Enjoy President Trump, Courtesy of The Kremlin

[Forty Two]

LOL.

How has he hindered and obstructed the investigation? What have they been hindered or obstructed from doing?

Oh, wait, that's right. He used special programs to permanently delete and render non-recoverable various computer files, and otherwise deleted and scrubbed files and hard drives, and then he took hammers to cell phones and PDAs after deleting tens of thousands of emails that he, himself, decided on his own were not relevant to the investigation. That orange haired shithead really looks guilty when he does stuff like that.

[Seabass]

Crazy. You're a fuckin' cult member. This is pointless.

[Scot Dutchy]

Crazy. You're a fuckin' cult member. This is pointless.

Dont tell me you have just discovered this?

[Forty Two]

I'm just wondering what you think he did to hinder or obstruct. You suggested he did "everything he could" to do so, but what are some examples? Every witness the special counsel has asked for has testified. Every document they've wanted to look at has been produced. http://time.com/5120400/robert-mueller-interviews/

What did he do? Did he destroy documents? Did he destroy PDAs? What?

What's been hindered?

[Forty Two]

Crazy. You're a fuckin' cult member. This is pointless.

Dont tell me you have just discovered this?

Do you have an example of something Trump has done to "hinder" or "obstruct" the investigation?

I mean - things that hinder or obstruct would be him doing something that he does which corruptly obstructs or impedes the due administration of justice.

Things that are not obstruction --- "wanting" to fire someone. Claiming an investigation is bullshit. Declaring there has been no collusion. Stating that you would love to be interviewed by the investigator. Wanting or expressing the desire than an investigation of another person be ended. That's not obstruction of justice.

What does constitute obstruction? For example - The obstruction of justice impeachment articles Presidents Nixon and Bill Clinton faced accused them of destroying or withholding evidence and telling witnesses to lie under oath. That's obstruction.

Destroying or withholding evidence is a clear example of hindering or obstructing an investigation. So, if he smashed blackberries with a hammer, then that would be an example of destroying evidence. If he used Bleachbit to destroy the ability to recover 10s of thousands of emails, that could be hindering and obstructing. That kind of thing.

There are other things, too. So -- if the allegation is that Trump has done everything he could to hinder and obstruct the investigation - what are the examples of things he did? Do either of you have any such examples?

And, if you don't, but you believe it anyway, then what business have you of accusing anyone else of being a cult member?

[pErvinalia]

That's not accurate, as there is also campaign finance law that can apply. The legal experts, lol, were all over this https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/159 ... es-illegal -- just agreeing to take a meeting with a "foreign person" who is offering to give you dirt on an opponent, that - according to the legal experts when talking about Trump -- is a clear violation of federal campaign finance law.

So, either the legal experts are wrong, or they're not wrong.

Or you are putting your own spin on it. They are talking about DONATIONS (or equivalent), not legally contracted work:

The crucial phrase here is “other thing of value,” legal experts tell me. It means that the law extends beyond just cash donations. Foreigners are also banned from providing other kinds of contributions that would be the functional equivalent of a campaign donation, just provided in the form of services rather than goods.

{snipped "yebutt Hillary" tu quo que by proxy}

[L'Emmerdeur]

The articles reporting it do not ever say they tried to talk to McCabe. Why? Did they try? Isn't it important to know if they did? Even to say "We attempted to reach McCabe for comment, but he would not return our call," or "he replied that he would not comment on the call," or maybe he would say "the conversation was fairly respectful, and involved X, Y and Z," none of which was scurrilous. We, the readers, don't know, because the writer did not say.

From the article in question:

The FBI declined to comment on the call.

[Forty Two]

McCabe. Reaching McCabe is different than calling the FBI's spokespeople.

But, regardless, it doesn't matter. The criticism stands. They are running with an unconfirmed story by an anonymous source who is reporting on both the words spoken during a phone call, and the thoughts/motives of one of the participants, when that source plainly was not on the call, and could not have personal knowledge. The article does not specify how the source came to know of the information, whether second hand, or third hand or more. The article does not explain what the extent of the "familiarity" with the call was -- did he just hear about it, or was he in the room when it happened. And, it does not say who the source spoke to to find out the details if the info was gathered by verbal communication (and there doesn't appear to be any other way for the source to find out). And, the article does not explain what the need is for anonimity here on what amounts to a largely gossipy article about someone being rude and obnoxious on a telephone call.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Begging the pardon of Brian Peacock for replying to some of this....

We can assume for the sake of this discussion (about what I posted specifically) that Steele is the most credible source ever and everything in the dossier was true and accurate 100%. It would still be collusion with a foreign person to obtain dirt on a political opponent and provision of a thing of value to a candidate to assist in that campaign. It would be the definition of meddling used in the Trump-Russia allegations.

As you have repeatedly and correctly pointed out, collusion in this context is not a crime. However, Steele was employed by Fusion GPS. It is only by a somewhat tortuous use of the term 'collusion' that somebody would describe that fully legal transaction as such, given that 'collusion' is defined as 'secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose.' I believe that you've previously acknowledged that opposition research is standard practice in political campaigns in the US. Are you alleging here that Fusion GPS's employment of Steele was for an illegal or deceitful purpose?

As I've pointed out previously in this thread, Steele being paid for his work does not violate federal campaign law. If he had done the work gratis, that would be a different matter. I have yet to see an allegation by anyone that the Russian government was paid for its efforts on behalf of the Trump campaign. That is part of the issue--whether the Trump campaign or people in the Trump campaign were involved in dealings with the Russian government or its representatives that entailed arrangement for some provision by those entities, gratis, of something of value to the campaign in violation of the law.

Note, what I posted about Fusion was that it is a foreign entity which has provided dirt to a candidate about that candidate's opponent, and that information was bought and paid for. So, you have collusion with a foreign person, money exchanging hands, and a thing of value provided (in relation to Trump, it has been alleged that "information" about dirt on Hillary would be a thing of value and thus an illegal campaign contribution and other violation of US election law).

Fusion GPS is not a foreign entity. It's a US company owned by US nationals. As above, you're going to have to support your allegation that the legal transactions whereby Fusion GPS and Steele were paid for the opposition research meets the definition of collusion. In federal campaign law, provision of 'a thing of value' by a foreign entity or person is specifically in regard to donations or contributions as defined by FEC; it's not about a foreign entity or person being paid for their work.

The Fusion GPS report "interferes" with the democratic processes in just the same way as a Russian providing information about Hillary Clinton is said to have "interfered" with the democratic process, and it would be the same violation of American election law, if indeed it is a violation of the law at all.

You're going to have to support that assertion. It appears to me to be false on a number of points.

I'm going to restrain myself and address just one more:

Nobody is saying that it's fine for Trump to hire Russian versians of FusionGPS to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton, as long as the dirt is true, are they? Or are they? Is that what you're saying? It's o.k. to meet with lady Russian lawyer, if the handbag she brought to the meeting contained true but damaging dirt?

I would say that it's somewhat questionable for a US campaign to hire and pay a Russian firm to do opposition research, but according to US campaign law it would be legal. The truth or falsehood of the information is irrelevant. What matters under the law is whether the information was provided to the campaign free of charge. (A donation or contribution to the campaign, as defined by the FEC.)

[L'Emmerdeur]

McCabe. Reaching McCabe is different than calling the FBI's spokespeople.

Do you imagine that a reporter can just pick up the phone and call the Deputy Director of the FBI? If a reporter were to attempt to get a comment from the Deputy Director, I expect that they would have to work their way through at least a couple of layers of staff before that happened. The point is that the reporter did attempt to get a comment and was rebuffed by the FBI.

But, regardless, it doesn't matter. The criticism stands. They are running with an unconfirmed story by an anonymous source who is reporting on both the words spoken during a phone call, and the thoughts/motives of one of the participants, when that source plainly was not on the call, and could not have personal knowledge.

I agree, your criticism stands. While it's a legitimate challenge to the veracity of the article, it does nothing to actually disprove what is reported. It's a more reasonable and sophisticated version of Trump's 'fake news!'

The article does not specify how the source came to know of the information, whether second hand, or third hand or more. The article does not explain what the extent of the "familiarity" with the call was -- did he just hear about it, or was he in the room when it happened. And, it does not say who the source spoke to to find out the details if the info was gathered by verbal communication (and there doesn't appear to be any other way for the source to find out). And, the article does not explain what the need is for anonimity here on what amounts to a largely gossipy article about someone being rude and obnoxious on a telephone call.

I think the above is all true. Everybody on this site is well aware by now that you really, really don't like anonymous sources. That doesn't do a damn thing in the way of showing that the information presented is inaccurate.

[pErvinalia]

McCabe. Reaching McCabe is different than calling the FBI's spokespeople.

But, regardless, it doesn't matter. The criticism stands. They are running with an unconfirmed story by an anonymous source who is reporting on both the words spoken during a phone call, and the thoughts/motives of one of the participants, when that source plainly was not on the call, and could not have personal knowledge.

The person didn't need to be on the call. They could have been in the room and heard one half of the conversation and had the other half repeated to them by a person on the call.

The article does not specify how the source came to know of the information, whether second hand, or third hand or more.

If it was first hand, then the article stating that could put their job in jeopardy. Why do you keep pretending that there aren't logical explanations for why certain info has been withheld??

[Tero]

What You Need To Know About The GOP Snooping Memo Controversy
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/58221511 ... ontroversy

[Forty Two]

That's not accurate, as there is also campaign finance law that can apply. The legal experts, lol, were all over this https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/159 ... es-illegal -- just agreeing to take a meeting with a "foreign person" who is offering to give you dirt on an opponent, that - according to the legal experts when talking about Trump -- is a clear violation of federal campaign finance law.

So, either the legal experts are wrong, or they're not wrong.

Or you are putting your own spin on it. They are talking about DONATIONS (or equivalent), not legally contracted work:

The crucial phrase here is “other thing of value,” legal experts tell me. It means that the law extends beyond just cash donations. Foreigners are also banned from providing other kinds of contributions that would be the functional equivalent of a campaign donation, just provided in the form of services rather than goods.

{snipped "yebutt Hillary" tu quo que by proxy}

The "dirt" is a "thing of value" whether paid for or not paid for.

But in the end, if we accept your analysis, that would mean that "taking the meeting" itself could not be a violation, because nothing was actually given for free. If Trump, Jr., under that interpretation contracted with the Russian to provide the dirt, and paid a fee, then it would not be a donation, and everything is fine. If there was no dirt, there was nothing to buy, and nothing to donate.

[Seabass]

Nothing to see here.

[Tero]

Obstructor in chief has..9 months?..left:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre
But the House Judiciary Committee did not approve its first article of impeachment until July 27 the following year – more than nine months after the Saturday Night Massacre – when it charged Nixon with obstruction of justice. Two more articles of impeachment quickly followed.