Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
ml1 said:
I suppose. If you like a version of Groundhog Day without the funny stuff.
drummerboy said:
this is more interesting than Paul's discourse.
ml1 said:
it's funny. I woke up in the year 2018, but somehow it appears that a mystical power has yanked me back to 2016.
Horowitz is not a version of Groundhog day, as you and the rest of us will find out in the near future. At that point you may or may not want to go back a lot further than 2016.
nohero said:
Mr. Cramer shared excerpts from Twitter where journalist Marcy Wheeler responded to your repeating of Mueller smears, and properly labeled you as the "McCarthyist".
She was making a play on the fact that I had just posted a link to Andrew McCarthy. Duh.
nohero said:
I don't think there's any need to discuss whether you have an opinion on whether Mueller should stay on the job or not.
So you admit that you made a false allegation against me.
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
ml1 said:
you're slicing the baloney awful thin here.
That assumes that a FISA court should be a Kangaroo court.
Edited to Add: Do you really believe the FBI "was speculating" about Glen Simpson's objective?
your argument is inherently contradictory. On the one hand, you say it's self-evident that the objective of a political opponent would be to dig up dirt on Trump. But on the other you are arguing that a judge would be deceived of that supposedly self-evident point by the use of the word "speculating."
What is your explanation for the fact that the FBI didn't state straight-up what they knew about Simpson and Steele?
nohero said:
Actually, the charge of dishonesty and actual lying isn't in the Byron York or McCarthy pieces. You have to go to Hannity to find someone taking it that far.
From McCarthy's piece on the FBIS's dishonest use of the terms "speculate" and "likely"
why would the FBI “speculate” that a political motive was “likely” involved when, in reality, the FBI well knew that a very specific political motive was precisely involved?
nohero said:
ml1 said:
nohero said:
Same argument from Hannity, just wordier and with a little more spittle.
It's a pretty humorous argument actually. As if the judge would be sitting there thinking "OMG! Who on earth could possibly have hired an investigator to get opposition research on Donald Trump? I'm wracking my brain here and I can't think of ANYONE in 2016 who might be trying to discredit Donald Trump. It's not like opposing candidates would ever do things like this, would they?"
Hey, it could have been Melania trying to put together enough material to invalidate the pre-nup.
If you played games with a judge the way the FBI, you would be disbarred. The difference is that the FBI got away with it in an ex parte proceeding where there was no adversary to call them out.
ridski said:
Can you tell me again where the word "speculates" with regards to the FBI and the Page FISA Application? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the FBI had disclosed the dossier had been submitted as political research, but did not state on the form exactly whom had paid for it?
It was in a footnote on page 5, quoted by Andrew McCarthy here:
You know nothing about the practice of law.
Anyone can file a disciplinary complaint if they think a prosecutor did something unethical. A judge can refer a matter for discipline if they feel its appropriate. Notice that no FISA judge has done that nor is there any indication that any FISA judge is the slightest bit disgruntled about how this investigation has been handled.
You are becoming positively flamboyant in your hyperbole.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
ml1 said:
nohero said:
Same argument from Hannity, just wordier and with a little more spittle.
It's a pretty humorous argument actually. As if the judge would be sitting there thinking "OMG! Who on earth could possibly have hired an investigator to get opposition research on Donald Trump? I'm wracking my brain here and I can't think of ANYONE in 2016 who might be trying to discredit Donald Trump. It's not like opposing candidates would ever do things like this, would they?"
Hey, it could have been Melania trying to put together enough material to invalidate the pre-nup.
If you played games with a judge the way the FBI, you would be disbarred. The difference is that the FBI got away with it in an ex parte proceeding where there was no adversary to call them out.
bub said:
You know nothing about the practice of law.
Anyone can file a disciplinary complaint if they think a prosecutor did something unethical. A judge can refer a matter for discipline if they feel its appropriate. Notice that no FISA judge has done that nor is there any indication that any FISA judge is the slightest bit disgruntled about how this investigation has been handled.
You are becoming positively flamboyant in your hyperbole.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
ml1 said:
nohero said:
Same argument from Hannity, just wordier and with a little more spittle.
It's a pretty humorous argument actually. As if the judge would be sitting there thinking "OMG! Who on earth could possibly have hired an investigator to get opposition research on Donald Trump? I'm wracking my brain here and I can't think of ANYONE in 2016 who might be trying to discredit Donald Trump. It's not like opposing candidates would ever do things like this, would they?"
Hey, it could have been Melania trying to put together enough material to invalidate the pre-nup.
If you played games with a judge the way the FBI, you would be disbarred. The difference is that the FBI got away with it in an ex parte proceeding where there was no adversary to call them out.
Are you an attorney? If so, do you think the FBI attorney, by failing to disclose the identify of the source of its evidence in an ex parte warrant application complied with the ABA code of professional conduct cited above?
I am an attorney. I'm familiar with the rules of professional responsibility. You don't have to keep posting them.
Nothing on its face strikes me as dishonest. The judge saw that it was a political source. If he wanted to know more, all he had to do was ask.
paulsurovell said:
bub said:
You know nothing about the practice of law.
Anyone can file a disciplinary complaint if they think a prosecutor did something unethical. A judge can refer a matter for discipline if they feel its appropriate. Notice that no FISA judge has done that nor is there any indication that any FISA judge is the slightest bit disgruntled about how this investigation has been handled.
You are becoming positively flamboyant in your hyperbole.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
ml1 said:
nohero said:
Same argument from Hannity, just wordier and with a little more spittle.
It's a pretty humorous argument actually. As if the judge would be sitting there thinking "OMG! Who on earth could possibly have hired an investigator to get opposition research on Donald Trump? I'm wracking my brain here and I can't think of ANYONE in 2016 who might be trying to discredit Donald Trump. It's not like opposing candidates would ever do things like this, would they?"
Hey, it could have been Melania trying to put together enough material to invalidate the pre-nup.
If you played games with a judge the way the FBI, you would be disbarred. The difference is that the FBI got away with it in an ex parte proceeding where there was no adversary to call them out.
Are you an attorney? If so, do you think the FBI attorney, by failing to disclose the identify of the source of its evidence in an ex parte warrant application complied with the ABA code of professional conduct cited above?
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_3_candor_toward_the_tribunal.html
bub said:
Nothing on its face strikes me as dishonest. The judge saw that it was a political source. If he wanted to know more, all he had to do was ask.
IANAL. But that was what I assumed as well. That a judge could ask who paid for the research if he/she hadn't figured it out on their own (as if anyone would NOT know that it was likely Hillary Clinton's campaign).
If a person wants to really hide a fact, they'd not mention it at all, not disclose it in any fashion.
paulsurovell said:
Who colluded more, Hillary or Trump?
Oh.... Oh!!!! I got this one.....
Trump!
Now, what the hell have you guys been talking about for 2100+ posts?
. . . and for the sake of completeness, the ABA rules are just model rules. Each jurisdiction has it own ethics rules, which may borrow from the ABA model rules in whole or in part or not at all.
bub said:
I am an attorney. I'm familiar with the rules of professional responsibility. You don't have to keep posting them.
Nothing on its face strikes me as dishonest. The judge saw that it was a political source. If he wanted to know more, all he had to do was ask.
paulsurovell said:
bub said:
You know nothing about the practice of law.
Anyone can file a disciplinary complaint if they think a prosecutor did something unethical. A judge can refer a matter for discipline if they feel its appropriate. Notice that no FISA judge has done that nor is there any indication that any FISA judge is the slightest bit disgruntled about how this investigation has been handled.
You are becoming positively flamboyant in your hyperbole.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
ml1 said:
nohero said:
Same argument from Hannity, just wordier and with a little more spittle.
It's a pretty humorous argument actually. As if the judge would be sitting there thinking "OMG! Who on earth could possibly have hired an investigator to get opposition research on Donald Trump? I'm wracking my brain here and I can't think of ANYONE in 2016 who might be trying to discredit Donald Trump. It's not like opposing candidates would ever do things like this, would they?"
Hey, it could have been Melania trying to put together enough material to invalidate the pre-nup.
If you played games with a judge the way the FBI, you would be disbarred. The difference is that the FBI got away with it in an ex parte proceeding where there was no adversary to call them out.
Are you an attorney? If so, do you think the FBI attorney, by failing to disclose the identify of the source of its evidence in an ex parte warrant application complied with the ABA code of professional conduct cited above?
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_3_candor_toward_the_tribunal.html
do you know that state.gov is not a secure system? It's probably less secure than Hillary's private system.
Recalculate your position on this now.
eta: do you honestly think that Comey did not bring charges because of Strozk's rewording? That's absurd. sheesh
Either he had a case or he didn't. He clearly did not.
BCC said:
drummerboy said:
you still didn't answer the question. I guess you don't know the answer, or know why it's pertinent. Mr. Email Expert.
What about that percentage of classified emails that happened to pass through Hillary's server? Do you think that's significant? Or are you a zero tolerance kind of guy?
And bringing up Strzok is just an example of why you're just a hack on this issue. Strzok's wording (which Comey of course did not have to accept) was still over the top, and did Hillary no favors.
Did you know he wrote the first draft of the October letter that finally did Hillary in? Some supporter he is.
BCC said:
drummerboy said:
Yeah. You didn't answer my simple question.
Nor did you respond to my earlier comments for that matter.
BCC said:
drummerboy said:
Let me ask you this - if Hillary had used a state.gov account instead of her personal system, would she have been in the clear?
In the first place, she didn't use the State server and she had top secrets on the server she used, 2 years after she was supposed to have turned them in. She also never turned in a required, signed, separation order because to have done so would have been a felony.
Second, when she claimed the e-mails were not marked she was showing either she was ignorant of 'born classified' or she was intentionally misleading the public, the vast majority of whom were unaware that not being marked had nothing to do with their classification status and she was in fact dealing with top secret information on hr own server.
Your simple question was exactly that --- simple.
It is obvious that had she done every thing by the book she would not be the subject of an IG investigation today. It is also quite obvious that she violated a number of directives and could easily have been indicted for committing crimes.
Strzok's correction of Comey's description of her handling of classified material was an attempt to prevent that.
I assumed you knew all that. Was I wrong?
You are so anxious to be insulting you missed this
'It is obvious that had she done every thing by the book she would not be the subject of an IG investigation today' I think that's a pretty clear answer to your question.
What about? What about having top secret documents on a private server two years after you were required to return them to the State department? What about the mishandling of classified documents?
Are you aware (obviously you are not) that the language used by Comey is the exact language that can put some one in jail and the language of Strzok is not?
Are you also aware that I wrote that Comey had indeed fukced her over.
Before you start insulting me you might at least get your facts straight.
bub said:
I am an attorney. I'm familiar with the rules of professional responsibility. You don't have to keep posting them.
Nothing on its face strikes me as dishonest. The judge saw that it was a political source. If he wanted to know more, all he had to do was ask.
Do you think the FBI was being truthful when it said it "was speculating" that Glen Simpson was seeking to discredit Donald Trump?
bub said:
. . . and for the sake of completeness, the ABA rules are just model rules. Each jurisdiction has it own ethics rules, which may borrow from the ABA model rules in whole or in part or not at all.
Do they have relevance for Federal courts?
paulsurovell said:
bub said:Do you think the FBI was being truthful when it said it "was speculating" that Glen Simpson was seeking to discredit Donald Trump?
I am an attorney. I'm familiar with the rules of professional responsibility. You don't have to keep posting them.
Nothing on its face strikes me as dishonest. The judge saw that it was a political source. If he wanted to know more, all he had to do was ask.
Once again, this is what they said - Steele "was approached by an identified U.S. Person, who indicated to Source #1 (Steele) that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. Person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1's ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a longstanding business relationship.) The identified U.S. person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign."
And you keep giving a false view of the facts. The FBI identified its source ("Source #1") and how its source was hired.
paulsurovell said:
Are you an attorney? If so, do you think the FBI attorney, by failing to disclose the identify of the source of its evidence in an ex parte warrant application complied with the ABA code of professional conduct cited above?
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_3_candor_toward_the_tribunal.html
Klinker said:
paulsurovell said:
Who colluded more, Hillary or Trump?
Oh.... Oh!!!! I got this one.....
Trump!
Now, what the hell have you guys been talking about for 2100+ posts?
Read the OP. It's been confirmed hundreds of times on the thread despite efforts of wishful thinkers to deny it.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
bub said:Do you think the FBI was being truthful when it said it "was speculating" that Glen Simpson was seeking to discredit Donald Trump?
I am an attorney. I'm familiar with the rules of professional responsibility. You don't have to keep posting them.
Nothing on its face strikes me as dishonest. The judge saw that it was a political source. If he wanted to know more, all he had to do was ask.
Once again, this is what they said - Steele "was approached by an identified U.S. Person, who indicated to Source #1 (Steele) that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. Person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1's ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a longstanding business relationship.) The identified U.S. person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign."
And you keep giving a false view of the facts. The FBI identified its source ("Source #1") and how its source was hired.
I hope for your clients' sake that you don't "identify" sources of information or witnesses in court the way the FBI did on this application.
That assumes you follow the ABA code of professional conduct. Do you?
Tell me, based upon your vast experience in these matters, how the FISA outcome would have been different if the FBI said "we believe" he's trying to discredit rather than "speculate"? That's the issue - whether by virtue incompleteness, a statement has misled a judge to act in a way he/she wouldn't have. I'm not seeing that. you're just wishfully guessing that.
You don't understand, or don't want to understand, the concept of something being misleading by incompleteness. You're confusing it with your totally uninformed (by experience or professional background) position that more detail should have been given.
paulsurovell said:
bub said:
I am an attorney. I'm familiar with the rules of professional responsibility. You don't have to keep posting them.
Nothing on its face strikes me as dishonest. The judge saw that it was a political source. If he wanted to know more, all he had to do was ask.
Do you think the FBI was being truthful when it said it "was speculating" that Glen Simpson was seeking to discredit Donald Trump?
bub said:
Tell me, based upon your vast experience in these matters, how the FISA outcome would have been different if the FBI said "we believe" he's trying to discredit rather than "speculate"? That's the issue - whether by virtue incompleteness, a statement has misled a judge to act in a way he/she wouldn't have. I'm not seeing that. you're just wishfully guessing that.
You don't understand, or don't want to understand, the concept of something being misleading by incompleteness. You're confusing it with your totally uninformed (by experience or professional background) position that more detail should have been given.
paulsurovell said:
bub said:
I am an attorney. I'm familiar with the rules of professional responsibility. You don't have to keep posting them.
Nothing on its face strikes me as dishonest. The judge saw that it was a political source. If he wanted to know more, all he had to do was ask.
Do you think the FBI was being truthful when it said it "was speculating" that Glen Simpson was seeking to discredit Donald Trump?
You're dodging the question.
Andrew McCarthy, a former Assistant US Attorney, came to the same conclusion that I did.
There are legal experts on both sides, it's not a matter of expertise.
It's a matter of common sense and it's obvious that the FBI lied when it said it "is speculating" about the motivation of Fusion GPS head Glen Simpson. It knew that Simpson was hired to discredit Trump, but hid that from the court.
This thread ranks as the greatest troll ever, or a terribly detailed look at one man's descent into the dishonest world of hackery.
Your again revealing your complete ignorance of the law. It would actually be improper for an FBI agent to say in an affidavit they "know" what someone's motives were in doing something. At most, its an assertion based upon "information and belief."
As for Mr. McCarthy, all I can say is he's a journalist/ex-prosecutor that has gotten so locked into to being an absolute shill for one side about this that for me, as a lawyer, his opinion lacks credibility. You should read, and perhaps disclose, Mr. French's polite disagreement with McCarthy in the pages of National Review about the significance of the Schiff memo: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/the-schiff-memo-undermines-republican-claims-of-fisa-abuse/
paulsurovell said:
bub said:
Tell me, based upon your vast experience in these matters, how the FISA outcome would have been different if the FBI said "we believe" he's trying to discredit rather than "speculate"? That's the issue - whether by virtue incompleteness, a statement has misled a judge to act in a way he/she wouldn't have. I'm not seeing that. you're just wishfully guessing that.
You don't understand, or don't want to understand, the concept of something being misleading by incompleteness. You're confusing it with your totally uninformed (by experience or professional background) position that more detail should have been given.
paulsurovell said:
bub said:
I am an attorney. I'm familiar with the rules of professional responsibility. You don't have to keep posting them.
Nothing on its face strikes me as dishonest. The judge saw that it was a political source. If he wanted to know more, all he had to do was ask.
Do you think the FBI was being truthful when it said it "was speculating" that Glen Simpson was seeking to discredit Donald Trump?
You're dodging the question.
Andrew McCarthy, a former Assistant US Attorney, came to the same conclusion that I did.
There are legal experts on both sides, it's not a matter of expertise.
It's a matter of common sense and it's obvious that the FBI lied when it said it "is speculating" about the motivation of Fusion GPS head Glen Simpson. It knew that Simpson was hired to discredit Trump, but hid that from the court.
drummerboy said:
This thread ranks as the greatest troll ever, or a terribly detailed look at one man's descent into the dishonest world of hackery.
Another view is that the thread has revealed how normally independent thinkers have become unquestioning followers of the intelligence agencies and mainstream media, in order to copy the trauma of the election of Trump.
bub said:
Your again revealing your complete ignorance of the law. It would actually be improper for an FBI agent to say in an affidavit they "know" what someone's motives were in doing something. At most, its an assertion based upon "information and belief."
As for Mr. McCarthy, all I can say is he's a journalist/ex-prosecutor that has gotten so locked into to being an absolute shill for one side about this that for me, as a lawyer, his opinion lacks credibility. You should read, and perhaps disclose, Mr. French's polite disagreement with McCarthy in the pages of National Review about the significance of the Schiff memo: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/the-schiff-memo-undermines-republican-claims-of-fisa-abuse/
You can dismiss McCarthy by calling him a "shill" but if that's the case (and I don't think it is) we can certainly include the authors of the Democratic memo as "shills" for the other side.
The only thing you proved by citing French's criticism of McCarthy is that the National Review is not a monolithic journal, unlike the mainstream media which (correct me if I'm wrong) hasn't published Andrew McCarthy's or any other critique of the Dem memo.
I agree that both memos are shilling. The memo war should never have happened at all and Nunes is to blame for that.
Also agree that the National Review is commendably disputatious. People should read it.
I'm very reluctant, and really not even competent, to offer all encompassing judgments on the "mainstream media," especially in this environment of assault on the media by the "fake news" shouter. As a general matter, I think it is healthy for there to be intelligent, informed and respectful debate about subjects. No journalist or online commentator (hint hint) should rigidly shill for or against the Russiagate investigation or anything else.
paulsurovell said:
bub said:
Your again revealing your complete ignorance of the law. It would actually be improper for an FBI agent to say in an affidavit they "know" what someone's motives were in doing something. At most, its an assertion based upon "information and belief."
As for Mr. McCarthy, all I can say is he's a journalist/ex-prosecutor that has gotten so locked into to being an absolute shill for one side about this that for me, as a lawyer, his opinion lacks credibility. You should read, and perhaps disclose, Mr. French's polite disagreement with McCarthy in the pages of National Review about the significance of the Schiff memo: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/the-schiff-memo-undermines-republican-claims-of-fisa-abuse/
You can dismiss McCarthy by calling him a "shill" but if that's the case (and I don't think it is) we can certainly include the authors of the Democratic memo as "shills" for the other side.
The only thing you proved by citing French's criticism of McCarthy is that the National Review is not a monolithic journal, unlike the mainstream media which (correct me if I'm wrong) hasn't published Andrew McCarthy's or any other critique of the Dem memo.
If you're referring to me, I haven't changed. I don't accept a logically flawed argument from anyone. And your arguments here are filled with obvious flaws.
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
This thread ranks as the greatest troll ever, or a terribly detailed look at one man's descent into the dishonest world of hackery.
Another view is that the thread has revealed how normally independent thinkers have become unquestioning followers of the intelligence agencies and mainstream media, in order to copy the trauma of the election of Trump.
ml1 said:
If you're referring to me, I haven't changed. I don't accept a logically flawed argument from anyone. And your arguments here are filled with obvious flaws.
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:Another view is that the thread has revealed how normally independent thinkers have become unquestioning followers of the intelligence agencies and mainstream media, in order to copy the trauma of the election of Trump.
This thread ranks as the greatest troll ever, or a terribly detailed look at one man's descent into the dishonest world of hackery.
No, I wasn't referring to you. But on the FISA warrant, I don't get why you're avoiding the obvious.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
That whole section where he just kills himself over and over again.