Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On March 10 2019 02:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: Any argument that involves FISA warrants are a joke. How many warrants have been denied in the entire history of the court? The idea that there was a procedural problem with a rubber stamp court can not be taken seriously.
Go look up the Woods procedure and how it came to be created. If I remember correctly, it showed up during Mueller's tenure at the FBI. In short, it was created because there was concern about law enforcement officials obtaining unlawful FISA warrants in ex parte, non-adversarial proceedings. So the idea was to ensure that all of the information presented to the FISA courts was verified and accurate.
The problem here is that it is becoming increasingly clear that the Carter Page FISA warrant was secured with information that was not verified using the Woods procedures. We know that the Steele dossier was the central component of that application. I believe it was James Baker (it might have been one of the other signatories on the FISA application) who testified that it was a 50/50 proposition at best that the FISA court would have granted the application without it. For the reasons discussed previously, the Steele dossier is almost certainly false. This raises two questions. The first is what did the FBI do to verify the Steele dossier before peddling it to the FISA court. The second question is what else is in the FISA application. Everyone who supports the investigation always talks about these "articulable facts" that are separate from the dossier, but no one in the know ever seems to want to talk about the who, what, when, or why of these "articulable facts." Like I posted yesterday, this suggests to me that these "articulable facts" could be even more dubious than the dossier. But we'll see. Regardless, the fact that the unverified dossier was used in a FISA application is going to create a lot of legal trouble for people.
....the Committee is concerned that the Woods procedures and a full presentment of material and relevant facts may not have occurred with regard to the applications for FISA warrants (and the opening of the underlying investigations on) Carter Page and other individuals associated with the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. Accordingly, the Committee will continue to examine this Congress, as this committe and several other congressional committees did last Congress, potential abuse of the FISA and investigation initiation processes with regard to Carter Page and others associated with the Trump campaign.
And to just close the loop on yesterday's discussion about the problems with the Steele dossier and why it should be considered false at this point, consider the charges and convictions of Manafort, Gates, and Cohen. Each were major players in the dossier. However neither was charged for anything remotely related to the dossier's allegations. I don't think anyone doubts that the FBI and DOJ went to great efforts to corroborate the information in the dossier. Hell, they got FISA warrants. Notwithstanding that, none of the substantive allegations in the dossier regarding those individuals (or Carter Page, for that matter) panned out so as to result in criminal charges. The absence of such charges is absolutely damning to the veracity of the dossier, which raises the very questions that Graham poses in his letter.
Is it not then equally damning that the lasting narrative is not that the investigations were unwarranted, but that there may have been a procedural error about their being allowed (despite the dozens and dozens of reports saying that the FBI had its eyes on Carter Page already)?
Like I said yesterday, we still don't know the true genesis of the investigation. And as for Carter Page in particular, he already had a history of voluntarily cooperating with US intelligence/law enforcement on Russia-related stuff. So I find it unlikely that he ever did anything wrong or was ever legitimately suspected of wrongdoing.
On March 10 2019 02:36 Gorsameth wrote: The entire argument that this is a deep state attack on Trump falls apart by Carter Page having a FISA warrant against him more then a year before Trumped declared he was running and before Page joined his team.
Not really. Different warrants require different justifications.
On March 10 2019 02:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: Any argument that involves FISA warrants are a joke. How many warrants have been denied in the entire history of the court? The idea that there was a procedural problem with a rubber stamp court can not be taken seriously.
Go look up the Woods procedure and how it came to be created. If I remember correctly, it showed up during Mueller's tenure at the FBI. In short, it was created because there was concern about law enforcement officials obtaining unlawful FISA warrants in ex parte, non-adversarial proceedings. So the idea was to ensure that all of the information presented to the FISA courts was verified and accurate.
The problem here is that it is becoming increasingly clear that the Carter Page FISA warrant was secured with information that was not verified using the Woods procedures. We know that the Steele dossier was the central component of that application. I believe it was James Baker (it might have been one of the other signatories on the FISA application) who testified that it was a 50/50 proposition at best that the FISA court would have granted the application without it. For the reasons discussed previously, the Steele dossier is almost certainly false. This raises two questions. The first is what did the FBI do to verify the Steele dossier before peddling it to the FISA court. The second question is what else is in the FISA application. Everyone who supports the investigation always talks about these "articulable facts" that are separate from the dossier, but no one in the know ever seems to want to talk about the who, what, when, or why of these "articulable facts." Like I posted yesterday, this suggests to me that these "articulable facts" could be even more dubious than the dossier. But we'll see. Regardless, the fact that the unverified dossier was used in a FISA application is going to create a lot of legal trouble for people.
Now is this a fact or a matter of opinion on your part? Your links before said that there were "irregularities" with the approval of the warrant, but it's all exerts of secret transcripts that are no doubt skewed to give that appearance. The Steele Dossier being false or true is meaningless sentence. Is the raw intel all true in the Dossier? Almost certainly not, but some of it is true and verified and that probably passes the Woods Procedure. This is probable cause, not a criminal indictment.
Your second point about secret information is more interesting, but that's the reality of a secret court. There can't be transparency to provide accountability in a secret court so you've got to trust the people running it. The FBI and DOJ had that trust when the warrant was issued from my understanding. It wasn't until after the election and Trumps started shouting witch hunt did people lose faith.
But to tie this back to a point you made earlier. If at the end of the day, no charges are ever filed based on the Steel Dossier I think that is more damning of the surveillance state. Question will be is if people actually get behind ending it.
On March 10 2019 02:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: Any argument that involves FISA warrants are a joke. How many warrants have been denied in the entire history of the court? The idea that there was a procedural problem with a rubber stamp court can not be taken seriously.
Go look up the Woods procedure and how it came to be created. If I remember correctly, it showed up during Mueller's tenure at the FBI. In short, it was created because there was concern about law enforcement officials obtaining unlawful FISA warrants in ex parte, non-adversarial proceedings. So the idea was to ensure that all of the information presented to the FISA courts was verified and accurate.
The problem here is that it is becoming increasingly clear that the Carter Page FISA warrant was secured with information that was not verified using the Woods procedures. We know that the Steele dossier was the central component of that application. I believe it was James Baker (it might have been one of the other signatories on the FISA application) who testified that it was a 50/50 proposition at best that the FISA court would have granted the application without it. For the reasons discussed previously, the Steele dossier is almost certainly false. This raises two questions. The first is what did the FBI do to verify the Steele dossier before peddling it to the FISA court. The second question is what else is in the FISA application. Everyone who supports the investigation always talks about these "articulable facts" that are separate from the dossier, but no one in the know ever seems to want to talk about the who, what, when, or why of these "articulable facts." Like I posted yesterday, this suggests to me that these "articulable facts" could be even more dubious than the dossier. But we'll see. Regardless, the fact that the unverified dossier was used in a FISA application is going to create a lot of legal trouble for people.
Now is this a fact or a matter of opinion on your part? Your links before said that there were "irregularities" with the approval of the warrant, but it's all exerts of secret transcripts that are no doubt skewed to give that appearance. The Steele Dossier being false or true is meaningless sentence. Is the raw intel all true in the Dossier? Almost certainly not, but some of it is true and verified and that probably passes the Woods Procedure. This is probable cause, not a criminal indictment.
Your second point about secret information is more interesting, but that's the reality of a secret court. There can't be transparency to provide accountability in a secret court so you've got to trust the people running it. The FBI and DOJ had that trust when the warrant was issued from my understanding. It wasn't until after the election and Trumps started shouting witch hunt did people lose faith.
But to tie this back to a point you made earlier. If at the end of the day, no charges are ever filed based on the Steel Dossier I think that is more damning of the surveillance state. Question will be is if people actually get behind ending it.
Wouldn't be the firs time, we had the Nunes memo after all, that turned out to be a good laugh.
On March 10 2019 02:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: Any argument that involves FISA warrants are a joke. How many warrants have been denied in the entire history of the court? The idea that there was a procedural problem with a rubber stamp court can not be taken seriously.
Go look up the Woods procedure and how it came to be created. If I remember correctly, it showed up during Mueller's tenure at the FBI. In short, it was created because there was concern about law enforcement officials obtaining unlawful FISA warrants in ex parte, non-adversarial proceedings. So the idea was to ensure that all of the information presented to the FISA courts was verified and accurate.
The problem here is that it is becoming increasingly clear that the Carter Page FISA warrant was secured with information that was not verified using the Woods procedures. We know that the Steele dossier was the central component of that application. I believe it was James Baker (it might have been one of the other signatories on the FISA application) who testified that it was a 50/50 proposition at best that the FISA court would have granted the application without it. For the reasons discussed previously, the Steele dossier is almost certainly false. This raises two questions. The first is what did the FBI do to verify the Steele dossier before peddling it to the FISA court. The second question is what else is in the FISA application. Everyone who supports the investigation always talks about these "articulable facts" that are separate from the dossier, but no one in the know ever seems to want to talk about the who, what, when, or why of these "articulable facts." Like I posted yesterday, this suggests to me that these "articulable facts" could be even more dubious than the dossier. But we'll see. Regardless, the fact that the unverified dossier was used in a FISA application is going to create a lot of legal trouble for people.
Now is this a fact or a matter of opinion on your part? Your links before said that there were "irregularities" with the approval of the warrant, but it's all exerts of secret transcripts that are no doubt skewed to give that appearance. The Steele Dossier being false or true is meaningless sentence. Is the raw intel all true in the Dossier? Almost certainly not, but some of it is true and verified and that probably passes the Woods Procedure. This is probable cause, not a criminal indictment.
Your second point about secret information is more interesting, but that's the reality of a secret court. There can't be transparency to provide accountability in a secret court so you've got to trust the people running it. The FBI and DOJ had that trust when the warrant was issued from my understanding. It wasn't until after the election and Trumps started shouting witch hunt did people lose faith.
But to tie this back to a point you made earlier. If at the end of the day, no charges are ever filed based on the Steel Dossier I think that is more damning of the surveillance state. Question will be is if people actually get behind ending it.
That statement is a conclusion of fact based upon the information that I set forth in that post.
You are correct that the entirety of the Steele dossier does not have to be verified. What matters is the extent to which the parts of the dossier that are relied upon by the application to get the warrant are verified. My understanding is that the portions of the dossier dealing with the Prague trip, the Alfabank stuff, and the Manafort narrative were the most important for securing the FISA warrants (as opposed to Trump's alleged golden shower parties). All of that stuff is outright false or substantially false. I suspect that the actual applications will eventually be released once Mueller is done, so we're going to find out what exactly was used and why soon enough.
As for your point about losing trust in the FBI and DOJ as institutions, you are missing the true cause. People aren't losing trust in those institutions because Trump tweets "witch hunt" every other day. People are losing trust in those institutions because they see that FBI and DOJ have done some very bad things. At a bare minimum, the Strozk/Page texts and the antics of Comey and McCabe show horrible, rampant political bias at the nation's most important law enforcement institutions. And that's before we even get into the merits of potential misconduct ranging from leaks to FISA abuse. All of the FBI and DOJ officials that have been fired over the past year or two set the credibility of the FBI and DOJ on fire. Trump has nothing to do with any of that other than highlighting it for the public to see.
On that point, I don't think anyone would argue that the public doesn't need to see and know about this stuff. The mere possibility that the nation's most intrusive surveillance apparatuses could be knowingly and wrongfully directed at private citizens should horrify anyone who cares about civil liberties. Like I said early on when all of this Russia collusion stuff started, there were only two possibilities for what has happened: either Trump unlawfully colluded with Russia or something very bad has been done by our federal government. There isn't a lot of room in between. For this reason, the public needs to know exactly what has happened so as to restore faith in our institutions.
On March 10 2019 02:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: Any argument that involves FISA warrants are a joke. How many warrants have been denied in the entire history of the court? The idea that there was a procedural problem with a rubber stamp court can not be taken seriously.
Go look up the Woods procedure and how it came to be created. If I remember correctly, it showed up during Mueller's tenure at the FBI. In short, it was created because there was concern about law enforcement officials obtaining unlawful FISA warrants in ex parte, non-adversarial proceedings. So the idea was to ensure that all of the information presented to the FISA courts was verified and accurate.
The problem here is that it is becoming increasingly clear that the Carter Page FISA warrant was secured with information that was not verified using the Woods procedures. We know that the Steele dossier was the central component of that application. I believe it was James Baker (it might have been one of the other signatories on the FISA application) who testified that it was a 50/50 proposition at best that the FISA court would have granted the application without it. For the reasons discussed previously, the Steele dossier is almost certainly false. This raises two questions. The first is what did the FBI do to verify the Steele dossier before peddling it to the FISA court. The second question is what else is in the FISA application. Everyone who supports the investigation always talks about these "articulable facts" that are separate from the dossier, but no one in the know ever seems to want to talk about the who, what, when, or why of these "articulable facts." Like I posted yesterday, this suggests to me that these "articulable facts" could be even more dubious than the dossier. But we'll see. Regardless, the fact that the unverified dossier was used in a FISA application is going to create a lot of legal trouble for people.
Now is this a fact or a matter of opinion on your part? Your links before said that there were "irregularities" with the approval of the warrant, but it's all exerts of secret transcripts that are no doubt skewed to give that appearance. The Steele Dossier being false or true is meaningless sentence. Is the raw intel all true in the Dossier? Almost certainly not, but some of it is true and verified and that probably passes the Woods Procedure. This is probable cause, not a criminal indictment.
Your second point about secret information is more interesting, but that's the reality of a secret court. There can't be transparency to provide accountability in a secret court so you've got to trust the people running it. The FBI and DOJ had that trust when the warrant was issued from my understanding. It wasn't until after the election and Trumps started shouting witch hunt did people lose faith.
But to tie this back to a point you made earlier. If at the end of the day, no charges are ever filed based on the Steel Dossier I think that is more damning of the surveillance state. Question will be is if people actually get behind ending it.
Wouldn't be the firs time, we had the Nunes memo after all, that turned out to be a good laugh.
Actually, the Nunes memo has aged quite well. The Democrat memo -- not so much. One inaccuracy of the Democrat memo that immediately comes to mind is the allegation that the FBI did not get Steele's memo until September 2016 thus it did not influence the decision to open the counterintelligence investigation in July 2016. Multiple FBI/DOJ officials have contradicted that.
EDIT: It was Lisa Page who provided the testimony. She says that an FBI agent first received it in July 2016. It's also revealed through questioning that multiple people had it before September 2017, including Brennan, who briefed Harry Reid separately in August. The fact that the dossier is being flooded through multiple channels raises even more questions.
On March 10 2019 02:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: Any argument that involves FISA warrants are a joke. How many warrants have been denied in the entire history of the court? The idea that there was a procedural problem with a rubber stamp court can not be taken seriously.
Go look up the Woods procedure and how it came to be created. If I remember correctly, it showed up during Mueller's tenure at the FBI. In short, it was created because there was concern about law enforcement officials obtaining unlawful FISA warrants in ex parte, non-adversarial proceedings. So the idea was to ensure that all of the information presented to the FISA courts was verified and accurate.
The problem here is that it is becoming increasingly clear that the Carter Page FISA warrant was secured with information that was not verified using the Woods procedures. We know that the Steele dossier was the central component of that application. I believe it was James Baker (it might have been one of the other signatories on the FISA application) who testified that it was a 50/50 proposition at best that the FISA court would have granted the application without it. For the reasons discussed previously, the Steele dossier is almost certainly false. This raises two questions. The first is what did the FBI do to verify the Steele dossier before peddling it to the FISA court. The second question is what else is in the FISA application. Everyone who supports the investigation always talks about these "articulable facts" that are separate from the dossier, but no one in the know ever seems to want to talk about the who, what, when, or why of these "articulable facts." Like I posted yesterday, this suggests to me that these "articulable facts" could be even more dubious than the dossier. But we'll see. Regardless, the fact that the unverified dossier was used in a FISA application is going to create a lot of legal trouble for people.
Now is this a fact or a matter of opinion on your part? Your links before said that there were "irregularities" with the approval of the warrant, but it's all exerts of secret transcripts that are no doubt skewed to give that appearance. The Steele Dossier being false or true is meaningless sentence. Is the raw intel all true in the Dossier? Almost certainly not, but some of it is true and verified and that probably passes the Woods Procedure. This is probable cause, not a criminal indictment.
Your second point about secret information is more interesting, but that's the reality of a secret court. There can't be transparency to provide accountability in a secret court so you've got to trust the people running it. The FBI and DOJ had that trust when the warrant was issued from my understanding. It wasn't until after the election and Trumps started shouting witch hunt did people lose faith.
But to tie this back to a point you made earlier. If at the end of the day, no charges are ever filed based on the Steel Dossier I think that is more damning of the surveillance state. Question will be is if people actually get behind ending it.
That statement is a conclusion of fact based upon the information that I set forth in that post.
You are correct that the entirety of the Steele dossier does not have to be verified. What matters is the extent to which the parts of the dossier that are relied upon by the application to get the warrant are verified. My understanding is that the portions of the dossier dealing with the Prague trip, the Alfabank stuff, and the Manafort narrative were the most important for securing the FISA warrants (as opposed to Trump's alleged golden shower parties). All of that stuff is outright false or substantially false. I suspect that the actual applications will eventually be released once Mueller is done, so we're going to find out what exactly was used and why soon enough.
As for your point about losing trust in the FBI and DOJ as institutions, you are missing the true cause. People aren't losing trust in those institutions because Trump tweets "witch hunt" every other day. People are losing trust in those institutions because they see that FBI and DOJ have done some very bad things. At a bare minimum, the Strozk/Page texts and the antics of Comey and McCabe show horrible, rampant political bias at the nation's most important law enforcement institutions. And that's before we even get into the merits of potential misconduct ranging from leaks to FISA abuse. All of the FBI and DOJ officials that have been fired over the past year or two set the credibility of the FBI and DOJ on fire. Trump has nothing to do with any of that other than highlighting it for the public to see.
On that point, I don't think anyone would argue that the public doesn't need to see and know about this stuff. The mere possibility that the nation's most intrusive surveillance apparatuses could be knowingly and wrongfully directed at private citizens should horrify anyone who cares about civil liberties. Like I said early on when all of this Russia collusion stuff started, there were only two possibilities for what has happened: either Trump unlawfully colluded with Russia or something very bad has been done by our federal government. There isn't a lot of room in between. For this reason, the public needs to know exactly what has happened so as to restore faith in our institutions.
My opinion has always been that the FISA court is a rubber stamp so that bar can't not be met. The government found some data that allowed them to surveil and will continue to do so. I would caution your use of substantially false though as that is justification for searches all the time in America.
The entire history is riddled with very bad things. The fact that officials are getting fired and held accountable for those bad decisions is actually a step in the right direction. The biggest problems with institutions is that it is better to cover things up and have them never discovered than hold people accountable. Firing people might not be my ideal outcome, but it's certainly better than what has happened in the past. The institution that never makes mistakes is the one you should be worried the most about.
Trump is selling access to his administration through mar a logo and the trump DC hotel. The evidence is abundant. The con on his voters that this represents is pretty astounding. Bold faced lies, right to his supporters' faces. I hope this is part of nadlers investigation.
A Florida Massage Parlor Owner Has Been Selling Chinese Execs Access to Trump at Mar-a-Lago
"Though Yang no longer owns the spa Kraft allegedly visited, the newspaper noted that other massage parlors her family runs have “gained a reputation for offering sexual services.” (She told the newspaper she has never violated the law.) Beyond this sordid tale, there is another angle to the strange story of Yang: She runs an investment business that has offered to sell Chinese clients access to Trump and his family. And a website for the business—which includes numerous photos of Yang and her purported clients hobnobbing at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s private club in Palm Beach—suggests she had some success in doing so."
On March 07 2019 08:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Ok, I actually believe you don't understand what to be communist is, and you have confused it with an authoritarian form of government.
And what dare I ask do you think a communist is for the sake of conversation?
Normally, you would offer what you would think to be communist is, before asking what another person thinks to be communist is, but I suppose that we can assume by your lack of rebuttal, that my assumption that you you have confused the word "communist" with authoritarian government is correct.
I would say that the best way to describe a communist government as regards to a country would be to how its economy works. In relation to a capitalist economy, private ownership and private enterprise is banned, and only state or collective ownership is legal. Everybody would be in essense government employed, working in the public sector. Details may vary. China has many (usd) billionaires from private enterprises. A great proportion of the economy and people would be earning and working for private companies. Possibly more that state enterprises, I can't say for sure, because it is China, but whatever it is, it is certainly enough that China cannot be called communist. There is a free market. It exists. It is absurd that a country with a stock market, with a possible housing and investment bubble can be called a communist country.
Now its your turn Sermakola, as I don't want to play a game of "that isn't what I said, and I have unreservedly answered your question, though by your refusal to offer your own it can be inferred that my inference was correct, I do dare to ask you what you think a communist is, for the sake of conversation of course.
Ok I'm going to assume the best and go with you had a stroke.
You already asked me what I think a communist government is and/or why I think china is communist.
Then I posted this is response.
On March 07 2019 07:28 Sermokala wrote:
On March 07 2019 06:58 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On March 07 2019 03:41 youngjiddle wrote:
On March 07 2019 03:27 Excludos wrote:
On March 07 2019 03:16 youngjiddle wrote:
On March 07 2019 03:11 Excludos wrote:
On March 07 2019 03:02 youngjiddle wrote:
On March 07 2019 02:57 Excludos wrote: [quote]
Oh it is, much much less, but it's not zero. So while it might be a lesser evil, it's definitively still an evil which needs to be replaced at some point.
I like those why are attempting to keep themselves in line with the EU directive for carbon neutrality at 2050, but I suspect you're going to need someone with some real driving force on the subject to stand any kind of chance against the majority of companies who simply doesn't give a shit other than their short term profits. And you're going to need it sooner than later. Another Trump won't do, obviously, but I'm not even certain another Obama would be enough.
I think the idea of opening natural gas plants right now is just so that they can close coal ones...
Transitions take time, and it's meant to bridge the gap between lots of carbon emissions and pure renewable energy.
Meanwhile, China is STILL building coal factories. And they are trying to hide it from the media.
It's not all bad in China. They are building coal plants, which undeniably is bad, but they're also making absolutely enormous strides towards becoming greener on a national scale. I'm not well versed enough in Chinese politics to know how much power local provinces has to ignore national directives, but it's suggested that these new coal plants are set up as a short term solution to keeping the local economy ticking, more than an actual needed power source.
I would be very skeptical about what China is saying about their push for green energy. Check out this video,
I didn't see all of it but I get the gist. It's difficult to know honestly. I would suspect people who are researching this area is doing a better job than just taking the Chinese government's word for granted, and these two guys are more on the anecdotal level than national or statistical one. However if it turns out that it's true, then I would definitively appreciate some pressure on China to lower their greenhouse gasses. That would be a more reasonable justifications for tariffs than "I'm starting a trade war because they're easy to win".
Lets just say I am concerned with the promises that an increasingly communist country is making, a country that is also in a bubble.
China's fall will be harsh.
How exactly is China increasingly communist? A bubble is basically a capitalist phenomenon, be it tulips, or dotcom, or construction.
On March 07 2019 04:07 Sermokala wrote: The real issue with china and their green energy initiative runs into the buzzsaw that is their strange and frankly broken government. They have a mix of communism and federalism that feeds into insane levels of corruption and structural incompetence that is kept rolling through the will of the party and the momentum the country has established. It doesn't matter really what the government in Beijing wants when most of the country will act its its own short term best intrest. God help them when the peoples 70 year lease to the land beneath them starts to creep closer to it reverting back to the government.
Which part is it that you consider communist? State control and authoritarianism isn't the same thing as communism. Though I agree they have an insane level of corruption, they appear to be generally competent, at least when it come to their "federal" projects.
When I say federalism I mean it in its literal term as in the different levels of government being responsible for increasingly narrow jurisdictions. In the chinese state this manifests as governors and down being selected by the national congress. However this then works in reverse as the national congress is selected in a rather complicated method of elections that is at its core has the electors organized into groups to make their vote.
Its impossible to say what china really is when you take into account all of the differences in the laws they've carved out to allow capitalism in. What are special economic zones really? They're under commune elected state control but have the capitalist freedoms of a western country.
ANYWAY. Those "federal" projects are indeed legit it seems from everything I have seen. the real issue is what comes at the more local level. Stuff like the south china mall until recently and the apartment buildings that end up being little more then a series of concrete coffins so that people can buy their "third home".
I'm not going to tell you that I even 70% understand the chinese election system but at the end of the day the communist party controls the super majority of the seats and has always done. If you can't trust that they at least belive that they are comunist then I don't know what to judge things.
Then you posted
On March 07 2019 08:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Ok, I actually believe you don't understand what to be communist is, and you have confused it with an authoritarian form of government.
This is your rebuttle. You don't think china is communist, rather authoritarian. Now being those things don't contradict each other I asked you what you think a communist government is.
On March 07 2019 08:19 Sermokala wrote:
On March 07 2019 08:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Ok, I actually believe you don't understand what to be communist is, and you have confused it with an authoritarian form of government.
And what dare I ask do you think a communist is for the sake of conversation?
This is the last of the conversation before your post so I hope you can understand how baffling and infuriating it is when you decide to snark about how I'm not offering what I think a communist government is. I asked you that question. I already answered that question and you responded, even going so far as to offer what you think our point of disagreement is.
You bring up points that I already brought up and have been responded to not just by me but by other people in the thread. This is "Your posts don't have anything to do with even your own posts", I genuinely don't think you read your own posts let alone anyone else's.
This is what I get for engaging you in good faith. To be said to have a stroke. It is my fault I suppose as you are so predictable. What you posted is not an answer to what you think a communist government is, as most of it is how you think the Communist party in China works, none of which has anything to do with communism, but rather authoritarianism. Unless... your argument is that the ruling party has communist in the name, in which case that would be a one sentence answer, and one is left wondering why you wrote so much about something else, and in any case can be dismissed by the reasoning that by assuming the best and go with you didn't had a stroke and don't genuinely think that China is communist because of a name. "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Its not that I'm denying your good faith its that I'm denying that you're engaging with me, the thread, and yourself. You can't just make statements like "I think you're confusing communism with authoritarianism." And then refuse to elaborate on how that makes sense at all. I said you had a stroke beacuse theres no other way to really explain what just happened.
I mean if anything that I described is a republic when Rome being a republic elected representatives through the use of organized groups. Essentially China doing the same thing but in a bottom up-then down method is still fairly Republican.
The rest of my post was elaborating on if China was really communist. Despite having private businesses be illegal They've opened a flurry of zones where it is legal. Its only at the very end that I joked about them calling themselves communist. But that ending bit seems to be the only part that you've read. You didn't read the posts responding to my post from other people saying the same things without the communist name part. You even didn't read the post you yourself made accepting my argument and explaining what you think I got wrong.
The only way this conversation moves forward is if you explain the difference between communism and authoritarianism and how I got it wrong in my post just like how conversations work with everyone else in the thread.
....the Committee is concerned that the Woods procedures and a full presentment of material and relevant facts may not have occurred with regard to the applications for FISA warrants (and the opening of the underlying investigations on) Carter Page and other individuals associated with the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. Accordingly, the Committee will continue to examine this Congress, as this committe and several other congressional committees did last Congress, potential abuse of the FISA and investigation initiation processes with regard to Carter Page and others associated with the Trump campaign.
And to just close the loop on yesterday's discussion about the problems with the Steele dossier and why it should be considered false at this point, consider the charges and convictions of Manafort, Gates, and Cohen. Each were major players in the dossier. However neither was charged for anything remotely related to the dossier's allegations. I don't think anyone doubts that the FBI and DOJ went to great efforts to corroborate the information in the dossier. Hell, they got FISA warrants. Notwithstanding that, none of the substantive allegations in the dossier regarding those individuals (or Carter Page, for that matter) panned out so as to result in criminal charges. The absence of such charges is absolutely damning to the veracity of the dossier, which raises the very questions that Graham poses in his letter.
Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion. Maybe some things can be true and yet hard to prove. And as I'm sure you know, speculative arguments in court are often a detriment, not additional evidence on the scale.
....the Committee is concerned that the Woods procedures and a full presentment of material and relevant facts may not have occurred with regard to the applications for FISA warrants (and the opening of the underlying investigations on) Carter Page and other individuals associated with the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. Accordingly, the Committee will continue to examine this Congress, as this committe and several other congressional committees did last Congress, potential abuse of the FISA and investigation initiation processes with regard to Carter Page and others associated with the Trump campaign.
And to just close the loop on yesterday's discussion about the problems with the Steele dossier and why it should be considered false at this point, consider the charges and convictions of Manafort, Gates, and Cohen. Each were major players in the dossier. However neither was charged for anything remotely related to the dossier's allegations. I don't think anyone doubts that the FBI and DOJ went to great efforts to corroborate the information in the dossier. Hell, they got FISA warrants. Notwithstanding that, none of the substantive allegations in the dossier regarding those individuals (or Carter Page, for that matter) panned out so as to result in criminal charges. The absence of such charges is absolutely damning to the veracity of the dossier, which raises the very questions that Graham poses in his letter.
Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion. Maybe some things can be true and yet hard to prove. And as I'm sure you know, speculative arguments in court are often a detriment, not additional evidence on the scale.
Not that I really care one way or another.
If Trump has done something illegal, then he should be prosecuted within the bounds of the law. What should not be tolerated, however, is the use of state law enforcement apparatuses to investigate a man in search of a crime.
....the Committee is concerned that the Woods procedures and a full presentment of material and relevant facts may not have occurred with regard to the applications for FISA warrants (and the opening of the underlying investigations on) Carter Page and other individuals associated with the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. Accordingly, the Committee will continue to examine this Congress, as this committe and several other congressional committees did last Congress, potential abuse of the FISA and investigation initiation processes with regard to Carter Page and others associated with the Trump campaign.
And to just close the loop on yesterday's discussion about the problems with the Steele dossier and why it should be considered false at this point, consider the charges and convictions of Manafort, Gates, and Cohen. Each were major players in the dossier. However neither was charged for anything remotely related to the dossier's allegations. I don't think anyone doubts that the FBI and DOJ went to great efforts to corroborate the information in the dossier. Hell, they got FISA warrants. Notwithstanding that, none of the substantive allegations in the dossier regarding those individuals (or Carter Page, for that matter) panned out so as to result in criminal charges. The absence of such charges is absolutely damning to the veracity of the dossier, which raises the very questions that Graham poses in his letter.
Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion. Maybe some things can be true and yet hard to prove. And as I'm sure you know, speculative arguments in court are often a detriment, not additional evidence on the scale.
Not that I really care one way or another.
If Trump has done something illegal, then he should be prosecuted within the bounds of the law. What should not be tolerated, however, is the use of state law enforcement apparatuses to investigate a man in search of a crime.
But short of a criminal conviction you would never agree that Trump has done something illegal. An investigation cannot come after the conviction.
No Kwark, you've got it all wrong. He should only be investigated AFTER he's been convicted of crimes. And of course he can never be convicted of a crime if nobody investigates. So therefore, Trump didn't commit any crimes.
It's perfect logic if you don't want your guy to go to jail and have to admit that you've been backing a criminal this whole time.
Let's not pretend the real issue isn't acting on appropriate levels of evidence. If the State has no evidence to warrant an investigation, then they shouldn't be investigating for partisan reasons. On the other hand, if the State has sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation, then the investigation makes sense.
....the Committee is concerned that the Woods procedures and a full presentment of material and relevant facts may not have occurred with regard to the applications for FISA warrants (and the opening of the underlying investigations on) Carter Page and other individuals associated with the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. Accordingly, the Committee will continue to examine this Congress, as this committe and several other congressional committees did last Congress, potential abuse of the FISA and investigation initiation processes with regard to Carter Page and others associated with the Trump campaign.
And to just close the loop on yesterday's discussion about the problems with the Steele dossier and why it should be considered false at this point, consider the charges and convictions of Manafort, Gates, and Cohen. Each were major players in the dossier. However neither was charged for anything remotely related to the dossier's allegations. I don't think anyone doubts that the FBI and DOJ went to great efforts to corroborate the information in the dossier. Hell, they got FISA warrants. Notwithstanding that, none of the substantive allegations in the dossier regarding those individuals (or Carter Page, for that matter) panned out so as to result in criminal charges. The absence of such charges is absolutely damning to the veracity of the dossier, which raises the very questions that Graham poses in his letter.
Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion. Maybe some things can be true and yet hard to prove. And as I'm sure you know, speculative arguments in court are often a detriment, not additional evidence on the scale.
Not that I really care one way or another.
If Trump has done something illegal, then he should be prosecuted within the bounds of the law. What should not be tolerated, however, is the use of state law enforcement apparatuses to investigate a man in search of a crime.
But short of a criminal conviction you would never agree that Trump has done something illegal. An investigation cannot come after the conviction.
Don’t be ridiculous. I said “within the bounds of the law.” That necessarily means there has to be probable cause for an investigation, not a conviction.
....the Committee is concerned that the Woods procedures and a full presentment of material and relevant facts may not have occurred with regard to the applications for FISA warrants (and the opening of the underlying investigations on) Carter Page and other individuals associated with the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. Accordingly, the Committee will continue to examine this Congress, as this committe and several other congressional committees did last Congress, potential abuse of the FISA and investigation initiation processes with regard to Carter Page and others associated with the Trump campaign.
And to just close the loop on yesterday's discussion about the problems with the Steele dossier and why it should be considered false at this point, consider the charges and convictions of Manafort, Gates, and Cohen. Each were major players in the dossier. However neither was charged for anything remotely related to the dossier's allegations. I don't think anyone doubts that the FBI and DOJ went to great efforts to corroborate the information in the dossier. Hell, they got FISA warrants. Notwithstanding that, none of the substantive allegations in the dossier regarding those individuals (or Carter Page, for that matter) panned out so as to result in criminal charges. The absence of such charges is absolutely damning to the veracity of the dossier, which raises the very questions that Graham poses in his letter.
Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion. Maybe some things can be true and yet hard to prove. And as I'm sure you know, speculative arguments in court are often a detriment, not additional evidence on the scale.
Not that I really care one way or another.
If Trump has done something illegal, then he should be prosecuted within the bounds of the law. What should not be tolerated, however, is the use of state law enforcement apparatuses to investigate a man in search of a crime.
But short of a criminal conviction you would never agree that Trump has done something illegal. An investigation cannot come after the conviction.
Don’t be ridiculous. I said “within the bounds of the law.” That necessarily means there has to be probable cause for an investigation, not a conviction.
You prefaced it with the condition “if he has done something illegal”, a condition you would not accept has been met without a conviction.
....the Committee is concerned that the Woods procedures and a full presentment of material and relevant facts may not have occurred with regard to the applications for FISA warrants (and the opening of the underlying investigations on) Carter Page and other individuals associated with the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. Accordingly, the Committee will continue to examine this Congress, as this committe and several other congressional committees did last Congress, potential abuse of the FISA and investigation initiation processes with regard to Carter Page and others associated with the Trump campaign.
And to just close the loop on yesterday's discussion about the problems with the Steele dossier and why it should be considered false at this point, consider the charges and convictions of Manafort, Gates, and Cohen. Each were major players in the dossier. However neither was charged for anything remotely related to the dossier's allegations. I don't think anyone doubts that the FBI and DOJ went to great efforts to corroborate the information in the dossier. Hell, they got FISA warrants. Notwithstanding that, none of the substantive allegations in the dossier regarding those individuals (or Carter Page, for that matter) panned out so as to result in criminal charges. The absence of such charges is absolutely damning to the veracity of the dossier, which raises the very questions that Graham poses in his letter.
Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion. Maybe some things can be true and yet hard to prove. And as I'm sure you know, speculative arguments in court are often a detriment, not additional evidence on the scale.
Not that I really care one way or another.
If Trump has done something illegal, then he should be prosecuted within the bounds of the law. What should not be tolerated, however, is the use of state law enforcement apparatuses to investigate a man in search of a crime.
But short of a criminal conviction you would never agree that Trump has done something illegal. An investigation cannot come after the conviction.
Don’t be ridiculous. I said “within the bounds of the law.” That necessarily means there has to be probable cause for an investigation, not a conviction.
Isn't is almost confirmed that he violated campaign finance laws multiple times? By Trump himself? Or are those non-actionable?
....the Committee is concerned that the Woods procedures and a full presentment of material and relevant facts may not have occurred with regard to the applications for FISA warrants (and the opening of the underlying investigations on) Carter Page and other individuals associated with the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. Accordingly, the Committee will continue to examine this Congress, as this committe and several other congressional committees did last Congress, potential abuse of the FISA and investigation initiation processes with regard to Carter Page and others associated with the Trump campaign.
And to just close the loop on yesterday's discussion about the problems with the Steele dossier and why it should be considered false at this point, consider the charges and convictions of Manafort, Gates, and Cohen. Each were major players in the dossier. However neither was charged for anything remotely related to the dossier's allegations. I don't think anyone doubts that the FBI and DOJ went to great efforts to corroborate the information in the dossier. Hell, they got FISA warrants. Notwithstanding that, none of the substantive allegations in the dossier regarding those individuals (or Carter Page, for that matter) panned out so as to result in criminal charges. The absence of such charges is absolutely damning to the veracity of the dossier, which raises the very questions that Graham poses in his letter.
Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion. Maybe some things can be true and yet hard to prove. And as I'm sure you know, speculative arguments in court are often a detriment, not additional evidence on the scale.
Not that I really care one way or another.
If Trump has done something illegal, then he should be prosecuted within the bounds of the law. What should not be tolerated, however, is the use of state law enforcement apparatuses to investigate a man in search of a crime.
But short of a criminal conviction you would never agree that Trump has done something illegal. An investigation cannot come after the conviction.
Don’t be ridiculous. I said “within the bounds of the law.” That necessarily means there has to be probable cause for an investigation, not a conviction.
Isn't is almost confirmed that he violated campaign finance laws multiple times? By Trump himself? Or are those non-actionable?
Which violations? The pornstar payoffs? Though those are highly unlikely to be illegal, I don’t really have a problem with the FEC doing whatever investigation it feels it needs to do. They certainly don’t justify something like a FISA warrant, however.
EPT
