(12-01-2017 07:12 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:25 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  We don't know everything they know, because it's a properly run investigation full of professionals who don't leak.

You sure about that? I thought I'd read all sorts of news about leaks from the investigation.....the coming indictment of Manafort, etc.

Manaforts indictments leaked the day of the hearing, as was the raid on his home and this news. Papa turning states witness was kept quiet for months, too.

(12-01-2017 07:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 07:08 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:59 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 03:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 03:10 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  If this was a D administration there'd never be a special prosecutor.....for anything.

I said this room.

I know what you said, but the idea that there'd be a special prosecutor if Hillary had been elected is ridiculous.

Of course you're right. Even Trumps own AG stated he would need a factual basis which fits the criteria to appoint a special prosecutor when asked why there isn't one. You guys won the election, got all your guys in, and there's still no investigation. Time to stop beating that drum as if there is something there. Can't say the same thing about Trump and Russia though.

The "factual basis which fits the criteria to appoint a special prosecutor" is that the normal investigating and prosecuting authorities might have a conflict of interest. Since Hillary lost the election, there is no apparent conflict of interest. This doesn't mean that there is no factual basis for prosecution. It just means that the facts do not fit the particular requirements for appointing a special prosecutor.

This seems to contradict itself. You state there might be a conflict of interest, but then state there is no conflict of interest. Not sure exactly what you're trying to say.

(12-01-2017 07:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 07:12 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:25 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  We don't know everything they know, because it's a properly run investigation full of professionals who don't leak.

You sure about that? I thought I'd read all sorts of news about leaks from the investigation.....the coming indictment of Manafort, etc.

Manaforts indictments leaked the day of the hearing, as was the raid on his home and this news. Papa turning states witness was kept quiet for months, too.

So your statement that they don't leak isn't accurate, right?

(12-01-2017 07:46 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 07:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 07:08 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:59 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 03:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I said this room.

I know what you said, but the idea that there'd be a special prosecutor if Hillary had been elected is ridiculous.

Of course you're right. Even Trumps own AG stated he would need a factual basis which fits the criteria to appoint a special prosecutor when asked why there isn't one. You guys won the election, got all your guys in, and there's still no investigation. Time to stop beating that drum as if there is something there. Can't say the same thing about Trump and Russia though.

The "factual basis which fits the criteria to appoint a special prosecutor" is that the normal investigating and prosecuting authorities might have a conflict of interest. Since Hillary lost the election, there is no apparent conflict of interest. This doesn't mean that there is no factual basis for prosecution. It just means that the facts do not fit the particular requirements for appointing a special prosecutor.

This seems to contradict itself. You state there might be a conflict of interest, but then state there is no conflict of interest. Not sure exactly what you're trying to say.

He's saying that there'd be an obvious conflict of interest for Trump's justice department to investigate Trump, therefore the special prosecutor was named.

I'm saying that there'd have been an obvious conflict of interest for a Hillary justice department to investigate her so to avoid that problem, they'd do nothing instead.

(12-01-2017 07:46 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 07:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 07:08 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:59 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 03:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I said this room.

I know what you said, but the idea that there'd be a special prosecutor if Hillary had been elected is ridiculous.

Of course you're right. Even Trumps own AG stated he would need a factual basis which fits the criteria to appoint a special prosecutor when asked why there isn't one. You guys won the election, got all your guys in, and there's still no investigation. Time to stop beating that drum as if there is something there. Can't say the same thing about Trump and Russia though.

The "factual basis which fits the criteria to appoint a special prosecutor" is that the normal investigating and prosecuting authorities might have a conflict of interest. Since Hillary lost the election, there is no apparent conflict of interest. This doesn't mean that there is no factual basis for prosecution. It just means that the facts do not fit the particular requirements for appointing a special prosecutor.

This seems to contradict itself. You state there might be a conflict of interest, but then state there is no conflict of interest. Not sure exactly what you're trying to say.

I think you need to work on reading comprehension. Had Hillary won the election, there would have been a perceived conflict of interest for her administration attempting to investigate her. So the factual basis for a special prosecutor could have existed with respect to her in that case. There is a conflict for a Trump administration investigating Trump, so a special prosecutor meets the statutory test. Since there is no apparent conflict for a Trump administration investigating Hillary, the test for a special prosecutor is not met.

Simplified:
If Hillary wins, then special prosecutor appropriate for investigation of Hillary, not for Trump.
If Trump wins, then special prosecutor appropriate for investigation of Trump, not for Hillary.

This ain't rocket science. Do you comprehend?

Whether the factual test for a special prosecutor is met can have little of no connection to whether prosecution by someone is justified.

(12-01-2017 07:55 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 07:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 07:12 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:25 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  We don't know everything they know, because it's a properly run investigation full of professionals who don't leak.

You sure about that? I thought I'd read all sorts of news about leaks from the investigation.....the coming indictment of Manafort, etc.

Manaforts indictments leaked the day of the hearing, as was the raid on his home and this news. Papa turning states witness was kept quiet for months, too.

So your statement that they don't leak isn't accurate, right?

A hearing leaked the morning its scheduled isn't on Mueller, neither is a raid on a persons house. We're not getting leaks of the information they found, the people who have flipped, or their internal workings until the moment they're taking action. The leaks we do get occur when the information leaves Muellers team.

(12-01-2017 08:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 07:46 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 07:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 07:08 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 06:59 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  I know what you said, but the idea that there'd be a special prosecutor if Hillary had been elected is ridiculous.

Of course you're right. Even Trumps own AG stated he would need a factual basis which fits the criteria to appoint a special prosecutor when asked why there isn't one. You guys won the election, got all your guys in, and there's still no investigation. Time to stop beating that drum as if there is something there. Can't say the same thing about Trump and Russia though.

The "factual basis which fits the criteria to appoint a special prosecutor" is that the normal investigating and prosecuting authorities might have a conflict of interest. Since Hillary lost the election, there is no apparent conflict of interest. This doesn't mean that there is no factual basis for prosecution. It just means that the facts do not fit the particular requirements for appointing a special prosecutor.

This seems to contradict itself. You state there might be a conflict of interest, but then state there is no conflict of interest. Not sure exactly what you're trying to say.

I think you need to work on reading comprehension. Had Hillary won the election, there would have been a perceived conflict of interest for her administration attempting to investigate her. So the factual basis for a special prosecutor could have existed with respect to her in that case. There is a conflict for a Trump administration investigating Trump, so a special prosecutor meets the statutory test. Since there is no apparent conflict for a Trump administration investigating Hillary, the test for a special prosecutor is not met.

Simplified:
If Hillary wins, then special prosecutor appropriate for investigation of Hillary, not for Trump.
If Trump wins, then special prosecutor appropriate for investigation of Trump, not for Hillary.

This ain't rocket science. Do you comprehend?

Whether the factual test for a special prosecutor is met can have little of no connection to whether prosecution by someone is justified.

Oh, so then they can just charge her without a special prosecutor? They haven't. Why?

CLARIFICATION of ABC News Special Report: Flynn prepared to testify that President-elect Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians *during the transition* -- initially as a way to work together to fight ISIS in Syria, confidant now says. https://t.co/ewrkVZBTbc https://t.co/GQAKwT1Eda

LOL

I guess ABC felt slighted in their placement of the Fake News award poll.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(12-01-2017 08:35 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  CLARIFICATION of ABC News Special Report: Flynn prepared to testify that President-elect Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians *during the transition* -- initially as a way to work together to fight ISIS in Syria, confidant now says. https://t.co/ewrkVZBTbc https://t.co/GQAKwT1Eda

LOL

I guess ABC felt slighted in their placement of the Fake News award poll.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Another thread wasted on a mainstream "news" lie. Sad.

(12-01-2017 08:25 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  A hearing leaked the morning its scheduled isn't on Mueller, neither is a raid on a persons house. We're not getting leaks of the information they found, the people who have flipped, or their internal workings until the moment they're taking action. The leaks we do get occur when the information leaves Muellers team.

Trey Gowdy seems to disagree with you. Is he in error or lying?

Quote:Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy, the leader of the House’s top investigative committee, slammed special counsel Robert Mueller on Sunday for allowing the news media to learn that he and his legal team now have charges in their Russia investigation.

“In the only conversation I’ve had with Robert Mueller, I stressed to him the importance of cutting out the leaks,” Gowdy, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, told “Fox News Sunday.” “It’s kind of ironic that the people charged with investigating the law and the violations of the law would violate the law.”

“Make no mistake, disclosing grand jury material is a violation of the law. Somebody violated their oath of secrecy,” Gowdy, a South Carolina lawmaker and former federal prosecutor, also told Fox News on Sunday.

The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday that anyone charged will be taken into custody Monday. However, the charges have been sealed by a federal judge. So whoever is charged and whether the charges are criminal remains unclear.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/...probe.html

I think you are all too spun up to see the obvious.

Flynn knowingly lied to the FBI. Why? The meeting wasn't illegal.

Flynn lied to the FBI so he would not have to reveal the substance of the meeting to the FBI. That is the only logical reason.

Why?

Most likely because the Trump administration did not want the Obama administration to be privy to its plans regarding ISIS.

The Trump administration's actions have destroyed ISIS in 10 months. Many people question if Obama ever really desired to destroy ISIS. Odd how differently things went under Trump.

When Flynn says he can finger someone else, it may not be any of the Trump administration. It may be people elsewhere in the government suspected of piping information to ISIS.

Time will tell, but it is obvious Flynn lied intentionally. The only reason to do that is to protect the substance of the meeting. The logical reason for that is to keep the strategies chosen for the Middle East actions secret from people not trusted with the information, or perhaps, not even cleared to hear the information.

this whole formerly productive thread took a nosedive when UCF## wandered in and said something that was (a) unrelated, and (b) stupid.

I'm glad you guys elected this fool. This is the most entertaining thing on TV.

(12-02-2017 12:28 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  I'm glad you guys elected this fool. This is the most entertaining thing on TV.

I'm glad that you elected several congressmen that conspicuously held out that they were THE ONLY MALES IN THE COUNTRY that were loudly PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN, but were secretly molesting them in the shadows, and then intimidating them into silence.

current liberal policy is actually anti-woman, especially when the woman was assaulted by a democrat

I wonder if Twitter works in jail?

(12-02-2017 12:42 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  I wonder if Twitter works in jail?

probably not. anthony's weiner is no longer on the prowl for teenage girls.

so, that probably a big "no"

(12-02-2017 12:32 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 12:28 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  I'm glad you guys elected this fool. This is the most entertaining thing on TV.

I'm glad that you elected several congressmen that conspicuously held out that they were THE ONLY MALES IN THE COUNTRY that were loudly PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN, but were secretly molesting them in the shadows, and then intimidating them into silence.

And this is related to Flynn how?

(12-01-2017 11:07 PM)Claw Wrote:  I think you are all too spun up to see the obvious.

Flynn knowingly lied to the FBI. Why? The meeting wasn't illegal.

Flynn lied to the FBI so he would not have to reveal the substance of the meeting to the FBI. That is the only logical reason.

Why?

Most likely because the Trump administration did not want the Obama administration to be privy to its plans regarding ISIS.

The Trump administration's actions have destroyed ISIS in 10 months. Many people question if Obama ever really desired to destroy ISIS. Odd how differently things went under Trump.

When Flynn says he can finger someone else, it may not be any of the Trump administration. It may be people elsewhere in the government suspected of piping information to ISIS.

Time will tell, but it is obvious Flynn lied intentionally. The only reason to do that is to protect the substance of the meeting. The logical reason for that is to keep the strategies chosen for the Middle East actions secret from people not trusted with the information, or perhaps, not even cleared to hear the information.

Like Flynn himself who was a civilian at the time.

(12-02-2017 12:48 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 12:42 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  I wonder if Twitter works in jail?

probably not. anthony's weiner is no longer on the prowl for teenage girls.

so, that probably a big "no"

Have you been drinking? lol