Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 7, 2018 12:03:05 GMT -5
"T Rex" Who comes up with these things?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 7, 2018 12:27:02 GMT -5
I hope you stick around. It’s people like you, DJ, and happhoix why I keep coming back. It’s people like you that research and present well reasoned arguments that make this politics board interesting. I haven’t kept with this thread, but my impression is you lean right of center. I can understand your frustration with some people on this message board. Half of the posts are people cracking jokes while insulting Trump. It does get tiring when you take the time to research and present a arfunent and the response you get is the 100th “bigly” joke like somehow it’s supposed to make them look funny and clever. It’s honestly why I don’t post as much as I used to. half the threads just devolve into Trump bashing echo chambers that aren’t worth the time to respond to. Anyway, I hope you stick around and keep posting. Some of us pay attention.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,463
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 7, 2018 12:45:14 GMT -5
i think it is more common than anyone would like to believe, and has happened for decades. again, if you want to indict FISA on this, that is fine. but imo what happened here is not that different than what has gone on for DECADES. FISA was not around during Nixon, so it is not a relevant comparison. if it were, Nixon might have been able to do what he did by LEGAL MEANS. i know it sux. i am not arguing FOR FISA. i am saying that the agency used an asset at their disposal, just like they have done for a long time. edit: i would like to make one final comment on this. if contacts with foreign adversaries were committed and detected through these warrants, then it is VERY likely they will stand up, and produce criminal indictments. i hope you understand that, and accept it. this is what FISA is there for, so IF what they got is actionable, they will be able to rightly claim they "did their job". in the end, the evidence is what matters to FISA and the FBI. Wow. How about joining us over here in reality. 1. It is ILLEGAL to appoint a Special Counsel under the law without "articulable evidence a crime has been committed". Fishing expeditions are not permitted which makes Mueller's appointment illegitimate to start with. 2. EVERYTHING uncovered so far by Mueller is "fruit of the poison dossier". Meaning Manafort and Flynn will NEVER see criminal convictions, and will be pardoned if they do. You keep talking like you've seen all of Mueller's investigation notes. If you haven't, how can you be sure that everything comes from the dossier?
Second question, if you're a cop and you get a phone call about an armed robbery in progress three streets over, but when you rush over there you don't find a rape, you find a murder, do you throw up your hands and leave the scene, because you were only looking for a rape?
I'm curious, because Manafort got indicted on money laundering charges, which is something that's been hanging around Manafort for years, way before the election and the dossier. If Manafort was money laundering, but it didn't have anything to do with the election, should he be let go scot free, because Mueller is only supposed to investigate Russian election tampering?
You know, of course, that financial experts also think Trump and the Kusher firm have also been involved in money laundering, especially since they do their banking through Deutche bank, which previously been heavily fined for assisting the Russians in laundering money. If, on the off chance Mueller finds that out (I would never presume to know what Mueller's been finding) would that be an impeachable offense, or must we all ignore it, because Mueller never should have been doing the investigation in the first place, according to you?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,463
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 7, 2018 12:51:32 GMT -5
Here is my whole issue with Trump and the Mueller investigation.
If Trump truly had nothing to hide, nothing shady in his business dealings, nothing questionable in his dealings with any of the Russians, wouldn't he just sit back and let Mueller finish his investigation, rather than begin this unprecedented campaign to smear the DOJ?
It's because of his constant tweeting, and nasty remarks, and the way he tries to strong arm government employees by asking them if they are 'on his team' or 'loyal' and then trying to get rid of them if they won't toady to him that I've got serious concerns that 1) he's hiding something significant and 2) he desperately wants to convince the American people that the entire DOJ is hopelessly corrupt and involved in a coupe against him, so they'll doubt whatever Mueller ends up discovering. (And for his 34% of hard core supporters, it's worked so far).
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 7, 2018 13:08:20 GMT -5
Here's what we know- none of this is in dispute. I acknowledge that the DOJ declined to prosecute, but that discretion- which is not necessarily the final disposition given the politicized nature of the investigation- in no way negates the fact that Hillary Clinton is guilty of violating: U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information 18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information 18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records 18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees 18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations 18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States 18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television 18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud” 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense Among others. Here's Obama's problem: Obama lied to the public when he assured us he learned of Hillary's illicit private email server designed to conceal her abuse of the power of her office (Pay to Play) as Secretary of State "in the news" like the rest of us. He not only knew, but President Obama was USING HER SERVER in communications with her. www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-228607 (this confirmed by the FBI- you know, for those of you that want to defend the FBI).
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 7, 2018 13:10:42 GMT -5
Wow. How about joining us over here in reality. 1. It is ILLEGAL to appoint a Special Counsel under the law without "articulable evidence a crime has been committed". Fishing expeditions are not permitted which makes Mueller's appointment illegitimate to start with. 2. EVERYTHING uncovered so far by Mueller is "fruit of the poison dossier". Meaning Manafort and Flynn will NEVER see criminal convictions, and will be pardoned if they do. You keep talking like you've seen all of Mueller's investigation notes. If you haven't, how can you be sure that everything comes from the dossier?
Second question, if you're a cop and you get a phone call about an armed robbery in progress three streets over, but when you rush over there you don't find a rape, you find a murder, do you throw up your hands and leave the scene, because you were only looking for a rape?
I'm curious, because Manafort got indicted on money laundering charges, which is something that's been hanging around Manafort for years, way before the election and the dossier. If Manafort was money laundering, but it didn't have anything to do with the election, should he be let go scot free, because Mueller is only supposed to investigate Russian election tampering?
You know, of course, that financial experts also think Trump and the Kusher firm have also been involved in money laundering, especially since they do their banking through Deutche bank, which previously been heavily fined for assisting the Russians in laundering money. If, on the off chance Mueller finds that out (I would never presume to know what Mueller's been finding) would that be an impeachable offense, or must we all ignore it, because Mueller never should have been doing the investigation in the first place, according to you?
You're missing the point. I don't need to see anything Mueller's illegitimate investigation has turned up. Mueller's investigation is tainted from the word go.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 7, 2018 13:12:37 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 7, 2018 13:26:12 GMT -5
(No, no, Virgil, you're doing it wrong!!! Shooting squads for Obama and Clinton (both of them)!! Drown all the journalists! Kick all the dems out of the country! Get with the program, dude!)
only if you are looking for one. if not, it appears to be a bunch of sour griping by two lovers. sour griping that ensnared democrats, as well. i really resent the cherry picking of those PM's. it paints a VERY slanted picture that is at odds with the reality of Strzok, his job, and what he actually DID during the course of the campaign. I'll admit we can still barely get away with "They were operating within the ethics and guidelines of their profession.", if we give them the benefittiest benefit of the doubt. If there's anything I don't want coming out of this scandal, it's people being punished for nothing more than thoughtcrime. One theme that comes through strongly in their exchanges is they really have no agency in the investigations they pursue. "Andy" (Mr. McCabe) tells them to investigate Mickey Mouse, they investigate Mickey Mouse. He tell them to shut down the investigation on Donald Duck, they shut down the investigation on Donald Duck. The major decisions are clearly all made above their heads, hence their "save the Republic", "insurance policy", and "secret society" talk doesn't automatically translate into action. If the allusions have any substance to them, it's as the musings of worker bees referring to initiatives run from a higher level. Where I agree with Paul, though, based on the trajectory of the investigation thus far, is I suspect evidence will come out implicating bigger fish like Mr. McCabe, possibly Rosenstein, Comey et al., corroborating the theory that the Strzrok/Page texts are more than figurative language. I think at least one big fish will wind up wearing the "Let's make Ms. Clinton's e-mail scandal go away." scandal, and at least one will take it in the teeth for authorizing wiretaps on Pres. Trump's campaign HQ under FISA Title I. There's no way everyone walks away from that with a shrug and "We were doing it for the good of the nation. Look! Russia! Russia, right behind you! Collusion! I swear!" if the FBI wants to maintain credibility. I don't think Mr. Mueller or Pres. Obama will be swept up in anything. And like pretty much everyone who isn't right of Alex Jones, I agree that removing Mr. Mueller or Mr. McCabe before the Mueller investigation concludes is a recipe for disaster.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 7, 2018 14:41:36 GMT -5
Here is my whole issue with Trump and the Mueller investigation.
If Trump truly had nothing to hide, nothing shady in his business dealings, nothing questionable in his dealings with any of the Russians, wouldn't he just sit back and let Mueller finish his investigation, rather than begin this unprecedented campaign to smear the DOJ?
It's because of his constant tweeting, and nasty remarks, and the way he tries to strong arm government employees by asking them if they are 'on his team' or 'loyal' and then trying to get rid of them if they won't toady to him that I've got serious concerns that 1) he's hiding something significant and 2) he desperately wants to convince the American people that the entire DOJ is hopelessly corrupt and involved in a coupe against him, so they'll doubt whatever Mueller ends up discovering. (And for his 34% of hard core supporters, it's worked so far). You're not entitled to know about all of Trump's business dealings- or even ANY of them. Abuse of the FISA court because people want to fish for info is criminal. Here's my problem with the whole Hillary investigation: a principal- Bill Clinton, illegally met with the AG of the US on an airport tarmac to discuss the case. Hillary refused to comply with a subpoena to turn over United States government property-- her communications do not belong to her. She instead chose to "acid wash" and "bleach bit" -- basically SCRUB all of her emails. And just for good measure-- she destroyed devices with hammers. She's a criminal. She's a criminal and she was not prosecuted because she's a high-level politician. Trump's crime? He won and people don't like him.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 19, 2024 19:14:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 15:58:13 GMT -5
When all else fails - deflect to Clinton or Obama. Classic.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,463
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 7, 2018 16:01:15 GMT -5
You keep talking like you've seen all of Mueller's investigation notes. If you haven't, how can you be sure that everything comes from the dossier?
Second question, if you're a cop and you get a phone call about an armed robbery in progress three streets over, but when you rush over there you don't find a rape, you find a murder, do you throw up your hands and leave the scene, because you were only looking for a rape?
I'm curious, because Manafort got indicted on money laundering charges, which is something that's been hanging around Manafort for years, way before the election and the dossier. If Manafort was money laundering, but it didn't have anything to do with the election, should he be let go scot free, because Mueller is only supposed to investigate Russian election tampering?
You know, of course, that financial experts also think Trump and the Kusher firm have also been involved in money laundering, especially since they do their banking through Deutche bank, which previously been heavily fined for assisting the Russians in laundering money. If, on the off chance Mueller finds that out (I would never presume to know what Mueller's been finding) would that be an impeachable offense, or must we all ignore it, because Mueller never should have been doing the investigation in the first place, according to you?
You're missing the point. I don't need to see anything Mueller's illegitimate investigation has turned up. Mueller's investigation is tainted from the word go. All right - so you're the kind of Trump devotee who, should Mueller's investigation find a stash of kiddy porn and a dead hooker in a storage bin only Trump has ever visited, you'll put your fingers in your ears and say 'lalala' so you can't hear a thing about it.
Good to know.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,463
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 7, 2018 16:02:21 GMT -5
Here is my whole issue with Trump and the Mueller investigation.
If Trump truly had nothing to hide, nothing shady in his business dealings, nothing questionable in his dealings with any of the Russians, wouldn't he just sit back and let Mueller finish his investigation, rather than begin this unprecedented campaign to smear the DOJ?
It's because of his constant tweeting, and nasty remarks, and the way he tries to strong arm government employees by asking them if they are 'on his team' or 'loyal' and then trying to get rid of them if they won't toady to him that I've got serious concerns that 1) he's hiding something significant and 2) he desperately wants to convince the American people that the entire DOJ is hopelessly corrupt and involved in a coupe against him, so they'll doubt whatever Mueller ends up discovering. (And for his 34% of hard core supporters, it's worked so far). You're not entitled to know about all of Trump's business dealings- or even ANY of them. Abuse of the FISA court because people want to fish for info is criminal. Here's my problem with the whole Hillary investigation: a principal- Bill Clinton, illegally met with the AG of the US on an airport tarmac to discuss the case. Hillary refused to comply with a subpoena to turn over United States government property-- her communications do not belong to her. She instead chose to "acid wash" and "bleach bit" -- basically SCRUB all of her emails. And just for good measure-- she destroyed devices with hammers. She's a criminal. She's a criminal and she was not prosecuted because she's a high-level politician. Trump's crime? He won and people don't like him. Again you're assuming the FISA warrant generated by the dossier is the ONLY reason Mueller undertook this investigation.
Why don't we wait and see for sure?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,463
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 7, 2018 16:10:27 GMT -5
only if you are looking for one. if not, it appears to be a bunch of sour griping by two lovers. sour griping that ensnared democrats, as well. i really resent the cherry picking of those PM's. it paints a VERY slanted picture that is at odds with the reality of Strzok, his job, and what he actually DID during the course of the campaign. I'll admit we can still barely get away with "They were operating within the ethics and guidelines of their profession.", if we give them the benefittiest benefit of the doubt. If there's anything I don't want coming out of this scandal, it's people being punished for nothing more than thoughtcrime. One theme that comes through strongly in their exchanges is they really have no agency in the investigations they pursue. "Andy" (Mr. McCabe) tells them to investigate Mickey Mouse, they investigate Mickey Mouse. He tell them to shut down the investigation on Donald Duck, they shut down the investigation on Donald Duck. The major decisions are clearly all made above their heads, hence their "save the Republic", "insurance policy", and "secret society" talk doesn't automatically translate into action. If the allusions have any substance to them, it's as the musings of worker bees referring to initiatives run from a higher level. Where I agree with Paul, though, based on the trajectory of the investigation thus far, is I suspect evidence will come out implicating bigger fish like Mr. McCabe, possibly Rosenstein, Comey et al., corroborating the theory that the Strzrok/Page texts are more than figurative language. I think at least one big fish will wind up wearing the "Let's make Ms. Clinton's e-mail scandal go away." scandal, and at least one will take it in the teeth for authorizing wiretaps on Pres. Trump's campaign HQ under FISA Title I. There's no way everyone walks away from that with a shrug and "We were doing it for the good of the nation. Look! Russia! Russia, right behind you! Collusion! I swear!" if the FBI wants to maintain credibility. I don't think Mr. Mueller or Pres. Obama will be swept up in anything. And like pretty much everyone who isn't right of Alex Jones, I agree that removing Mr. Mueller or Mr. McCabe before the Mueller investigation concludes is a recipe for disaster. Granted, I haven't had time to comb through everything, but I wasn't aware there was evidence that Trump, or the Trump campaign itself, was under a FISA warrant.
I thought the warrants targeted Carter Page and Manafort specifically. I don't know enough to say that either of them justified the FISA warrants. But let's assume there was, for the moment - that meant whoever they talked to was incidentally also listened in on. I think that sucks, but I think the whole FISA thing sucks. Maybe if there is one good thing that comes out of this whole mess, it will force us to fix the FISA program.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 7, 2018 16:11:17 GMT -5
I think it’s significant that a FISA warrant to spy on an American citizen and advisor to a presidential campaign was based on opposition research carried out by the opposing political party. i think it is more common than anyone would like to believe. again, if you want to indict FISA on this, that is fine. but imo what happened here is not that different than what has gone on for DECADES. FISA was not around during Nixon, so it is not a relevant comparison. if it were, Nixon might have been able to do what he did by LEGAL MEANS. i know it sux. i am not arguing FOR FISA. i am saying that the agency used an asset at their disposal, just like they have done for a long time. edit: i would like to make one final comment on this. if contacts with foreign adversaries were committed and detected through these warrants, then it is VERY likely they will stand up, and produce criminal indictments. i hope you understand that, and accept it. this is what FISA is there for, so IF what they got is actionable, they will be able to rightly claim they "did their job". in the end, the evidence is what matters to FISA and the FBI. You're right, FISA was not around during the Nixon years, it was established in 1978 after Nixon left office to ensure that future presidents could not use federal agencies to spy on political opponents. It was a direct response to Nixon's abuses. Yes, I concur that there will be a "the end justifies the means" justification if the surveillance produces criminal convictions. But as I said in my original post, the FISA court was set up to prevent this very kind of thing happening, specifically, federal agencies spying on the political opponents of the party/president in power.
I'm not going to go as far as Paul and say Obama was personally authorizing these surveillance warrants or even necessarily aware of them, but surely you can see the potential for the system to be abused in this manner. It should raise at least SOME eyebrows at how the FISA process was potentially abused against the political opponent of the party in power.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,463
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 7, 2018 16:13:45 GMT -5
Here is my whole issue with Trump and the Mueller investigation.
If Trump truly had nothing to hide, nothing shady in his business dealings, nothing questionable in his dealings with any of the Russians, wouldn't he just sit back and let Mueller finish his investigation, rather than begin this unprecedented campaign to smear the DOJ?
It's because of his constant tweeting, and nasty remarks, and the way he tries to strong arm government employees by asking them if they are 'on his team' or 'loyal' and then trying to get rid of them if they won't toady to him that I've got serious concerns that 1) he's hiding something significant and 2) he desperately wants to convince the American people that the entire DOJ is hopelessly corrupt and involved in a coupe against him, so they'll doubt whatever Mueller ends up discovering. (And for his 34% of hard core supporters, it's worked so far). You're not entitled to know about all of Trump's business dealings- or even ANY of them. Abuse of the FISA court because people want to fish for info is criminal. Here's my problem with the whole Hillary investigation: a principal- Bill Clinton, illegally met with the AG of the US on an airport tarmac to discuss the case. Hillary refused to comply with a subpoena to turn over United States government property-- her communications do not belong to her. She instead chose to "acid wash" and "bleach bit" -- basically SCRUB all of her emails. And just for good measure-- she destroyed devices with hammers. She's a criminal. She's a criminal and she was not prosecuted because she's a high-level politician. Trump's crime? He won and people don't like him. I asked you a point blank question - if Trump had nothing to hide, if there was no collusion, why doesn't he shut up and just let Mueller finish up and give him a gold star for not colluding with the Russians?
This is not the behavior of an innocent person.
You diverted to Hillary last time - want to take another stab at it?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 7, 2018 16:30:01 GMT -5
Wow. How about joining us over here in reality. 1. It is ILLEGAL to appoint a Special Counsel under the law without "articulable evidence a crime has been committed". Fishing expeditions are not permitted which makes Mueller's appointment illegitimate to start with. 2. EVERYTHING uncovered so far by Mueller is "fruit of the poison dossier". Meaning Manafort and Flynn will NEVER see criminal convictions, and will be pardoned if they do. You keep talking like you've seen all of Mueller's investigation notes. If you haven't, how can you be sure that everything comes from the dossier?
Second question, if you're a cop and you get a phone call about an armed robbery in progress three streets over, but when you rush over there you don't find a rape, you find a murder, do you throw up your hands and leave the scene, because you were only looking for a rape?
I'm curious, because Manafort got indicted on money laundering charges, which is something that's been hanging around Manafort for years, way before the election and the dossier. If Manafort was money laundering, but it didn't have anything to do with the election, should he be let go scot free, because Mueller is only supposed to investigate Russian election tampering?
You know, of course, that financial experts also think Trump and the Kusher firm have also been involved in money laundering, especially since they do their banking through Deutche bank, which previously been heavily fined for assisting the Russians in laundering money. If, on the off chance Mueller finds that out (I would never presume to know what Mueller's been finding) would that be an impeachable offense, or must we all ignore it, because Mueller never should have been doing the investigation in the first place, according to you?
Mueller isn't just any street cop, he's a special counsel. The document by Rod Ronstien authorizing the special counsel specifically to investigate Russia meddling in the 2016 election.
I am a professional inspector and work for the federal government. You better believe there are limits to what I can look at in the course of an inspection or investigation. It's the same reason why cops need warrants in the first place. Law enforcement does not have a blanket mandate to butt into your affairs and look at anything they want and keep digging until they find "something."
In the case of the Mueller investigation, he has a specific mandate to investigate Russia meddling in the 2016 election. That's it. He specifically investigate crimes unrelated to that. However, if he happens to find criminal activity unrelated to his authority to investigate, he can turn it over to Ronsteien who can authorize another special counsel, or turn it over to the proper authorities.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 7, 2018 16:38:31 GMT -5
I will completely admit there's no smoking gun proof of this precise claim, which is: The Clinton campaign, the DNC, the Obama administration, and elements of the State Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice, and others conspired to exonerate Hillary Clinton from obvious felonious behavior, and to go on to make sure she was elected President, and that Donald Trump was not. The scheme seems to have shifted to a desperate attempt to remove Trump from office using a false charge that he directly, or his campaign with his direct knowledge, colluded with agents of a hostile foreign government- Russia- to impeach him.
We have absolute proof of certain elements of the plot, and strong circumstantial evidence to support the theory.
On the other hand, we have absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that Trump or anyone associated with Trump colluded with Russia.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 7, 2018 16:45:58 GMT -5
You're missing the point. I don't need to see anything Mueller's illegitimate investigation has turned up. Mueller's investigation is tainted from the word go. All right - so you're the kind of Trump devotee who, should Mueller's investigation find a stash of kiddy porn and a dead hooker in a storage bin only Trump has ever visited, you'll put your fingers in your ears and say 'lalala' so you can't hear a thing about it.
Good to know.
Correct. It's the doctrine of "fruit of the poison tree" and I'm not devoted to Trump but to justice. There are reasons criminals walk when dirty cops abuse their rights. Mueller should not only be fired, but we should appoint a Special Counsel immediately to investigate precisely why he was appointed, and why. If Rosenstein cannot point to, as the law requires, "articulable evidence that a crime had been committed" then Rosenstein should be fired at the very least and further investigation might need to be done to understand if his decision to appoint Mueller was politically motivated, or coordinated with known politicized elements that are indisputably imbedded in the FBI and DOJ. I suspect the I.G. investigation will drive that process. Mueller should also be extensively investigated to discover whether he had political motivations, or coordinated in any way with the known politicized elements within the FBI. I'd specifically like to know Mueller's activities in the year prior to being appointed Special Counsel. And don't forget- we have an FBI informant embedded in the Uranium One deal who has plenty to say about that...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 7, 2018 16:48:50 GMT -5
You keep talking like you've seen all of Mueller's investigation notes. If you haven't, how can you be sure that everything comes from the dossier?
Second question, if you're a cop and you get a phone call about an armed robbery in progress three streets over, but when you rush over there you don't find a rape, you find a murder, do you throw up your hands and leave the scene, because you were only looking for a rape?
I'm curious, because Manafort got indicted on money laundering charges, which is something that's been hanging around Manafort for years, way before the election and the dossier. If Manafort was money laundering, but it didn't have anything to do with the election, should he be let go scot free, because Mueller is only supposed to investigate Russian election tampering?
You know, of course, that financial experts also think Trump and the Kusher firm have also been involved in money laundering, especially since they do their banking through Deutche bank, which previously been heavily fined for assisting the Russians in laundering money. If, on the off chance Mueller finds that out (I would never presume to know what Mueller's been finding) would that be an impeachable offense, or must we all ignore it, because Mueller never should have been doing the investigation in the first place, according to you?
Mueller isn't just any street cop, he's a special counsel. The document by Rod Ronstien authorizing the special counsel specifically to investigate Russia meddling in the 2016 election.
I am a professional inspector and work for the federal government. You better believe there are limits to what I can look at in the course of an inspection or investigation. It's the same reason why cops need warrants in the first place. Law enforcement does not have a blanket mandate to butt into your affairs and look at anything they want and keep digging until they find "something."
In the case of the Mueller investigation, he has a specific mandate to investigate Russia meddling in the 2016 election. That's it. He specifically investigate crimes unrelated to that. However, if he happens to find criminal activity unrelated to his authority to investigate, he can turn it over to Ronsteien who can authorize another special counsel, or turn it over to the proper authorities.
The law is the law. There was no articulable evidence to suggest a crime had been committed. Mueller's limitless probe into whatever he feels like investigating is dangerous. Tell me Mueller's limits? Tell me what he's investigating.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 7, 2018 16:57:47 GMT -5
You're not entitled to know about all of Trump's business dealings- or even ANY of them. Abuse of the FISA court because people want to fish for info is criminal. Here's my problem with the whole Hillary investigation: a principal- Bill Clinton, illegally met with the AG of the US on an airport tarmac to discuss the case. Hillary refused to comply with a subpoena to turn over United States government property-- her communications do not belong to her. She instead chose to "acid wash" and "bleach bit" -- basically SCRUB all of her emails. And just for good measure-- she destroyed devices with hammers. She's a criminal. She's a criminal and she was not prosecuted because she's a high-level politician. Trump's crime? He won and people don't like him. I asked you a point blank question - if Trump had nothing to hide, if there was no collusion, why doesn't he shut up and just let Mueller finish up and give him a gold star for not colluding with the Russians?
This is not the behavior of an innocent person.
You diverted to Hillary last time - want to take another stab at it?
It is really difficult for me to believe that people don't understand what's happening. Buckle up. THIS is the mission:
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 7, 2018 16:58:25 GMT -5
Trump wasn't elected to "shut up" and let the swamp run over us.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,175
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 7, 2018 17:02:27 GMT -5
... In the case of the Mueller investigation, he has a specific mandate to investigate Russia meddling in the 2016 election. That's it. He specifically investigate crimes unrelated to that. However, if he happens to find criminal activity unrelated to his authority to investigate, he can turn it over to Ronsteien who can authorize another special counsel, or turn it over to the proper authorities. ... to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian govemment's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows: (a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice. (b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a). (c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters. (d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel. Rosenstein letter appointing Mueller special counsel.(emphasis added) Here is his "specific mandate" with emphasis which I think counters what is quoted from the previous posting.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 7, 2018 17:12:56 GMT -5
I'll admit we can still barely get away with "They were operating within the ethics and guidelines of their profession.", if we give them the benefittiest benefit of the doubt. If there's anything I don't want coming out of this scandal, it's people being punished for nothing more than thoughtcrime. One theme that comes through strongly in their exchanges is they really have no agency in the investigations they pursue. "Andy" (Mr. McCabe) tells them to investigate Mickey Mouse, they investigate Mickey Mouse. He tell them to shut down the investigation on Donald Duck, they shut down the investigation on Donald Duck. The major decisions are clearly all made above their heads, hence their "save the Republic", "insurance policy", and "secret society" talk doesn't automatically translate into action. If the allusions have any substance to them, it's as the musings of worker bees referring to initiatives run from a higher level. Where I agree with Paul, though, based on the trajectory of the investigation thus far, is I suspect evidence will come out implicating bigger fish like Mr. McCabe, possibly Rosenstein, Comey et al., corroborating the theory that the Strzrok/Page texts are more than figurative language. I think at least one big fish will wind up wearing the "Let's make Ms. Clinton's e-mail scandal go away." scandal, and at least one will take it in the teeth for authorizing wiretaps on Pres. Trump's campaign HQ under FISA Title I. There's no way everyone walks away from that with a shrug and "We were doing it for the good of the nation. Look! Russia! Russia, right behind you! Collusion! I swear!" if the FBI wants to maintain credibility. I don't think Mr. Mueller or Pres. Obama will be swept up in anything. And like pretty much everyone who isn't right of Alex Jones, I agree that removing Mr. Mueller or Mr. McCabe before the Mueller investigation concludes is a recipe for disaster. Granted, I haven't had time to comb through everything, but I wasn't aware there was evidence that Trump, or the Trump campaign itself, was under a FISA warrant.
I thought the warrants targeted Carter Page and Manafort specifically. I don't know enough to say that either of them justified the FISA warrants. But let's assume there was, for the moment - that meant whoever they talked to was incidentally also listened in on. I think that sucks, but I think the whole FISA thing sucks. Maybe if there is one good thing that comes out of this whole mess, it will force us to fix the FISA program. The use of the Title I FISA surveillance is significant. It's apparently the nuclear-strength surveillance option, normally reserved for confirmed spies, traitors, enemies of the state, etc. since it allows surveillance to expand to anyone the principal target has contact with. It's the kind of surveillance you'd use if you believed Mr. Page was about to sell the disarm codes for the US missile defense system to unknown terrorists... or if you wanted a convenient way to spy on everyone he came into contact with, for some other reason. Granted, this characterization of FISA Title I comes from an "expert" via the CTH, who aren't exactly impartial. I haven't seen their claim challenged or debunked anywhere, but for now let's say the operative word in the above paragraph is "apparently".
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,463
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 7, 2018 17:13:25 GMT -5
All right - so you're the kind of Trump devotee who, should Mueller's investigation find a stash of kiddy porn and a dead hooker in a storage bin only Trump has ever visited, you'll put your fingers in your ears and say 'lalala' so you can't hear a thing about it.
Good to know.
Correct. It's the doctrine of "fruit of the poison tree" and I'm not devoted to Trump but to justice. There are reasons criminals walk when dirty cops abuse their rights. Mueller should not only be fired, but we should appoint a Special Counsel immediately to investigate precisely why he was appointed, and why. If Rosenstein cannot point to, as the law requires, "articulable evidence that a crime had been committed" then Rosenstein should be fired at the very least and further investigation might need to be done to understand if his decision to appoint Mueller was politically motivated, or coordinated with known politicized elements that are indisputably imbedded in the FBI and DOJ. I suspect the I.G. investigation will drive that process. Mueller should also be extensively investigated to discover whether he had political motivations, or coordinated in any way with the known politicized elements within the FBI. I'd specifically like to know Mueller's activities in the year prior to being appointed Special Counsel. And don't forget- we have an FBI informant embedded in the Uranium One deal who has plenty to say about that... Can we just stick to the Mueller probe for right now? Maybe start another thread for what you want Hillary and Obama to be charged with?
Before we jump on the band wagon to investigate Mueller, can we wait to see if he actually finds something?
It's very possible he might come back and say there is absolutely no evidence that Trump or anyone on his campaign had anything to do with colluding with the Russians.
He also might come back and say there was no collusion, but hey, ya'll might want to check out how Trump was able to pay cash for his Scotland golf course when golf courses haven't made a profit in years - I'm sliding this stack of paperwork over to the department that handles illegal financial activities (I'm almost willing to bet money on this outcome).
We won't know until Mueller finishes up, right?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,463
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 7, 2018 17:18:11 GMT -5
You keep talking like you've seen all of Mueller's investigation notes. If you haven't, how can you be sure that everything comes from the dossier?
Second question, if you're a cop and you get a phone call about an armed robbery in progress three streets over, but when you rush over there you don't find a rape, you find a murder, do you throw up your hands and leave the scene, because you were only looking for a rape?
I'm curious, because Manafort got indicted on money laundering charges, which is something that's been hanging around Manafort for years, way before the election and the dossier. If Manafort was money laundering, but it didn't have anything to do with the election, should he be let go scot free, because Mueller is only supposed to investigate Russian election tampering?
You know, of course, that financial experts also think Trump and the Kusher firm have also been involved in money laundering, especially since they do their banking through Deutche bank, which previously been heavily fined for assisting the Russians in laundering money. If, on the off chance Mueller finds that out (I would never presume to know what Mueller's been finding) would that be an impeachable offense, or must we all ignore it, because Mueller never should have been doing the investigation in the first place, according to you?
Mueller isn't just any street cop, he's a special counsel. The document by Rod Ronstien authorizing the special counsel specifically to investigate Russia meddling in the 2016 election.
I am a professional inspector and work for the federal government. You better believe there are limits to what I can look at in the course of an inspection or investigation. It's the same reason why cops need warrants in the first place. Law enforcement does not have a blanket mandate to butt into your affairs and look at anything they want and keep digging until they find "something."
In the case of the Mueller investigation, he has a specific mandate to investigate Russia meddling in the 2016 election. That's it. He specifically investigate crimes unrelated to that. However, if he happens to find criminal activity unrelated to his authority to investigate, he can turn it over to Ronsteien who can authorize another special counsel, or turn it over to the proper authorities.
Cool I didn't know you were an investigator for the feds.
I assumed if Mueller did find something financially smarmy with Trump's business activities, he wouldn't just pretend he didn't see it. Makes sense he would boot it down the hall to the smarmy financials room.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 7, 2018 17:24:22 GMT -5
Mueller's authority is almost terrifyingly broad. but that is not his problem.
it is Trump's. and anyone connected with him in a "sketchy" way.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 7, 2018 18:18:36 GMT -5
Mueller isn't just any street cop, he's a special counsel. The document by Rod Ronstien authorizing the special counsel specifically to investigate Russia meddling in the 2016 election.
I am a professional inspector and work for the federal government. You better believe there are limits to what I can look at in the course of an inspection or investigation. It's the same reason why cops need warrants in the first place. Law enforcement does not have a blanket mandate to butt into your affairs and look at anything they want and keep digging until they find "something."
In the case of the Mueller investigation, he has a specific mandate to investigate Russia meddling in the 2016 election. That's it. He specifically investigate crimes unrelated to that. However, if he happens to find criminal activity unrelated to his authority to investigate, he can turn it over to Ronsteien who can authorize another special counsel, or turn it over to the proper authorities.
Cool I didn't know you were an investigator for the feds.
I assumed if Mueller did find something financially smarmy with Trump's business activities, he wouldn't just pretend he didn't see it. Makes sense he would boot it down the hall to the smarmy financials room.
I'm a very specific kind of investigator/regulator. But if I found something on an inspection unrelated to my area of expertise or what I'm authorized to inspect I'd be obligated to turn it over to the Navy IG's office or NCIS for further investigation. DJ is right, the mandate given to Mueller is both broad and specific. It's broad in that he's to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election, and that can lead to any number of things. But it's also specific. He can look into a broad number of things if there's reason to suspect it may have something to do with the Russian meddling in the election, and follow the leads to wherever it may take him, which may involve related crimes. But he can't start looking into other matters unrelated to the Russian meddling just because. As you said, he'd have to kick it up the chain for further investigation. It's a subtle, but important difference.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,821
|
Post by NastyWoman on Feb 7, 2018 19:00:54 GMT -5
Cool I didn't know you were an investigator for the feds.
I assumed if Mueller did find something financially smarmy with Trump's business activities, he wouldn't just pretend he didn't see it. Makes sense he would boot it down the hall to the smarmy financials room.
I'm a very specific kind of investigator/regulator. But if I found something on an inspection unrelated to my area of expertise or what I'm authorized to inspect I'd be obligated to turn it over to the Navy IG's office or NCIS for further investigation. DJ is right, the mandate given to Mueller is both broad and specific. It's broad in that he's to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election, and that can lead to any number of things. But it's also specific. He can look into a broad number of things if there's reason to suspect it may have something to do with the Russian meddling in the election, and follow the leads to wherever it may take him, which may involve related crimes. But he can't start looking into other matters unrelated to the Russian meddling just because. As you said, he'd have to kick it up the chain for further investigation. It's a subtle, but important difference. Now I would never want to be married to BC but, do you mean along the lines of White Water/ Blue Dress? Not that Rebublicans would ever have condoned something like that
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 7, 2018 20:35:31 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,380
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 7, 2018 21:08:21 GMT -5
"Carter Page was born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on June 3, 1971,[5] the son of Allan Robert Page and Rachel (Greenstein) Page.[6][7] His father was from Galway, New York and his mother was from Minneapolis.[8] His father was a manager and executive with the Central Hudson Gas & Electric Company.[9] Page was raised in Poughkeepsie, New York, and graduated from Poughkeepsie's Our Lady of Lourdes High School in 1989.[6] Page graduated in 1993 from the United States Naval Academy; he was a Distinguished Graduate (top 10% of his class) and was chosen for the Navy's Trident Scholar program, which gives selected officers the opportunity for independent academic research and study.[10][11][12]During his senior year at the Naval Academy, he worked as a researcher for the House Armed Services Committee.[13] He served in the U.S. Navy for five years, including a tour in western Morocco as an intelligence officer for a United Nations peacekeeping mission.[13] In 1994, he completed a Master of Arts degree in National Security Studies at Georgetown University.[13]" link
|
|