|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 06 2018 07:46 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
How would this potentially affect Steele coming to the US to testify as a witness or speak to Mueller directly?
If at all then this is just plain obstruction clear as day.
Which would dispel those notions of this being anything but a partisan witch-hunt rather fast.
And if there was any semblance of balance in the system, if the Republicans gave a single **** about investigating troubling issues (as opposed to just power), Sessions would be in the damn frying pan right now.
But it is much more important to haul in a foreign intelligence agent than it is to be concerned about your own Attorney General's troubling memory issues when you have a coup d'etat to pull off.
Drawing equivalences between these things of totally different scale (by justifying this out of nowhere investigation on someone of minimal impact for provision of information the FBI can independently verify anyway when it potentially obstructs a serious investigation into the current POTUS) is a seriously low tactic to bring to the table.
I was unaware you had such a low opinion of the investigators that one investigation "potentially obstructs" another. Chill out. You can parrot your victory on either "Steele didn't make false statements to authorities" or "Hillary Clinton did not engage in pay-to-play schemes through her foundation while Secretary of State" when all is said and done.
Just because someone with a (D) falls under suspicion doesn't mean it's "plain obstruction clear as day." It's testimony, not throwing key witnesses in dungeons for pete's sake.
|
On January 06 2018 07:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2018 07:32 hunts wrote:On January 06 2018 07:21 Danglars wrote:They are running an investigation. Is Mueller God or something? Is he the only divine being able to discover things and follow up on them? We don't need constant reminders that elements of Trump's opposition are just as delusional as /r/The_Donald in dismissing investigations as partisan witch hunts. Wait, maybe we do need that reminder. So you're fine with the cons using shitty criminal "investigations" as a tool against their opponents? I mean I guess it's not surprising given your stance on Hillary and Ben Ghazi, but still. Let's see. Is this the part when you say "as a tool against their opponents" and automatically it can't possibly be "the Clinton Foundation had its own shady shit worth investigating?" Her foundation might not be as lily-white as you think.
If Clinton had a single stain that could be used to land actual charges, it'd have been found about 5 investigations or so ago.
She has been the subject of how many of the damn things by now?
What would your reaction be, honestly, if after this investigation closes, at a time when Trump is not president, another volley of them are started against Trump with politically convenient timing? And then another? You know, like has happened to Hillary time and again?
You'd flip your ****.
|
On January 06 2018 08:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2018 07:46 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
How would this potentially affect Steele coming to the US to testify as a witness or speak to Mueller directly?
If at all then this is just plain obstruction clear as day.
Which would dispel those notions of this being anything but a partisan witch-hunt rather fast.
And if there was any semblance of balance in the system, if the Republicans gave a single **** about investigating troubling issues (as opposed to just power), Sessions would be in the damn frying pan right now.
But it is much more important to haul in a foreign intelligence agent than it is to be concerned about your own Attorney General's troubling memory issues when you have a coup d'etat to pull off.
Drawing equivalences between these things of totally different scale (by justifying this out of nowhere investigation on someone of minimal impact for provision of information the FBI can independently verify anyway when it potentially obstructs a serious investigation into the current POTUS) is a seriously low tactic to bring to the table. I was unaware you had such a low opinion of the investigators that one investigation "potentially obstructs" another. Chill out. You can parrot your victory on either "Steele didn't make false statements to authorities" or "Hillary Clinton did not engage in pay-to-play schemes through her foundation while Secretary of State" when all is said and done. Just because someone with a (D) falls under suspicion doesn't mean it's "plain obstruction clear as day." It's testimony, not throwing key witnesses in dungeons for pete's sake.
"you can parrot your victory on either" X or Y? come on Danglars all these labored constructions are just as laborious to read. how about a Hemingway week of minimalist constructions?
|
On January 06 2018 07:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2018 07:32 hunts wrote:On January 06 2018 07:21 Danglars wrote:They are running an investigation. Is Mueller God or something? Is he the only divine being able to discover things and follow up on them? We don't need constant reminders that elements of Trump's opposition are just as delusional as /r/The_Donald in dismissing investigations as partisan witch hunts. Wait, maybe we do need that reminder. So you're fine with the cons using shitty criminal "investigations" as a tool against their opponents? I mean I guess it's not surprising given your stance on Hillary and Ben Ghazi, but still. Let's see. Is this the part when you say "as a tool against their opponents" and automatically it can't possibly be "the Clinton Foundation had its own shady shit worth investigating?" Her foundation might not be as lily-white as you think.
Do you have any idea how many times the Clinton foundation has been investigated already? But sure pull the typical republican hack move and change everything to "but clinton". This isn't about Clinton or her foundation of her emails. This is about trump and the Republican hacks using fraudulent criminal investigations as a tool against anyone they don't like and as a distraction from their trason.
|
We will see if anything comes of any Congressional referrals for criminal investigations. The DOJ and FBI can be trusted to be independent, I think. If the referral (which comes in the context of Republican focus on the dossier which in general is pretty transparently partisan) has no merit, it'll be thrown in the trash.
|
On January 06 2018 08:05 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2018 07:55 Danglars wrote:On January 06 2018 07:32 hunts wrote:On January 06 2018 07:21 Danglars wrote:They are running an investigation. Is Mueller God or something? Is he the only divine being able to discover things and follow up on them? We don't need constant reminders that elements of Trump's opposition are just as delusional as /r/The_Donald in dismissing investigations as partisan witch hunts. Wait, maybe we do need that reminder. So you're fine with the cons using shitty criminal "investigations" as a tool against their opponents? I mean I guess it's not surprising given your stance on Hillary and Ben Ghazi, but still. Let's see. Is this the part when you say "as a tool against their opponents" and automatically it can't possibly be "the Clinton Foundation had its own shady shit worth investigating?" Her foundation might not be as lily-white as you think. If Clinton had a single stain that could be used to land actual charges, it'd have been found about 5 investigations or so ago. She has been the subject of how many of the damn things by now? What would your reaction be, honestly, if after this investigation closes, at a time when Trump is not president, another volley of them are started against Trump with politically convenient timing? And then another? You know, like has happened to Hillary time and again? You'd flip your ****.
If they're starting this new one without a "single stain," they'll have you and your cohorts slamming them when the investigation wraps up having found nothing and started with nothing. You think the FBI & Justice Department would love that fallout or something?
|
On January 06 2018 08:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2018 08:02 Danglars wrote:On January 06 2018 07:46 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
How would this potentially affect Steele coming to the US to testify as a witness or speak to Mueller directly?
If at all then this is just plain obstruction clear as day.
Which would dispel those notions of this being anything but a partisan witch-hunt rather fast.
And if there was any semblance of balance in the system, if the Republicans gave a single **** about investigating troubling issues (as opposed to just power), Sessions would be in the damn frying pan right now.
But it is much more important to haul in a foreign intelligence agent than it is to be concerned about your own Attorney General's troubling memory issues when you have a coup d'etat to pull off.
Drawing equivalences between these things of totally different scale (by justifying this out of nowhere investigation on someone of minimal impact for provision of information the FBI can independently verify anyway when it potentially obstructs a serious investigation into the current POTUS) is a seriously low tactic to bring to the table. I was unaware you had such a low opinion of the investigators that one investigation "potentially obstructs" another. Chill out. You can parrot your victory on either "Steele didn't make false statements to authorities" or "Hillary Clinton did not engage in pay-to-play schemes through her foundation while Secretary of State" when all is said and done. Just because someone with a (D) falls under suspicion doesn't mean it's "plain obstruction clear as day." It's testimony, not throwing key witnesses in dungeons for pete's sake. "you can parrot your victory on either" X or Y? come on Danglars all these labored constructions are just as laborious to read. how about a Hemingway week of minimalist constructions?
I'm giving him license to annoyingly repeat his conquest should the investigations have no merit. You should know by now that awkward constructions are one of my hallmarks. It's like my form of your capitalization style.
|
On January 06 2018 09:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2018 08:05 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 06 2018 07:55 Danglars wrote:On January 06 2018 07:32 hunts wrote:On January 06 2018 07:21 Danglars wrote:They are running an investigation. Is Mueller God or something? Is he the only divine being able to discover things and follow up on them? We don't need constant reminders that elements of Trump's opposition are just as delusional as /r/The_Donald in dismissing investigations as partisan witch hunts. Wait, maybe we do need that reminder. So you're fine with the cons using shitty criminal "investigations" as a tool against their opponents? I mean I guess it's not surprising given your stance on Hillary and Ben Ghazi, but still. Let's see. Is this the part when you say "as a tool against their opponents" and automatically it can't possibly be "the Clinton Foundation had its own shady shit worth investigating?" Her foundation might not be as lily-white as you think. If Clinton had a single stain that could be used to land actual charges, it'd have been found about 5 investigations or so ago. She has been the subject of how many of the damn things by now? What would your reaction be, honestly, if after this investigation closes, at a time when Trump is not president, another volley of them are started against Trump with politically convenient timing? And then another? You know, like has happened to Hillary time and again? You'd flip your ****. If they're starting this new one without a "single stain," they'll have you and your cohorts slamming them when the investigation wraps up having found nothing and started with nothing. You think the FBI & Justice Department would love that fallout or something?
"You snd your cohorts" but if they waste more taxpayer money investigating the clintons, starting with nothing and ending with nothing, you will say "good effort guys, I'm sure you'll find something in the next 10 investigations into the clintons" right?
|
On January 06 2018 09:45 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2018 09:30 Danglars wrote:On January 06 2018 08:05 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 06 2018 07:55 Danglars wrote:On January 06 2018 07:32 hunts wrote:On January 06 2018 07:21 Danglars wrote:They are running an investigation. Is Mueller God or something? Is he the only divine being able to discover things and follow up on them? We don't need constant reminders that elements of Trump's opposition are just as delusional as /r/The_Donald in dismissing investigations as partisan witch hunts. Wait, maybe we do need that reminder. So you're fine with the cons using shitty criminal "investigations" as a tool against their opponents? I mean I guess it's not surprising given your stance on Hillary and Ben Ghazi, but still. Let's see. Is this the part when you say "as a tool against their opponents" and automatically it can't possibly be "the Clinton Foundation had its own shady shit worth investigating?" Her foundation might not be as lily-white as you think. If Clinton had a single stain that could be used to land actual charges, it'd have been found about 5 investigations or so ago. She has been the subject of how many of the damn things by now? What would your reaction be, honestly, if after this investigation closes, at a time when Trump is not president, another volley of them are started against Trump with politically convenient timing? And then another? You know, like has happened to Hillary time and again? You'd flip your ****. If they're starting this new one without a "single stain," they'll have you and your cohorts slamming them when the investigation wraps up having found nothing and started with nothing. You think the FBI & Justice Department would love that fallout or something? "You snd your cohorts" but if they waste more taxpayer money investigating the clintons, starting with nothing and ending with nothing, you will say "good effort guys, I'm sure you'll find something in the next 10 investigations into the clintons" right?
An inspector general investigation would be warranted to find out if these are restarted on actual evidence of wrongdoing. He looks at who they're interviewing and why and see if these are in the routine course of investigation or politically motivated. I don't want political persecutions and I also don't want some organizations being too hot too touch when new evidence or whistle-blowers or whatever come up. That would be a terrible precedent for organizations as well.
|
But you were saying something along the lines of the investigations into trumps collusion with russia are too much and shouldn't be happening because they won't bring up ahything, weren't you? Or am I thinking of someone else?
|
On January 06 2018 10:24 hunts wrote:
But you were saying something along the lines of the investigations into trumps collusion with russia are too much and shouldn't be happening because they won't bring up ahything, weren't you? Or am I thinking of someone else?
I don't really know what you're referring too. I want the Mueller investigation to drag out any payoffs or financial corruption with the Kremlin if they exist.
|
Danglars, there is a world of difference between an investigation into people in power for possible crimes and the people in power starting an investigation into the people who ran against them.
|
If the DoJ wants to investigate somebody, they will. They don't need letters of recommendation. They're investigating the Clinton Foundation, which I think is a good thing, really. It's just not fucking good for any politician to be surrounding themselves in foreign money. So many bullshit allegations levied at the Clintons over the decades from the GOP BS machine, that when something finally worth investigating comes up, most people are just going to roll their eyes.
I highly doubt the DoJ is going to investigate a now world-famous MI6 officer simply because two Republicans told them to. If there is a reason to actually criminally investigate an MI6 officer, the DoJ will decide that completely for themselves and apolitically. They don't need a Senator's letter.
For Graham and Grassley to publicize an attack with political-biases on a foreign-ally intel-officer is pretty fucking stupid, but I don't think they really care about anything anymore. They both have had a completely schizo Jekyll-Hyde transformation in their attitude towards Trump. It's hard to imagine this stuff plays to anyone but the Republican bubble, and that's all they're interested in. Hell with the world, they just want their Danglars and xDaunt.
The Republicans are fighting hard against the court of public-opinion the past few weeks. But shortly before all this, 4 of Trump's campaign officials were indicted on various charges, with some of them pleading-out. And another indictment or verdict will completely obscure whatever stunts the Republicans feel like showcasing. And that's going to be happen relatively soon, I'm guessing in a very big way.
|
On January 06 2018 11:27 Kyadytim wrote:
Danglars, there is a world of difference between an investigation into people in power for possible crimes and the people in power starting an investigation into the people who ran against them.
I mean for the types of people bitching about them, it certainly matters.
I already wrote to hold the officials accountable for starting/renewing investigations based on evidence. Other than that, shouldn't your framing of both types be in the pursuit of justice? Like it doesn't matter if you ran against somebody in a race, you're still not immune from whistle-blowers, credible allegations, company slip-ups? You're taking some big leaps to abuse of power before any of us know why the investigation was restarted.
|
And when the investigation come up empty will you admit that the Republicans just wasted s bunch of taxpayer money on yet another bullshit investigation of a political rival? And that all the Republicans in favor of this investigation are crying wolf over nothing?
|
On January 06 2018 12:15 Leporello wrote:
If the DoJ wants to investigate somebody, they will. They don't need letters of recommendation. They're investigating the Clinton Foundation, which I think is a good thing, really. It's just not fucking good for any politician to be surrounding themselves in foreign money. So many bullshit allegations levied at the Clintons over the decades from the GOP BS machine, that when something finally worth investigating comes up, most people are just going to roll their eyes.
I highly doubt the DoJ is going to investigate a now world-famous MI6 officer simply because two Republicans told them to. If there is a reason to actually criminally investigate an MI6 officer, the DoJ will decide that completely for themselves and apolitically. They don't need a Senator's letter.
For Graham and Grassley to publicize an attack with political-biases on a foreign-ally intel-officer is pretty fucking stupid, but I don't think they really care about anything anymore. They both have had a completely schizo Jekyll-Hyde transformation in their attitude towards Trump. It's hard to imagine this stuff plays to anyone but the Republican bubble, and that's all they're interested in. Hell with the world, they just want their Danglars and xDaunt.
The Republicans are fighting hard against the court of public-opinion the past few weeks. But shortly before all this, 4 of Trump's campaign officials were indicted on various charges, with some of them pleading-out. And another indictment or verdict will completely obscure whatever stunts the Republicans feel like showcasing. And that's going to be happen relatively soon, I'm guessing in a very big way.
True, their letter is probably just a publicity stunt. They didn't tell the DOJ and FBI anything they didn't already know. Republicans in Congress seemed to be engaged in a publicity campaign against the Mueller investigation.
|
On January 06 2018 12:52 hunts wrote:
And when the investigation come up empty will you admit that the Republicans just wasted s bunch of taxpayer money on yet another bullshit investigation of a political rival? And that all the Republicans in favor of this investigation are crying wolf over nothing?
If the IG investigation of the investigation's motivations/evidence/pursuit-of-crime comes up empty? I'll call it a waste of time and money.
We don't know the reason why the investigation was reopened. It might leak in the future, but no clue. You can't really cry wolf when you don't have any information to go off of. Hell, we don't even know when the probe began (leak about probe this week, one source says it's been going on for months now). It's way too early to dismiss it as political partisanship and go off comparing to banana republics and stuff (the real crying wolf if you ask me).
If somebody connected says x large donor was rewarded with unprecedented access to the Obama State Department, then I expect the FBI to evaluate that source and ask around.
|
Actually, the more I think about, the more brilliant and enthusiastic I feel about the DoJ targetting Clinton.
This is a solution to a major problem. You can't properly remove and disgrace Trump like you would Nixon. People are more politically entrenched. You can't leave the GOP in a crater, even if they really, really, really fucking deserve it. It would create a level of chaos. We have, imo, in this country, a brainwashed, nationalistic political cult that is infatuated with guns and violence and religion, and they've bought into Trump.
Mueller, DoJ, et al, have to be mindful of the ramifications of essentially destroying the GOP's cult leader. And yet Trump is clearly a problem. So what do you do?
Well, you'd look for an opportunity to prosecute a major Democrat at the same time. Who bigger, better, more hated, than the Clintons?
It will drive some liberals and Democrats crazy to see Clintons being targeted while Trump is President. But, sadly, yes, that is the point (and also I just think that there's too much money there for a Secretary of State, like, she might actually be guilty of something). It will also help make the Republicans not lose their delicate minds that Trump is also targeted. It could even be a moment of nation-healing or some shit.
edit: just a theory, but I think a good one.
|
On January 06 2018 13:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2018 12:52 hunts wrote:
And when the investigation come up empty will you admit that the Republicans just wasted s bunch of taxpayer money on yet another bullshit investigation of a political rival? And that all the Republicans in favor of this investigation are crying wolf over nothing? If the IG investigation of the investigation's motivations/evidence/pursuit-of-crime comes up empty? I'll call it a waste of time and money. We don't know the reason why the investigation was reopened. It might leak in the future, but no clue. You can't really cry wolf when you don't have any information to go off of. Hell, we don't even know when the probe began (leak about probe this week, one source says it's been going on for months now). It's way too early to dismiss it as political partisanship and go off comparing to banana republics and stuff (the real crying wolf if you ask me). If somebody connected says x large donor was rewarded with unprecedented access to the Obama State Department, then I expect the FBI to evaluate that source and ask around.
So then what's your opinion on all thr Ben Ghazi incestigains? Would you say they were worthwhile?
|
On January 06 2018 13:58 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2018 13:04 Danglars wrote:On January 06 2018 12:52 hunts wrote:
And when the investigation come up empty will you admit that the Republicans just wasted s bunch of taxpayer money on yet another bullshit investigation of a political rival? And that all the Republicans in favor of this investigation are crying wolf over nothing? If the IG investigation of the investigation's motivations/evidence/pursuit-of-crime comes up empty? I'll call it a waste of time and money. We don't know the reason why the investigation was reopened. It might leak in the future, but no clue. You can't really cry wolf when you don't have any information to go off of. Hell, we don't even know when the probe began (leak about probe this week, one source says it's been going on for months now). It's way too early to dismiss it as political partisanship and go off comparing to banana republics and stuff (the real crying wolf if you ask me). If somebody connected says x large donor was rewarded with unprecedented access to the Obama State Department, then I expect the FBI to evaluate that source and ask around. So then what's your opinion on all thr Ben Ghazi incestigains? Would you say they were worthwhile?
The hearings were grandstanding bullshit. The surrounding investigations should've been quicker affairs. That much is obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
