Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-14-2019, 09:59 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,644

Barr appoints U.S. attorney John Durham to investigate the investigation


Quote:
Attorney General William Barr has asked the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, John Durham, to review the origins of the Russia investigation, a source familiar with the assignment confirmed to CBS News on Monday.

In congressional testimony last month about the release of special counsel Robert Mueller's report on the Russia probe, Barr expressed concern about the possibility of "improper surveillance" of the Trump campaign.

Durham, according to the source, has been tasked by Barr with ensuring that the U.S. government's intelligence collection efforts related to the Trump campaign -- leading up to President Trump's 2017 inauguration -- were both lawful and appropriate.

CBS News
Of course #MAGA Twitter is positively delirious at this news, as they feel it's a foregone conclusion that Mueller, Comey, and Hillary Clinton will be led off in chains any day now and gee, it's sure about time.
  #2  
Old 05-14-2019, 10:19 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,180
I'm sure Bill Barr will release his four page summary about Oct 27, 2020 and that the summary will say: "Hillary! Emails! Benghazi! Fast and Furious! Spying!" and a few more bumper stickers.
  #3  
Old 05-14-2019, 10:50 AM
Mundane Super Hero is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 31
A bumper sticker slogan? I'm sure by then the summaries will be much shorter.


.
Justice Kavanaugh - "Bud"

.

AG Barr - "Wise"

.

Rudy Giuliani - "Errr..."
  #4  
Old 05-14-2019, 11:14 AM
Horatius is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,081
I for one hope this will be as successful as Trump's investigation into voter fraud was!
  #5  
Old 05-14-2019, 11:27 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,035
I look forward to the eventual investigation into the investigation into the investigation.
  #6  
Old 05-14-2019, 11:30 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
I for one hope this will be as successful as Trump's investigation into voter fraud was!
That would be my guess. Start with a whole bunch of fan fair and hoopla, and then quietly close when they don't find anything.
  #7  
Old 05-14-2019, 11:57 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,825
The US government was caught red-handed spying on at least one political campaign and coordinating with a foreign spook who sought to undermine the campaign. I would hope there was an investigation. Not a good look.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 05-14-2019 at 12:01 PM.
  #8  
Old 05-14-2019, 12:34 PM
1060westaddison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Chicagoish
Posts: 18
Funny, I thought administration's line was that the investigation resulted in a "Complete and total exoneration." You'd think Trump would be sending Comey, Mueller, etc. fruit baskets to thank them for proving how innocent he is. White House claims total and complete exoneration after Mueller report
  #9  
Old 05-14-2019, 12:36 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
The US government was caught red-handed spying on at least one political campaign and coordinating with a foreign spook who sought to undermine the campaign.
None of that is an accurate description of events.
  #10  
Old 05-14-2019, 02:45 PM
Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I'm sure Bill Barr will release his four page summary about Oct 27, 2020 and that the summary will say: "Hillary! Emails! Benghazi! Fast and Furious! Spying!" and a few more bumper stickers.
You left out "Biden/Sanders/Harris" or whoever the Dem candidate is.
  #11  
Old 05-14-2019, 02:53 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,777
Well, when you look around this great big nation of ours, and all the experienced investigators and attorneys out there, I suppose there's not a single person more qualified than the one who twice cleared the CIA of any wrongdoing in its torture policies.
  #12  
Old 05-14-2019, 07:08 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,503
The FBI wasn't spying on the trump campaign. They were conducting investigations into the activities of Russia. trump campaign folks just kept wandering in and out of the pictures.
  #13  
Old 05-14-2019, 07:11 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
The US government was caught red-handed spying on at least one political campaign and coordinating with a foreign spook who sought to undermine the campaign. I would hope there was an investigation. Not a good look.
Law enforcement is supposed to spy on criminals.

Trump is under 29 separate investigations right now, and those are just the ones we know of (Mueller, for example, recommended 14 cases to outside prosecutors but only 2 of those cases are public).

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...tigations.html
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 05-14-2019 at 07:13 PM.
  #14  
Old 05-14-2019, 07:35 PM
jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
The US government was caught red-handed spying on at least one political campaign and coordinating with a foreign spook who sought to undermine the campaign. I would hope there was an investigation. Not a good look.
So, there were lots of investigations...If not for the FBI investigating Anthony Weiner's weiner, we wouldn't have the Grand Weiner in the White House.

You guys should be praising the FBI (and Comey in particular) to high-heaven since their actions in disclosing the investigation of the additional Clinton e-mails found while investigating Weiner's weiner while staying mum about the Trump investigations is what got the Grand Weiner elected.
  #15  
Old 05-14-2019, 10:28 PM
jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 37,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
None of that is an accurate description of events.
Are you surprised?
  #16  
Old 05-15-2019, 07:10 AM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 964
All this is is a bunch of CRIMINALS wanting to make it look as though they were hard done by. What a complete and utter crock.
  #17  
Old 05-15-2019, 07:40 AM
Horatius is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,081
For those complaining about "The US government ... spying on at least one political campaign", answer this:

If some element of the US government (FBI, CIA, whoever) somehow came into possession of credible evidence that a political campaign was being targeted by a foreign power, and that some members of that campaign might even be actively cooperating with the foreign power, what, exactly, do YOU think they should have done about it? What actions should they take? What actions could they take that wouldn't have someone, somewhere complaining about them "trying to affect the election"?


Completely aside from the issue of Trump, and whether or not his campaign should have been investigated, one thing we know for sure from the Mueller report is that Russia was absolutely trying to influence the last election. There's no reason to think they're going to stop for the next election, so this isn't a purely academic question. At some point, someone in the US government is probably going to have evidence that points to foreign influence in the 2020 election, so what should they do about it?
  #18  
Old 05-15-2019, 11:30 AM
furt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: College Park, MD
Posts: 9,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
For those complaining about "The US government ... spying on at least one political campaign", answer this:

If some element of the US government (FBI, CIA, whoever) somehow came into possession of credible evidence that a political campaign was being targeted by a foreign power, and that some members of that campaign might even be actively cooperating with the foreign power, what, exactly, do YOU think they should have done about it? What actions should they take? What actions could they take that wouldn't have someone, somewhere complaining about them "trying to affect the election"?


Completely aside from the issue of Trump, and whether or not his campaign should have been investigated, one thing we know for sure from the Mueller report is that Russia was absolutely trying to influence the last election. There's no reason to think they're going to stop for the next election, so this isn't a purely academic question. At some point, someone in the US government is probably going to have evidence that points to foreign influence in the 2020 election, so what should they do about it?
If there is credible evidence of an attempt to influence an election, they should investigate. But you are conflating two very different things.

1) The Russian attempts at meddling, which at this point no reasonable and informed person can deny existed. They did it before 2016, they will do it in the future, and countermeasures should be taken.

2) The claim that Trump or his surrogates cooperated, wittingly or unwittingly with the Russians, which at this point no reasonable and informed person can claim actually occured.

Democrats have used the first to insinuate the second, Trump the second to deny the first, both for political ends.

If there was indeed credible evidence for the second, of course they should have investigated. But it is far from clear that there ever was. The purpose of Barr/Durham's inquiries is to determine if the FBI and others were doing wiretaps and running informants based on information they already knew was *not* credible, as well as if other laws and rules were followed (e.g. possible false statements in court filings, etc)

If Robert Barr thinks there is a real possibility that high-level people in federal law enforcement were running surveillance operations on a political campaign based on information they knew or suspected was false -- and which was admittedly sourced from Russian intelligence! -- what should he do about it?
  #19  
Old 05-15-2019, 11:41 AM
Tatterdemalion is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by furt View Post
2) The claim that Trump or his surrogates cooperated, wittingly or unwittingly with the Russians, which at this point no reasonable and informed person can claim actually occured.
?
I don't see how you can deny that this occurred. The Mueller report goes into quite a bit of detail about how people close to and paid by and related to Trump did in fact seek co-operation with the Russians.
  #20  
Old 05-15-2019, 11:42 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,803
Not in the Barr summary did they!
  #21  
Old 05-15-2019, 11:56 AM
Tatterdemalion is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 590
He must be a Fox viewer.
  #22  
Old 05-15-2019, 11:59 AM
Horatius is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by furt View Post
2) The claim that Trump or his surrogates cooperated, wittingly or unwittingly with the Russians, which at this point no reasonable and informed person can claim actually occurred.

...

If there was indeed credible evidence for the second, of course they should have investigated. But it is far from clear that there ever was. The purpose of Barr/Durham's inquiries is to determine if the FBI and others were doing wiretaps and running informants based on information they already knew was *not* credible, as well as if other laws and rules were followed (e.g. possible false statements in court filings, etc)

And that's the fundamental problem. It is clear that there was evidence of such.


Quote:
On or about May 10, 2016, at London's Kensington Wine Rooms, Papadopoulos allegedly told the top Australian diplomat to the United Kingdom, Alexander Downer, that Russia was in possession of emails relating to Hillary Clinton. In July, after the DNC hacking had become known, the Australians told U.S. authorities about Papadopoulos's comment, leading the Federal Bureau of Investigation to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Donald Trump presidential campaign on July 31, 2016.[28][39]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...ntial_campaign

Quote:
According to reports, Australian officials informed American officials that in May 2016, a Trump presidential campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, told the Australian High Commissioner to Britain, Alexander Downer, that Russian officials were in possession of politically damaging information relating to Hillary Clinton, the rival presidential candidate to Trump. Since the FBI, in response to this information, opened an investigation into the links between Trump associates and Russian officials on July 31, 2016, the meeting between Papadopoulos and Downer is considered to be the 'spark' that led to the Mueller investigation.[65] In February 2018, the Nunes memo, written by staff for U.S. Representative Devin Nunes, described that the information on Papadopoulos "triggered the opening of" the original FBI investigation,[66] rather than the Trump-Russia dossier as asserted by, among others, Trump, Nunes, Fox News hosts Steve Doocy, Ed Henry, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Fox News contributor Andrew McCarthy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specia...gin_and_powers


Now, sure, ultimately the investigation showed that they didn't actually follow through on any of the attempts by Russia to collude with them, but absent that investigation, there's no way we could have known that. The investigation was a perfectly reasonable response to the information they had at the time.

And the fact that they eventually absolved Trump et al. of culpability is proof that it was not a politically motivated witch hunt as Trump et al. have been asserting for years now.



Quote:
If Robert Barr thinks there is a real possibility that high-level people in federal law enforcement were running surveillance operations on a political campaign based on information they knew or suspected was false -- and which was admittedly sourced from Russian intelligence! -- what should he do about it?

If he thinks that, then he should absolutely carry out an investigation. The problem is, there's no way his belief is reasonable. He's already shown a willingness to lie about this case, and there's no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point.
  #23  
Old 05-15-2019, 12:35 PM
enipla is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
And the fact that they eventually absolved Trump et al. of culpability is proof that it was not a politically motivated witch hunt as Trump et al. have been asserting for years now.
Um. They have not been absolved. If you try to conspire to commit a crime but the crime fails. It's still the crime of conspiracy.

Not to mention not alerting the FBI about being approached by the Russians in the first place.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #24  
Old 05-15-2019, 12:50 PM
Horatius is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
Um. They have not been absolved. If you try to conspire to commit a crime but the crime fails. It's still the crime of conspiracy.

Not to mention not alerting the FBI about being approached by the Russians in the first place.

I understand what you mean, but ultimately, Mueller did conclude the evidence wasn't enough to support a charge on the original conspiracy accusations. There's still enough other stuff that Trump et al. are clearly guilty of that I figure we should focus on that.

But my main issue is with the "no reason to even investigate" claim, which is clearly false. There were a lot of sketchy things going on, and a whole lot of them at least looked like collusion, and any reasonable person should have supported the investigation on that basis alone, regardless of what they might think of the ultimate conclusions.
  #25  
Old 05-15-2019, 01:08 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatterdemalion View Post
I don't see how you can deny that this occurred. The Mueller report goes into quite a bit of detail about how people close to and paid by and related to Trump did in fact seek co-operation with the Russians.
Congratulations! furt can now safely move you out of the "reasonable and informed person" category!
  #26  
Old 05-15-2019, 01:17 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
Um. They have not been absolved. If you try to conspire to commit a crime but the crime fails. It's still the crime of conspiracy.

Not to mention not alerting the FBI about being approached by the Russians in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
For those complaining about "The US government ... spying on at least one political campaign", answer this:

If some element of the US government (FBI, CIA, whoever) somehow came into possession of credible evidence that a political campaign was being targeted by a foreign power, and that some members of that campaign might even be actively cooperating with the foreign power, what, exactly, do YOU think they should have done about it? What actions should they take? What actions could they take that wouldn't have someone, somewhere complaining about them "trying to affect the election"?


Completely aside from the issue of Trump, and whether or not his campaign should have been investigated, one thing we know for sure from the Mueller report is that Russia was absolutely trying to influence the last election. There's no reason to think they're going to stop for the next election, so this isn't a purely academic question. At some point, someone in the US government is probably going to have evidence that points to foreign influence in the 2020 election, so what should they do about it?
Weíll see how the Russophobes react when Barr unleashes the spooks onto the Biden campaign ostensibly for his Ukrainian cronyism or Bernie Sanders for his wacky past.

Also, the Clinton campaign conspired with a foreign spook, the US spooks knew this, yet no investigation.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 05-15-2019 at 01:20 PM.
  #27  
Old 05-15-2019, 01:20 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
We’ll see how the Russophobes react when Barr unleashes the spooks onto the Biden campaign ostensibly for his Ukrainian cronyism or Bernie Sanders for his wacky past.
So you do approve of using these investigations for political purposes, just not when you think its against "your guy".... got it.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 05-15-2019 at 01:22 PM.
  #28  
Old 05-15-2019, 01:25 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,803
"Also, the Clinton campaign conspired with a foreign spook, the US spooks knew this, yet no investigation."

Sounds spooky! Tell me more!
  #29  
Old 05-15-2019, 01:29 PM
enipla is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
I understand what you mean, but ultimately, Mueller did conclude the evidence wasn't enough to support a charge on the original conspiracy accusations. There's still enough other stuff that Trump et al. are clearly guilty of that I figure we should focus on that.

But my main issue is with the "no reason to even investigate" claim, which is clearly false. There were a lot of sketchy things going on, and a whole lot of them at least looked like collusion, and any reasonable person should have supported the investigation on that basis alone, regardless of what they might think of the ultimate conclusions.
I thought it was mostly Mueller didn't indite because you can't (so it seems) indite a sitting President.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #30  
Old 05-15-2019, 01:31 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
So you do approve of using these investigations for political purposes, just not when you think its against "your guy".... got it.
No I think it’s rather sordid, but it is an expected behavior of states. My vantage point as a nonpartisan observer allows me to see the hypocrisy and mirror images.

I have explained in the past that the election of Trump is proof of the decline of the US regime. No spy apparatus worth its salt would allow for the election of someone so grotesque as to undermine the perceived legitimacy of the state itself. The Dulles brothers would be rolling over in their grave. The US state used to attract competent elites. Now we are left with the Brennans, Clappers, and Pompeos.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 05-15-2019 at 01:34 PM.
  #31  
Old 05-15-2019, 01:37 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
I thought it was mostly Mueller didn't indite because you can't (so it seems) indite a sitting President.
You may have been confused by Maddow. Mueller didnít indict for collusion/conspiracy/coordination because there was none. He had other reasons for not indicting on other charges.
  #32  
Old 05-15-2019, 02:04 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
You may have been confused by Maddow. Mueller didnít indict for collusion/conspiracy/coordination because there was none. He had other reasons for not indicting on other charges.
I think it's more correct to say that they couldn't uncover sufficient evidence because of all the lying and obstruction going on, for which there have been several successful prosecutions, and I think more in the works.
  #33  
Old 05-15-2019, 02:34 PM
Horatius is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
I thought it was mostly Mueller didn't indite because you can't (so it seems) indite a sitting President.


That was for the issue of the obstruction of justice. It's quite clear to anyone not a GOP partisan that Trump is guilty as hell of obstruction, and that Mueller referred those charges to Congress because of the DOJ policy on Presidents as you mention.

But, as discussed above, the collusion charges were not supported by adequate evidence. The reasons for the lack of evidence can be argued, but Mueller's conclusion is pretty clear.
  #34  
Old 05-15-2019, 02:41 PM
guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
You may have been confused by Maddow. Mueller didnít indict for collusion/conspiracy/coordination because there was none.
You may have been confused by poor reading skills. It doesn't say "there was none." It says they couldn't show enough evidence to bring a charge, which is not the same thing:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Report
Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.
One reason, (as RitterSport notes), is that
Quote:
Originally Posted by Report
The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office's judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information-such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media-in light of internal Depaptment of Justice policies. See, e.g. , Justice Manualßß 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter ( or "taint") team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well-numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I think it's more correct to say that they couldn't uncover sufficient evidence because of all the lying and obstruction going on, for which there have been several successful prosecutions, and I think more in the works.
I agree there's a likelihood that indeed, technically they didn't conspire. Maybe they were just too incompetent. Or maybe they knew that they just didn't need to. It wasn't necessary, because the Russians did it all on their own.
  #35  
Old 05-15-2019, 03:45 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
We’ll see how the Russophobes react when Barr unleashes the spooks onto the Biden campaign ostensibly for his Ukrainian cronyism or Bernie Sanders for his wacky past.

Also, the Clinton campaign conspired with a foreign spook, the US spooks knew this, yet no investigation.
Heres the thing about the left. We don't care if you investigate our politicians. We don't want our politicians to be above the law. The right does. Its a rather worrysome situation where the right has been taken over by neofascists who hate the rule of law.

But by all means, if Sanders, Biden, Clinton, etc. have actually broken the law feel free to investigate them. Nobody should be above the rule of law.

The fact that right wingers expect our side to think the rule of law is just a partisan tool rather than a necessary tenet of civilized democracy is just projection and very worrysome because it shows how little respect they have for the rule of law. The hatred for democracy and all it stands for (rule of law, free and fair elections, transparency, a free media, independent judiciary, etc) seen in the modern right in the US is very worrysome and something the rest of us need to take very serious.

Also how did Clinton conspire with a foreign spook? She hired an ex MI6 agent to research Trump's treasonous behavior. That is like saying police officers who work undercover in gang operations should be prosecuted for being gang members. Since when is investigating a crime a crime itself?

Muellers investigation led to 14 cases being handed off to other prosecutors. Only 2 of those cases are public, the other 12 are still redacted. An investigation leading to 14 different criminal investigations is not a witchhunt. It only appears to be a witchhunt to neofascists who hate modern democracy and the rule of law and think the police should be there to terrorize their enemies and protect their friends.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 05-15-2019 at 03:49 PM.
  #36  
Old 05-15-2019, 03:54 PM
ataraxy22's Avatar
ataraxy22 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Congratulations! furt can now safely move you out of the "reasonable and informed person" category!
Seriously! It's pretty damn obvious to reasonable people that Trump and Russian assets collaborated.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
  #37  
Old 05-15-2019, 03:58 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Also how did Clinton conspire with a foreign spook? She hired an ex MI6 agent to research Trump's treasonous behavior.
No; she did not. Please stop spreading false narratives.
  #38  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:24 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
No; she did not. Please stop spreading false narratives.
It was my understanding that Fusion GPS hired Chris Steele (ex MI6 agent with a lot of experience in Russia) to look into Trump's Russia ties. WHat he found was so disturbing that he kept up the research even after he stopped getting paid.

My understanding is that both the Jeb Bush & Clinton campaigns funded the research.

Is that info wrong?
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #39  
Old 05-15-2019, 06:27 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
It was my understanding that Fusion GPS hired Chris Steele (ex MI6 agent with a lot of experience in Russia) to look into Trump's Russia ties. WHat he found was so disturbing that he kept up the research even after he stopped getting paid.

My understanding is that both the Jeb Bush & Clinton campaigns funded the research.

Is that info wrong?
Why don't you first tell me all the things wrong with the statement I said was false? Because now you're changing what you said (by adding details and clarifiers).

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 05-15-2019 at 06:29 PM.
  #40  
Old 05-15-2019, 06:37 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,697
That doesn't make sense.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 05-15-2019 at 06:38 PM.
  #41  
Old 05-15-2019, 07:22 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I think it's more correct to say that they couldn't uncover sufficient evidence because of all the lying and obstruction going on, for which there have been several successful prosecutions, and I think more in the works.
Yes Trump and the gang are master criminals who can cover tracks and keep secrets from the most powerful and invasive spying apparatus in world history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post

Also how did Clinton conspire with a foreign spook? She hired an ex MI6 agent to research Trump's treasonous behavior. That is like saying police officers who work undercover in gang operations should be prosecuted for being gang members. Since when is investigating a crime a crime itself?
Didnít say it was a crime. The poster believed the investigation of the Trump campaign was justified because of alleged ties to Russian intelligence (via Papadopolous). I simply pointed out that the US govt was very aware of Clinton ties to British intelligence, yet no investigation into those ties is warranted?
  #42  
Old 05-15-2019, 08:13 PM
Horatius is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Yes Trump and the gang are master criminals who can cover tracks and keep secrets from the most powerful and invasive spying apparatus in world history.

Did you even read the report where they detailed why the evidence wasn't available?


Quote:
Didnít say it was a crime. The poster believed the investigation of the Trump campaign was justified because of alleged ties to Russian intelligence (via Papadopolous). I simply pointed out that the US govt was very aware of Clinton ties to British intelligence, yet no investigation into those ties is warranted?

Go ahead, investigate it. But if you really can't see why one person being associated with a hostile foreign power could or would be treated differently from another person being associated with one of the US's most trusted allies, there's literally no hope for you.
  #43  
Old 05-15-2019, 08:43 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
That doesn't make sense.
What doesn't make sense, Wesley?

Here's what you need to know: Bill Barr is Trump's attorney. The message that he is sending is that the FBI works for Trump. Federal law enforcement, with its vast powers, works for Trump. It not only won't prosecute him and his allies for their misdeeds, they will prosecute their enemies for their trumped up (no pun intended) "misdeeds".

We are in the beginning stages of an authoritarian government. Impeachment won't stop him. Not even a defeat in the presidential election will stop him. Only a landslide loss will do that. And I am telling you now: he will not lose a landslide defeat unless there is a major disaster that the country blames him for.

People's Republic of Trump Land. Get used to it, bro.
  #44  
Old 05-15-2019, 09:32 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
What doesn't make sense, Wesley?

Here's what you need to know: Bill Barr is Trump's attorney. The message that he is sending is that the FBI works for Trump. Federal law enforcement, with its vast powers, works for Trump. It not only won't prosecute him and his allies for their misdeeds, they will prosecute their enemies for their trumped up (no pun intended) "misdeeds".

We are in the beginning stages of an authoritarian government. Impeachment won't stop him. Not even a defeat in the presidential election will stop him. Only a landslide loss will do that. And I am telling you now: he will not lose a landslide defeat unless there is a major disaster that the country blames him for.

People's Republic of Trump Land. Get used to it, bro.
What doesn't make sense is for Bo to say I'm wrong for saying Clinton helped pay for the russia investigation, then saying I was 'adding clarifiers' because I explained why she actually did that. If I'm wrong someone is free to explain why.

I agree with you about Trump. The GOPs hatred for democracy is a feature, not a bug. Virtually all white people who score high on authoritarianism are republicans now, which means their party is very prone to neofascism.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/o...-contract.html

Even a loss in a landslide (which will not happen) won't curtail the GOP's war on democracy. It'll just make them double down on voter suppression and gerrymandering.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #45  
Old 05-16-2019, 04:57 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Did you even read the report where they detailed why the evidence wasn't available?





Go ahead, investigate it. But if you really can't see why one person being associated with a hostile foreign power could or would be treated differently from another person being associated with one of the US's most trusted allies, there's literally no hope for you.
So the problem is not manipulation of the election, but who is doing the manipulation. I suggest the Russia hawks be more honest about this and stop resorting to sanctimony about our precious democracy being violated.
  #46  
Old 05-16-2019, 06:07 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Yes Trump and the gang are master criminals who can cover tracks and keep secrets from the most powerful and invasive spying apparatus in world history....
I didn't engage you with sarcasm -- why are you doing this? Is it because you don't have a good argument?

I didn't say they were criminals. I didn't say there was sufficient evidence, and in fact I said the opposite. What i said was that there was so much obstruction that the Mueller team couldn't make a determination, which is what the Mueller team said (see guizot's post above). Anyone can thwart an investigation if they are willing to go to jail for obstruction of justice by lying or pleading the fifth, which is exactly what happened.

Do you have a substantive response or more sarcasm? Because if it's more sarcasm, I won't bother coming back.
  #47  
Old 05-16-2019, 07:18 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I didn't engage you with sarcasm -- why are you doing this? Is it because you don't have a good argument?
Have you met Will?
  #48  
Old 05-16-2019, 08:04 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,151
I'm just tired of snarky, uncited responses in the debate forums here. So, I'm doing my best to keep my responses level and free of sarcasm (with the exception of obvious joke responses), providing cites where necessary, and asking those I engage with to do the same. Otherwise, the debate forums just start to feel like the Pit.
  #49  
Old 05-16-2019, 08:20 AM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 964
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
What doesn't make sense, Wesley?

Here's what you need to know: Bill Barr is Trump's attorney. The message that he is sending is that the FBI works for Trump. Federal law enforcement, with its vast powers, works for Trump. It not only won't prosecute him and his allies for their misdeeds, they will prosecute their enemies for their trumped up (no pun intended) "misdeeds".

We are in the beginning stages of an authoritarian government. Impeachment won't stop him. Not even a defeat in the presidential election will stop him. Only a landslide loss will do that. And I am telling you now: he will not lose a landslide defeat unless there is a major disaster that the country blames him for.

People's Republic of Trump Land. Get used to it, bro.
As much as I hate to type this: I think this is absolutely correct.
  #50  
Old 05-16-2019, 09:33 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I didn't engage you with sarcasm -- why are you doing this? Is it because you don't have a good argument?

I didn't say they were criminals. I didn't say there was sufficient evidence, and in fact I said the opposite. What i said was that there was so much obstruction that the Mueller team couldn't make a determination, which is what the Mueller team said (see guizot's post above). Anyone can thwart an investigation if they are willing to go to jail for obstruction of justice by lying or pleading the fifth, which is exactly what happened.

Do you have a substantive response or more sarcasm? Because if it's more sarcasm, I won't bother coming back.
1) Lying or pleading the fifth does not make hard evidence go away.

2) If there was coordination between the Russian govt and the Trump campaign there would be hard evidence.

3)If there was hard evidence, the US spy apparatus would have captured it since they were spying on the campaign for quite a while.

4) If the spy apparatus captured hard evidence, Mueller would have disclosed it or it would have leaked through a Trump-hating spook.

Which of these do you dispute?

I do note an authoritarian tendency to denounce the act of pleading the fifth as “obstruction”. Very sad.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 05-16-2019 at 09:34 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017