statement can be read here.

I have a hypothetical question that nobody seems to be asking. Suppose there is reason to believe that a political opponent has engaged in illegal or corrupt or unethical behavior. What then is a president supposed to do?

Do you not investigate because the potential perp is a political opponent? Or do you investigate vigorously and in so doing bring to bear all possible sources of information? Or do you conduct a half-hearted investigation in an attempt to avoid making waves? Or do you do something else, if so, what?

I am not asserting that either of the Bidens did anything illegal, unethical, or corrupt. That's why I am asking this as a hypothetical. As to whether or not there is adequate reason to believe that one or both Bidens may have engaged in illegal, corrupt, or unethical behavior, that is a different question.

(10-30-2019 11:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 12:29 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a Ukraine expert assigned to the National Security Council, is testifying in the House impeachment inquiry Tuesday, offering new details on the push for investigations of President Trump’s political rivals and corroborating other witnesses with his firsthand account of the alleged attempt at a quid pro quo.
Vindman is the first impeachment witness to have listened in on the July 25 call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump said he wanted a “favor” after Zelensky brought up the topic of nearly $400 million in promised American military aid. Vindman was listening from the Situation Room along with other NSC officials and members of Vice President Pence’s staff, he said in prepared remarks released late Monday, and was so “concerned by the call” — and that the president’s request could be seen as “a partisan play” that could “undermine U.S. national security” — that he reported it to the NSC’s lead counsel.
Vindman’s prepared testimony touched a nerve with Trump. The president took to Twitter early Tuesday to deride the Iraq War veteran, who appeared for his testimony in uniform, calling him a “Never Trumper” and questioning his recollection of events.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...story.html
Vindman's opening statement can be read here.

I have a hypothetical question that nobody seems to be asking. Suppose there is reason to believe that a political opponent has engaged in illegal or corrupt or unethical behavior. What then is a president supposed to do?

Do you not investigate because the potential perp is a political opponent? Or do you investigate vigorously and in so doing bring to bear all possible sources of information? Or do you conduct a half-hearted investigation in an attempt to avoid making waves? Or do you do something else, if so, what?

I am not asserting that either of the Bidens did anything illegal, unethical, or corrupt. That's why I am asking this as a hypothetical. As to whether or not there is adequate reason to believe that one or both Bidens may have engaged in illegal, corrupt, or unethical behavior, that is a different question.

Wasn't that what the Obama administration was confronted with in 2016?

(10-30-2019 12:25 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 11:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 12:29 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a Ukraine expert assigned to the National Security Council, is testifying in the House impeachment inquiry Tuesday, offering new details on the push for investigations of President Trump’s political rivals and corroborating other witnesses with his firsthand account of the alleged attempt at a quid pro quo.
Vindman is the first impeachment witness to have listened in on the July 25 call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump said he wanted a “favor” after Zelensky brought up the topic of nearly $400 million in promised American military aid. Vindman was listening from the Situation Room along with other NSC officials and members of Vice President Pence’s staff, he said in prepared remarks released late Monday, and was so “concerned by the call” — and that the president’s request could be seen as “a partisan play” that could “undermine U.S. national security” — that he reported it to the NSC’s lead counsel.
Vindman’s prepared testimony touched a nerve with Trump. The president took to Twitter early Tuesday to deride the Iraq War veteran, who appeared for his testimony in uniform, calling him a “Never Trumper” and questioning his recollection of events.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...story.html
Vindman's opening statement can be read here.

I have a hypothetical question that nobody seems to be asking. Suppose there is reason to believe that a political opponent has engaged in illegal or corrupt or unethical behavior. What then is a president supposed to do?
Do you not investigate because the potential perp is a political opponent? Or do you investigate vigorously and in so doing bring to bear all possible sources of information? Or do you conduct a half-hearted investigation in an attempt to avoid making waves? Or do you do something else, if so, what?
I am not asserting that either of the Bidens did anything illegal, unethical, or corrupt. That's why I am asking this as a hypothetical. As to whether or not there is adequate reason to believe that one or both Bidens may have engaged in illegal, corrupt, or unethical behavior, that is a different question.

Wasn't that what the Obama administration was confronted with in 2016?

And assuming hypothetically that they were, was their response okay?

And that gets to the second question, were they actually?

This article from Politico lays things out pretty clearly, I think.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...val-229341

There are situations where it would be appropriate for a president to ask a foreign power to aid in an investigation of a political rival, but only if that request is done in good faith and in the best interests of the country.

(10-30-2019 12:37 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  This article from Politico lays things out pretty clearly, I think.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...val-229341
There are situations where it would be appropriate for a president to ask a foreign power to aid in an investigation of a political rival, but only if that request is done in good faith and in the best interests of the country.

And that was the point of my post. That gets to the issues that really matter. And so far, I've seen little or nothing about that.

Agreed

Doesn't matter. They could vote to impeach today on the grounds that he is an *******(starts with 'a"), and would get enough partisan votes to impeach.

Then what? he won't be removed.

Apparently the whole thing has morphed into an election ploy. They have gone from trying to get back the 2016 election to trying to steal the 2020 election.

Still, the best chance for the Democrats is an economic downturn before next November. I am sure top level dems and strategists are fervently hoping for a recession.

(10-30-2019 12:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 12:37 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  This article from Politico lays things out pretty clearly, I think.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...val-229341
There are situations where it would be appropriate for a president to ask a foreign power to aid in an investigation of a political rival, but only if that request is done in good faith and in the best interests of the country.

And that was the point of my post. That gets to the issues that really matter. And so far, I've seen little or nothing about that.

You definitely do it carefully (which Trump did not do).

My initial hunch is to bring the concern to the correct Department within the government, and then let them handle it. Basically find a way to as quickly, and effectively, distance yourself from the investigation as possible, to remove any potential suggestion of conflict of interest.

Also, attempt to make it a bipartisan goal. That was one thing Obama tried to do regarding Russian interference, which McConnell shot down.

(10-30-2019 01:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Doesn't matter. They could vote to impeach today on the grounds that he is an *******(starts with 'a"), and would get enough partisan votes to impeach.

Then what? he won't be removed.

Apparently the whole thing has morphed into an election ploy. They have gone from trying to get back the 2016 election to trying to steal the 2020 election.

Still, the best chance for the Democrats is an economic downturn before next November. I am sure top level dems and strategists are fervently hoping for a recession.

I hear ya, but I feel like #s kept his question intentionally narrow in hopes that we might find some common ground here (and maybe we are!). Do you think the Politico article's framing of the situation is accurate?

(10-30-2019 12:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 12:37 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  This article from Politico lays things out pretty clearly, I think.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...val-229341
There are situations where it would be appropriate for a president to ask a foreign power to aid in an investigation of a political rival, but only if that request is done in good faith and in the best interests of the country.

And that was the point of my post. That gets to the issues that really matter. And so far, I've seen little or nothing about that.

Good question, and link.

The house is going to vote to impeach, with or without supporting facts. The we will see how it plays out when actual facts have to be introduced into evidence. The bureaucratic establishment is out to get Trump, just as Chuck Schumer promised, and as long as that is the case I am going to question the honesty and credibility of any witness they trot out.

(10-30-2019 02:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The house is going to vote to impeach, with or without supporting facts. The we will see how it plays out when actual facts have to be introduced into evidence. The bureaucratic establishment is out to get Trump, just as Chuck Schumer promised, and as long as that is the case I am going to question the honesty and credibility of any witness they trot out.

Ok.

Accepting the framing of the Politico article, do you believe that Trump was acting in good faith and in the best interest of the country in his pursuit of an investigation of his political opponent by a foreign power?

(10-30-2019 02:46 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 02:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The house is going to vote to impeach, with or without supporting facts. The we will see how it plays out when actual facts have to be introduced into evidence. The bureaucratic establishment is out to get Trump, just as Chuck Schumer promised, and as long as that is the case I am going to question the honesty and credibility of any witness they trot out.

Ok.

Accepting the framing of the Politico article, do you believe that Trump was acting in good faith and in the best interest of the country in his pursuit of an investigation of his political opponent by a foreign power?

Such an investigation would help Trump only if it showed corruption on their part. If it did, then would the Democrats still want Biden as their nominee?

If the Bidens were innocent, what would they have to fear from an investigation?

Having this question cleared up one way or the other certainly was and is in the best interests of the country.

I think he had as much good faith as the Democrats did when they made their investigation in the Russia collusion question.

In any case, a non happening. Ukraine got their aid and did not have to perform an investigation to get it.

Somehow, we keep forgetting (ignoring?) that Ukraine helped the Clinton campaign. Was that in good faith?