The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post Reply
User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12578
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Forty Two » Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:26 pm

Joe wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 3:13 am
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:02 pm
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

You want to know what I think? I'm glad you've finally admitted that Mueller has a counterintelligence investigation on his hands. You've been running and hiding every time I've mentioned it for the last few months.
That's not accurate. I pointed out it was initiated under the criminal regulations. That doesn't mean it's not also counterintelligence because Comey's investigation was under the rubric of both. Do you admit that the Rosenstein order activates the criminal regulations?
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

As for allegations or evidence from the intelligence agencies, why would you want to know what I think about that?
I'm not asking about what you think, as in what your opinion is based on the facts. I'm asking about what facts you know. Are you aware of whether there is an allegation or evidence of Trump wrongdoing relative to to the 2016 election? If so, what is it that you are aware of? That's the issue that's been bandied about in the press for the last 2 years. Will Trump be impeached or indicted for obstruction of justice because of his or his campaign's involvement with the 2016 election interference? There hasn't been any other reason offered for his impeachment or indictment, has there?
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

If a US person was the primary subject of an intelligence agency product, that would be goddamned irregular, and classified out of sight.
Was Trump the "primary subject" of Comey's investigation? Is he the "primary subject" now? Odd... the other thread was was all about telling me how he isn't, because the Comey and Mueller investigations are just about "Russian interference in the 2016 election" and they'll go after anyone involved, come what may - and Trump is "running when nobody is chasing." Does he look guilty because the guilty run when they are not chased? Or, is he the "primary subject" of the investigation and hence, being chased, and it is therefore, reasonable for him to be concerned about it?

It would, for sure, be "classified." But once again, the intelligence agencies can declare whatever they want classified - I have no control over it. But I don't believe them. Everything about the Snowdon thing was classified when he released it and the NSA lied about it, and they broke the law - was all classified. Whether the North Vietnamese attacked US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin was classified, and the US people were told to believe them. Rather unjustified belief, that.

Or, like when the intelligence folks said it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq had WMD - CIA director Tenet - and that was confirmed by a CIA deputy director Morell (a 33 year CIA guy) --
“When we wrote pieces for the president, the analysts wrote with authority on the [weapons of mass destruction] issue,” Morell writes. “This is why I personally never found fault with George Tenet’s alleged “slam dunk” comment.”

“The way the [intelligence] analysts talked and wrote about their judgments,” Morell adds, “would have led anyone to think it was a slam dunk— that is, that Saddam definitely had active WMD programs. No one ever said to me, [agency analyst Jami] Miscik, [ex-director John] McLaughlin, Tenet, [Condoleezza] Rice, or the president, ‘You know, there is a chance he might not have them.’ Such a statement would have gotten everyone’s attention,” Morell writes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in ... 302cf2b99e

The backup on that was "classified", of course - can't see it - sources and methods and such - you know, national security, so the citizens being asked to support action taken in conformity with the views of the intelligence community are told "here's what we think, but I can't show you what we base it on..." Not good enough for me.
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

If I was cleared at that level, I wouldn't tell you what I knew or even that I held such a clearance. You don't know squat about our intelligence agencies; that's what I think!
Not relevant. I'm not saying I know what they know. I'm saying the issue vague reports with "levels of confidence" and don't provide the facts to back it up. They, of course, say that we need clearances and only the top top guys can see the real information, but trust us it's there. So, when the politicians say we're going to war with X country because of those intelligence reports, you just have to trust that they know what they're doing.

I don't claim to know much about them - that's the problem. However, next time I'm told we need to go to war because a confidential/secret intelligence report says that so-and-so is up to no good in West Bumfuck, I for one am going to need to see the evidence. Too many times in my lifetime, they've been wrong and/or lied.

And they can publish a report like the 2017 Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution" all they want, but I want to see what evidence they're basing it on. When I read the report, it is vague, it is based in some parts on "moderate" confidence of certain agencies, and it focuses most of its word-count on explaining why Putin had a preference for Trumpian policies, and the "propaganda" efforts on the part of Russians. The only thing mentioned that would even be criminal was hacking, and the details on that are conclusory and lacking (and from other sources, it seems that none of the systems supposedly "hacked" were turned over to the FBI or any other agency to inspect and do a forensic analysis, and it's hard to see what happened with a hand-held PDA device when someone is taking a hammer to it, or a computer system that is being deleted and bleach-bit wiped...you know, like with a cloth).

Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
As for evidence of wrong doing by Trump or his campaign, you are asking a stupid question that proves nothing. DOJ doesn't release that kind of information during an ongoing investigation,
It's not a stupid question. I don't care when they choose to do what they do.
If they don't release the evidence, then I don't believe them. I find their allegation interesting. Like, when the cops arrest somebody and say he's the guy who dunnit. Fine. You say he dunnit. Now prove it. Oh, you're not duty-bound to tell me now because you have an ongoing investigation? Fine. Then as long as your investigation is ongoing, then I withhold my judgment and I'm not going to be outraged by any "conclusions" you seek to publish. And, don't publish conclusions you want me to believe, if you're not going to back them up. Oh, so and so is a big fat criminal, but you can't tell me why because of sources and methods? Oh, well, then. Carry on. I don't believe you. I might, when you release the information on which you base your conclusion.

Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

so anyone who says they know such things is lying or leaking,
Yes, there have been tons of leaks - massive leaks. It's been a seive, with asshats like Adam Schiff leaking consistently stuff. Leaks with political spin. To do what? Get the public to believe certain things. Well, I'm tired of that kind of manipulation, and I am not going to believe it until I see persuasive evidence.
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
and the GOP twats who've been pushing this trope for months know it.
What trope? What is it that you know to be true?
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm

The only real evidence we'll probably have until such time as Mueller's report is made public are "confessions" from the flaming idiots starring in this media circus.
Good - so we agree the only "real evidence" we have is at most "confessions from flaming idiots in this media circus." I choose not to believe them. What do you conclude from the flaming idiot evidence? Treason? Obstruction of justice? What? If not, then you and I are in agreement. If so, I can't wait to hear your argument.
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
So, now that you've admitted the counterintelligence aspect of Mueller's investigation, do you think it should be shut down?
Nope. Never said it should be shut down (from the outside). I think that it should end when Mueller is done.

Now will you do me the courtesy of answering my questions? In particular, the last one above, where you say that the only real evidence we are likely to have until the close of the Mueller investigation is flaming idiot evidence. So, what do you conclude from the only evidence we've had so far? That Trum pdid something wrong? That he committed Treason? Obstruction? That someone in his campaign did?

Or, do you admit that there is no evidence (other than at most flaming idiot evidence) of such wrongdoing?

If you have seen more than flaming idiot evidence, then please explain what that is. But since you've already said the only evidence you're likely to see is flaming idiot evidence, I can't imagine you can say now that there is good evidence from which you can conclude Trump did something wrong relative to Russia in the 2016 campaign.
So, if you don't think the Mueller investigation should be shut down, and allowed to run its course, why do you argue so vociferously about it, castigate the intelligence agencies, attack politicians, poo poo every media rumor, and post incoherent babble like this?
One, my primary objection is with the conclusions reached in the media and elsewhere - by so many people - that Trump is guilty of something when he hasn't been accused of a crime and no evidence of any wrongdoing in relation to the 2016 election has been presented. I have also argued that if what is really happening is a politically unbiased investigation into the 2016 Election and allegations of Russian meddling, then it should have been a 9/11 style commission, not a "special prosecutor."

Why do I castigate intelligence agencies? Because I've always castigated intelligence agencies. They deserve castigation -- e.g. NSA and snooping/Snowden, e.g., lies to Congress, e.g. secret, illegal CIA wars, e.g. bugging and surveilling Congressmen and Congressional offices, e.g., George Tenet, e.g. James Clapper, e.g. John Brennan. Of course they should be castigated.

Poo poo media rumors? Of course, because the sloppy reporting for the last 2 years has been taken to a new and dramatic level. The false reports. The unfounded reports. The commonplace reliance of political leaks from guys like Adam Schiff, and other "unnamed" sources. The rumors are so fast, so furious, and so politically driven that it's impossible to sort through truth from fiction.

Incoherent babble? LOL

Once again, what evidence have you seen that leads you to believe that Trump or anyone on the Trump campaign committed any wrongdoing in relation to Russia and the 2016 campaign? Is it so hard to say "none?"
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
Now will you do me the courtesy of answering my questions? In particular, the last one above, where you say that the only real evidence we are likely to have until the close of the Mueller investigation is flaming idiot evidence. So, what do you conclude from the only evidence we've had so far? That Trum pdid something wrong? That he committed Treason? Obstruction? That someone in his campaign did?
Okay, we can't dismiss the confessions because they come from flaming idiots.
What confessions?
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
That would be an ad hominem. Trump's ill considered statements and tweets could be evidence against him if combined with other information.
Like what? Can you explain this? Which statements/tweets "could be" evidence and combined with what information, and evidence of what wrongdoing? This is part of the problem I've been on about - it's unusable vaguery. What's the evidence? Anyone's ill considered statements combined with some other information (whatever that is) could make them guilty of a crime - but, the rub is what statements (what did they say) and what are you combining it with?
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
However, I hold with Dr. Doyle's adage that "it is a capital mistake to theorize in advance of the facts." We'll see when the Mueller gets done. Treason, by definition, is a non-starter though.

That enough. or must you have more speculative windmills to tilt against? :flog:
I suppose. You reference no evidence - you just say that there "could be" if we combine unspecified ill-considered statements with "other [unspecified] information." Great. I agree with that as far as it goes, and it goes as far as being, like astrology, applicable to pretty much every human on the planet. Anyone's ill considered statements when combined with other information "could" amount to something. And, you say "wait to see when Mueller gets done." Good - fine.

So, do we or do we not agree that there is no evidence of which either one of us is aware which would indicate Trump or anyone on the Trump campaign committed any wrongdoing in relation to Russian involvement in the 2016 election?

Well, regardless, it seems to me that we are close to being in agreement on this issue. Which, I would suggest to you might demonstrate that my views are not the caricatures others paint them to be. Perhaps fruitful discussion is possible.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 945
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Joe » Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:45 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:26 pm
Joe wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 3:13 am
So, if you don't think the Mueller investigation should be shut down, and allowed to run its course, why do you argue so vociferously about it, castigate the intelligence agencies, attack politicians, poo poo every media rumor, and post incoherent babble like this?
One, my primary objection is with the conclusions reached in the media and elsewhere - by so many people - that Trump is guilty of something when he hasn't been accused of a crime and no evidence of any wrongdoing in relation to the 2016 election has been presented. I have also argued that if what is really happening is a politically unbiased investigation into the 2016 Election and allegations of Russian meddling, then it should have been a 9/11 style commission, not a "special prosecutor."

Why do I castigate intelligence agencies? Because I've always castigated intelligence agencies. They deserve castigation -- e.g. NSA and snooping/Snowden, e.g., lies to Congress, e.g. secret, illegal CIA wars, e.g. bugging and surveilling Congressmen and Congressional offices, e.g., George Tenet, e.g. James Clapper, e.g. John Brennan. Of course they should be castigated.

Poo poo media rumors? Of course, because the sloppy reporting for the last 2 years has been taken to a new and dramatic level. The false reports. The unfounded reports. The commonplace reliance of political leaks from guys like Adam Schiff, and other "unnamed" sources. The rumors are so fast, so furious, and so politically driven that it's impossible to sort through truth from fiction.

Incoherent babble? LOL
Well, you agree the Mueller investigation should continue, but your arguments echo those who want it shut down. Your reasons are couched in terms of resentment of the media, of intelligence agencies, Trump's political enemies, and that this wasn't the kind of investigation you wanted. You admit your ignorance of intelligence, yet castigate the intelligence agencies based on news reports from the media you berate for sloppy reporting and reliance on anonymous leaks. You complain that it's impossible to sort through truth from fiction, yet your rhetoric is so obfuscatory that you've been compared to Seth.

Sounds incoherent to me.
Forty Two wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:26 pm
Once again, what evidence have you seen that leads you to believe that Trump or anyone on the Trump campaign committed any wrongdoing in relation to Russia and the 2016 campaign? Is it so hard to say "none?"
That would be theorizing in advance of the facts. You really should pay attention when people answer your questions.
Forty Two wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:26 pm
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
Now will you do me the courtesy of answering my questions? In particular, the last one above, where you say that the only real evidence we are likely to have until the close of the Mueller investigation is flaming idiot evidence. So, what do you conclude from the only evidence we've had so far? That Trum pdid something wrong? That he committed Treason? Obstruction? That someone in his campaign did?
Okay, we can't dismiss the confessions because they come from flaming idiots.
What confessions?
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
That would be an ad hominem. Trump's ill considered statements and tweets could be evidence against him if combined with other information.
Like what? Can you explain this? Which statements/tweets "could be" evidence and combined with what information, and evidence of what wrongdoing? This is part of the problem I've been on about - it's unusable vaguery. What's the evidence? Anyone's ill considered statements combined with some other information (whatever that is) could make them guilty of a crime - but, the rub is what statements (what did they say) and what are you combining it with?
Joe wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
However, I hold with Dr. Doyle's adage that "it is a capital mistake to theorize in advance of the facts." We'll see when the Mueller gets done. Treason, by definition, is a non-starter though.

That enough. or must you have more speculative windmills to tilt against? :flog:
I suppose. You reference no evidence - you just say that there "could be" if we combine unspecified ill-considered statements with "other [unspecified] information." Great. I agree with that as far as it goes, and it goes as far as being, like astrology, applicable to pretty much every human on the planet. Anyone's ill considered statements when combined with other information "could" amount to something. And, you say "wait to see when Mueller gets done." Good - fine.

So, do we or do we not agree that there is no evidence of which either one of us is aware which would indicate Trump or anyone on the Trump campaign committed any wrongdoing in relation to Russian involvement in the 2016 election?
Well, regardless, it seems to me that we are close to being in agreement on this issue. Which, I would suggest to you might demonstrate that my views are not the caricatures others paint them to be. Perhaps fruitful discussion is possible.
Perhaps, but you may need to increase your tolerance for uncertainty, and lessen your verbosity. Brevity, after all, is said to be the soul of wit.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"as far as strong, i am hard as a rock and tough as a nail. no one will bring me down. no one. i am the debonator. the tnt. and jesus has my back door pal!" - D. C. Bockemehl
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 18716
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Hermit » Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:06 pm

Joe wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:45 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:26 pm
Perhaps fruitful discussion is possible.
Perhaps, but you may need to increase your tolerance for uncertainty, and lessen your verbosity. Brevity, after all, is said to be the soul of wit.
Gish gallop, thy name be Faulty Too.

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 945
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Joe » Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:39 am

Alas, poor Faulty! I knew him, Hermit, a fellow of infinite jest.... :naughty:
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"as far as strong, i am hard as a rock and tough as a nail. no one will bring me down. no one. i am the debonator. the tnt. and jesus has my back door pal!" - D. C. Bockemehl
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 24292
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Tero » Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:27 pm

”no evidence of any wrongdoing in relation to the 2016 election has been presented. I have also argued that if what is really...”
:funny:
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
"Brown Shoes Don't Make It" is a song about the people who run the governments, the people who make the laws that keep you from living the kind of life you know you should lead. These unfortunate people manufacture inequitable laws and ordinance, perhaps unaware of the fact that the restrictions they place on the young people in a society are a result of their own hidden sexual frustrations. Dirty old men have no business running your country.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 18716
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Hermit » Sun Aug 12, 2018 6:19 am

Tero wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:27 pm
”no evidence of any wrongdoing in relation to the 2016 election has been presented. I have also argued that if what is really...”
:funny:
To be fair, that is an example of egregious mine quoting. Let's have it with the context you excised, shall we?
Forty Two wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:26 pm
One, my primary objection is with the conclusions reached in the media and elsewhere - by so many people - that Trump is guilty of something when he hasn't been accused of a crime and no evidence of any wrongdoing in relation to the 2016 election has been presented.
Coito Two is talking about there being no evidence uncovered to conclude - as many reporters and many readers do - that Trump himself had actively colluded with the Russian government or its formal and informal agents to sabotage the 2016 Presidential elections. At this stage there is no smoking gun. If there were, Mueller's team would have said so the moment it was discovered.

I think, along with millions of others, that Trump has colluded with the Russians, but at this point my opinion lives in the land of speculation. Right now Trump is in a very similar position to NIxon's before the discovery of certain tapes and the Supreme Court's verdict saying that he has to turn them over.

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 1605
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Sun Aug 12, 2018 7:55 am

Regarding what the public might learn from Mueller and when, the investigative reporter David Corn is telling people basically 'Don't hold your breath':

'Don’t Fall for the Biggest Misconception About Robert Mueller’s Endgame'
“I think this is one of the biggest misconceptions of the Mueller investigation,” Corn says. “I hear again and again, ‘Well, when is the Mueller report going to come out? And when that comes out won’t that reveal everything?’ And the answer is, there may not really be a Mueller report. And whatever comes out may not answer everything.”

Put simply, there is no legal requirement for Mueller to make his report public. “His mission here is to find crimes and prosecute,” Corn says. “If none of these things fall into the category of a prosecutable crime, that information may stay secret.”

... Corn gives listeners the basic outline of what might happen at the end of Mueller’s tenure. If no charges are filed, then this is what is likely to happen: First, Mueller must write a report explaining his prosecutorial decision making that will go to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, since Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from this whole affair.

Rosenstein then has three basic options:
  • He could make the report public.
  • He could give it to Congress, and then Congress could make it public.
  • He could sit on it.
Congress might also demand the report from Rosenstein. In any case, Corn says, a federal prosecutor like Mueller is obligated to keep information private unless he or she decides to use it in an indictment or as evidence in a case.

Here’s the bottom line: There’s a very good chance that the public will never know what it doesn’t know. “Those Americans out there who are waiting for Robert Mueller to give us the full truth of what happened in terms of the Russian attack on the United States,” Corn warns, “we’re likely not to be satisfied.”
Of course there are also opinion writers who are convinced that Trump's involvement in the infamous "dirt on Clinton/adoption" meeting with the Russians and subsequent deceptions about what happened are enough for a case, but that certainly isn't a foregone conclusion.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 20459
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Brian Peacock » Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:13 pm

Look, lying about something you did wrong isn't illegal, unless you're Rick Gates of course. :tea:
.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 15302
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by laklak » Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:52 am

It's only illegal if what you're lying about is illegal, which makes it double illegal, which is a 15 yard penalty and loss of a down.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 9047
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Sean Hayden » Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:07 am

'double illegal' -- :lol: -- you just think you're joking, I bet that exact term is in use in Florida law somewhere...
"The Constitution was not made to fit us like a straitjacket."

-Russian troll

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 15302
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by laklak » Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:22 am

At this stage in my life there is little, if anything, that would actually surprise me.

OK a man-eating outer-space clown in my bedroom closet might catch me off guard, but not much else.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 46497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:41 am

laklak wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:52 am
It's only illegal if what you're lying about is illegal, which makes it double illegal, which is a 15 yard penalty and loss of a down.
Two illegals cancel each other out. :prof:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12578
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Forty Two » Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:58 am

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 7:55 am
Of course there are also opinion writers who are convinced that Trump's involvement in the infamous "dirt on Clinton/adoption" meeting with the Russians and subsequent deceptions about what happened are enough for a case, but that certainly isn't a foregone conclusion.
That does appear to be the rub. That article to which you link calls receiving information from a foreign source for the purpose of effecting an election to be a "thing of value" which is clearly a crime, and so conspiring to do so is also a crime.

However, that interpretation makes little to no sense, in my view, under US law. The law has never been interpreted that way by any court, and if it were it would render the law in question unconstitutional as violative of the First Amendment. IMO. And, that seems quite clear.

Would it be unconstitutional for a Russian beauty pageant contestant to call up someone from, say, the Joe Biden 2020 campaign and say "I would like to meet with you to discuss Donald Trump's sexual misconduct and gross behavior at a beauty pageant held in Moscow in X year," and for the Biden 2020 campaign to take a meeting with the Russian contestant, receive that information, and use it in the campaign to tell about the misconduct and gross behavior allegations?

If a Russian operative has a "pee tape," would it be illegal for them to disclose that pee tape to the Biden 2020 campaign? Would it be illegal for the Biden 2020 campaign to knowingly meet with them and receive the info?

And, the law in question doesn't just apply to campaigns and candidates. It applies to "any person" who would receive that thing of value from a foreign source for the purpose of influencing a campaign. By its terms, that would mean that private individuals and groups that would meet with a Russian beauty contestant for info on Trump sex misconduct and gross behavior, or to receive a "pee tape," would be violating the law, wouldn't they?

On another point, they talk about this meeting about dirt/adoption. Was there any dirt? What dirt was it? Has anyone said? Have they talked to the Russian involved and found out what it was that they were allegedly going to communicate? Would it be a "thing of value" if there was no dirt, and all that happened was that the Trump campaign met with them, found out there was nothing good there, and then moved on? Or, is merely taking the meeting for the purpose of talking to a foreign person about possible information be criminal?

Here's another example/hypothetical: under the analysis of "thing of value" includes information received from foreign source influence a campaign -- what would happen if a candidate met with a Mexican national who had crossed the border to get information from them about Donald Trump's immigration policy, for the purpose of negatively impacting the Trump campaign? How would that be different under the interpretation proposed in the article?

The article also says "And it is illegal to lie about having done so and obstruct justice in response to a federal investigation over the matter." It's illegal to lie to prosecutors/FBI about it - but is it illegal to lie generally? IMO no. And, "obstruction of justice" - that term is bandied about very loosely. It's used in the media sort of like how cops use the term "resisting arrest." To a cop arresting you, tensing up when grabbed is often considered "resisting arrest." Stop resisting! Under federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 1503 provides that "whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense)." I think that it's hard to make out a claim of obstruction of justice from the facts presented.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12578
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Forty Two » Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:59 am

Hypothetical.

If some Russians did have dirt on Trump, or Clinton -- let's say both. Let's say, a Russian says to both campaigns - I have dirt on your opponent, and I want to meet with you. Both campaigns agree to meet to hear about what they have. They both meet, and see that it entails thousands of emails which show their opponent in a bad light, and would certainly be very bad press for both. Neither campaign takes the information. The information is later released by Wikileaks. What crime was committed?

Assume those facts to be true. Can you conclude a crime was committed based on that? Why or why not?
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12578
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

Post by Forty Two » Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:00 am

pErvinalia wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:41 am
laklak wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:52 am
It's only illegal if what you're lying about is illegal, which makes it double illegal, which is a 15 yard penalty and loss of a down.
Two illegals cancel each other out. :prof:
That's the Democrat policy at the border.... :tut:
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 11 guests