Trump's Russian Collusion

[old salt]

But it doesn’t pollute the evidence or make it inadmissible. The righty story is that this form change exempts Trump from unfair oversight.

...& gets the WB complaint to Congress, so it can trigger the press conference & public hearing SchiffShow.

Normally, this complaint would have been fully investigated (without the Congressional notification timeline) by the IG & closed, without becoming a public matter, unless the full investigation substantiated the claim. If the WB was not satisfied with the IG's finding, he could then take it to the Congressional Intel comm's. All without public disclosure, because of the complaint & evidence would not yet be declassified.

Schiff's hearings should be closed & none of this should (yet) be public matters.
Somebody leaked.

Ahhh well, the truth was outed.

55% of Americans currently in favor of moving impeachment inquiry forward.

Some of the investigation will indeed be 'closed' (depositions, IG) but it's virtually all going to be exposed publicly in due course.

Yes. The process was compromised by illegal leaking & Congressional interference, before the IG fully investigated the matter.

Mission Accomplished -- the uproar caused by the leak forced the complaint & transcript to be declassified & released, so the narrative could be hyped to generate support for an impeachment inquiry. Now the adjudication of this WB complaint has been completely politicized & will be a media spectacle.

[ABV 8.3%]

I didn't say anything about .35---->.55.

Where he lied was starting at the 1.00 mark, and at 1.30 is where he says "then they want to throw it into the Senate for a spectacle".

That's a lie. Pelosi has no such power to do that. The House has to publicly vote on impeachment. Levin is telling viewers that they don't have to vote to move it to the Senate. Pelosi just has to "throw it to the Senate", whatever that means.

Why call it a lie if you don't know what he means?

Why do you ask so many questions and rarely give your own point of view?

My point of view is: stop calling something a LIE if you don't know what the person means in the first place.

It created unfounded tension amongst certain posters. Frankly, it made me nervous. Arguments, belittlement.......I needed my safe space after reading it. Treading lightly, don't want to be called a wimp, or someone not understanding what a rhetorical question vs. real one is?

When you and your alter ego stop misspelling McCain's name and stop denigrating his honor as if all errors of judgment are equal, I'll back off in describing such distasteful critique as from "wimps".

True wimps grovel over this horrible hypocrite..........are just afraid to say so in public. (negative things)

And yet, you refuse to address his Clinton "joke" hmmmm......speaks volumes

[Trinity]

Reality star Trump has begged for this spectacular climax.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yes. Biden is a 2020 candidate for President, yes?

Perhaps you'd like to clarify why you posted that highlighted portion?

actually - right now Biden is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president. He is not an opponent of Trump, he is an opponent of Warren, Sanders, Harris, et al

Potential opponent....there that makes it ok.

not saying it makes it OK, just saying it is different. Right now - Biden has a bunch of political opponents and they are all Democrats. If Trump were a competent bad-guy he would not have used up these bullets until he knew Biden had won the nomination. All this does is let the D's make a more informed decision about who their candidate should be.


MD's points below are the best thing that is coming out of this, maybe, just maybe we will end up with long-term reform?? This needs to be investigated. Things like Biden's son selling access and the Clinton foundation raising hundreds of millions of $$'s selling access and hiring their kids can not be the "norm" - it reeks.

The fact that under "normal" circumstances all of this would have been swept under the rug of "efficiency" and "privacy" and "nothing to see here" is a load of garbage. If nothing else, the fact that Trump is as loathsome and clumsy as he is, has made the folks that normally help white-wash everything raise flags. Will it continue when someone they "like" is in the WH? I doubt it.....

Ahhh well, the truth was outed.

55% of Americans currently in favor of moving impeachment inquiry forward.

Some of the investigation will indeed be 'closed' (depositions, IG) but it's virtually all going to be exposed publicly in due course.

I don’t think it makes a material difference. Anyway, the “scandal” has already had the intended result. Damage a potential political rival.

[old salt]

Reality star Trump has begged for this spectacular climax.

Except he's not an Exec Producer of this SchiffShow.

[a fan]

Yes. The process was compromised by illegal leaking & Congressional interference, before the IG fully investigated the matter.

Yes. The process was also compromised by the DNI, and then utterly destroyed by the President himself by threatening the WB publicly.

It would be nice if you'd add that part to the above sentence so that we know that you recognize all the forces that have torn apart our WB process.

WB's now have nowhere to go. Except the press. Which is fine by me, now that several forces in our government have destroyed our WB system.

[old salt]

The DNI did not break the law. He was following the guidance of the ODNI General Counsel & the DoJ OLC.

Stop smearing a loyal govt servant. with a lifetime of honorable service.

[ABV 8.3%]

Yes. The process was compromised by illegal leaking & Congressional interference, before the IG fully investigated the matter.

Yes. The process was also compromised by the DNI, and then utterly destroyed by the President himself by threatening the WB publicly.

It would be nice if you'd add that part to the above sentence so that we know that you recognize all the forces that have torn apart our WB process.

WB's now have nowhere to go. Except the press. Which is fine by me, now that several forces in our government have destroyed our WB system.

I never knew the reason why old salt/rr disliked Ed Snowden so much? Or why no one evah asked why HE didn't feel comfortable going to our government, at the time, the President was.........was........being so forgetful.

[a fan]

No...you accused me of NOT reading what you and others wrote. Because I don't reply. Don't make this bigger than it IS small.

It's not an accusation. It's the truth.

You brought up Japan, telling me that I should be happy about that.

I respond by quoting my own post from a few days before, where I told the board "hey, I'm happy with Trump over this new trade deal".

Proving you didn't read my previous post.

It's not a big deal. Nothing here is. But you repeatedly accuse posters of not talking about whatever it is you think we're supposed to talk about, implying we are hypocrites. And repeatedly, we HAVE talked about those things, but you didn't bother to read them.

Want to do us all a favor? Take a break from your whataboutisms. You do it any time we talk about anything in a nonstop effort to call everyone here a hypocrite. And the one time I finally have enough and return fire, you tell me my "tone has changed".

So in an effort to change tone, please focus on the issue at hand, and if you want to chime in, great. Love to hear your thoughts.

Otherwise, start a different thread on whatever your whataboutism is for that day.

[a fan]

The DNI did not break the law. He was following the guidance of the ODNI General Counsel & the DoJ OLC.

Reaching out to those offices is not part of the WB law's protocol. Nowhere does it direct him ,or more importantly , ALLOW HIM to seek their counsel. The law is specific for a reason. You don't get to toss it the law aside, and do whatever the heck you want.

Either laws matter, or they don't. You want people to follow some laws, and not others. And get really angry when some laws are broken, and make up excuses as to why it's ok to break the laws that you don't feel are important.


Our country doesn't work like that.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The DNI did not break the law. He was following the guidance of the ODNI General Counsel & the DoJ OLC.

Reaching out to those offices is not part of the WB law's protocol. Nowhere does it direct him ,or more importantly , ALLOW HIM to seek their counsel. The law is specific for a reason. You don't get to toss it the law aside, and do whatever the heck you want.

Either laws matter, or they don't. You want people to follow some laws, and not others. And get really angry when some laws are broken, and make up excuses as to why it's ok to break the laws that you don't feel are important.


Our country doesn't work like that.

Did you see who wrote the opinion from the OLC?

[CU88]

Trump’s tweets this morning suggest a civil war over his removal is possible. He demands to meet his accuser. And Adam Schiff should be arrested.

Interesting that he has gone from "Not Guilty" to look at the Civil War that will result when I am found Guilty.

DEPLORABLE

[ABV 8.3%]

No...you accused me of NOT reading what you and others wrote. Because I don't reply. Don't make this bigger than it IS small.

It's not an accusation. It's the truth.

You brought up Japan, telling me that I should be happy about that.

I respond by quoting my own post from a few days before, where I told the board "hey, I'm happy with Trump over this new trade deal".

Proving you didn't read my previous post.

It's not a big deal. Nothing here is. But you repeatedly accuse posters of not talking about whatever it is you think we're supposed to talk about, implying we are hypocrites. And repeatedly, we HAVE talked about those things, but you didn't bother to read them.

Want to do us all a favor? Take a break from your whataboutisms. You do it any time we talk about anything in a nonstop effort to call everyone here a hypocrite. And the one time I finally have enough and return fire, you tell me my "tone has changed".

So in an effort to change tone, please focus on the issue at hand, and if you want to chime in, great. Love to hear your thoughts.

Otherwise, start a different thread on whatever your whataboutism is for that day.

isn't bringing up whataboutism...........whataboutism?

Again, read my other posts. Also, again, telling someone what to do, how to do it (focus) is VERY passive aggressive. How you don't see this is amazing. Not even slightly giving a second thought.

You , every day, say the same TAATS message, in just more words. Isn't you bringing up the TEA party whataboutism? Or, for that matter, focusing on the issue at hand. Or rather, NOT focusing on the issue at hand? You see how this works ? You TELL me how to stay focused, or be gone, but you constantly do the same thing. This is firing first. Could care less about it. But, when YOU bring it up. Or reject an argument as a "whataboutism", when you do the same in pretty much every post.

I mean, do we really have to search long and hard for a AFAN comments to paraphrase : 'where are all the ___________now?" or "don't recall you giving OBama credit for_______________" ????

[a fan]

Did you see who wrote the opinion from the OLC?

I did. Pointed it out to Old Salt a few pages back.

It'd say it was likely that Maguire didn't know about that relationship before he asked for his advice.

Although you'd think a lawyer that has to report to BAR ethics committees would turn down the request for advice from MacGuire not only because of conflicts, but also because the WB law doesn't tell Macguire that he can tell other officials not detailed in the WB act about the existence of a WB complaint.

[a fan]

isn't bringing up whataboutism...........whataboutism?

Again, read my other posts. Also, again, telling someone what to do, how to do it (focus) is VERY passive aggressive. How you don't see this is amazing. Not even slightly giving a second thought.

Of course I see this. You suggested I change tone, and change the way I discuss things here. You told me what to do first, my friend.

And as I explained, I'm not going to do that if you don't change behavior, too. So yes, absolutely I brought up the Tea Party and made other similar points in the past. I'm not going to do that anymore, because you asked me to change tone. Same goes for Old Salt.

But you have to follow suit.

We have a deal, or not?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Did you see who wrote the opinion from the OLC?

I did. Pointed it out to Old Salt a few pages back.

It'd say it was likely that Maguire didn't know about that relationship before he asked for his advice.

Although you'd think a lawyer that has to report to BAR ethics committees would turn down the request for advice from MacGuire not only because of conflicts, but also because the WB law doesn't tell Macguire that he can tell other officials not detailed in the WB act about the existence of a WB complaint.

It’s kind of ridiculous. But we are finding that a lot of things are ridiculous!

[old salt]

The DNI did not break the law. He was following the guidance of the ODNI General Counsel & the DoJ OLC.

Reaching out to those offices is not part of the WB law's protocol. Nowhere does it direct him ,or more importantly , ALLOW HIM to seek their counsel. The law is specific for a reason. You don't get to toss it the law aside, and do whatever the heck you want.

Either laws matter, or they don't. You want people to follow some laws, and not others. And get really angry when some laws are broken, and make up excuses as to why it's ok to break the laws that you don't feel are important.

Our country doesn't work like that.

The WB law does not forbid the DNI from consulting the ODNI GC or the DoJ OLC.
Nor does it grant the DNI the authority to ignore Exec Privilege.
The DNI followed the ICWPA, as interpreted by the ODNI GC & the DoJ OLC.
Don't blame the DNI for following proper channels in navigating the ambiguities of a law that clearly did not envision nor address the potential conflicting rights of a President, if accused. A law so ambiguous that it apparently allows the IC IG to modify critical triggering criteria, just by making an admin change to a complaint form.

If the DNI broke the law, Congress can sue & SCOTUS can rule on his actions & the Constitutionality of the ICWPA if executed in the manner you assert that it should have been. Good luck in court.

[old salt]

Did you see who wrote the opinion from the OLC?

I did. Pointed it out to Old Salt a few pages back.

It'd say it was likely that Maguire didn't know about that relationship before he asked for his advice.

Although you'd think a lawyer that has to report to BAR ethics committees would turn down the request for advice from MacGuire not only because of conflicts, but also because the WB law doesn't tell Macguire that he can tell other officials not detailed in the WB act about the existence of a WB complaint.

It’s kind of ridiculous. But we are finding that a lot of things are ridiculous!

Were they on Pete & Lisa's dinner party list, or was that limited to FISC Judges ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Did you see who wrote the opinion from the OLC?

I did. Pointed it out to Old Salt a few pages back.

It'd say it was likely that Maguire didn't know about that relationship before he asked for his advice.

Although you'd think a lawyer that has to report to BAR ethics committees would turn down the request for advice from MacGuire not only because of conflicts, but also because the WB law doesn't tell Macguire that he can tell other officials not detailed in the WB act about the existence of a WB complaint.

It’s kind of ridiculous. But we are finding that a lot of things are ridiculous!

Were they on Pete & Lisa's dinner party list, or was that limited to FISC Judges ?

Maybe

[jhu72]

The IG also said there were indications of bias in the complaint.

We're going to hear this "defense" from right wing media non-stop from here on out, so we might as well give this a name. It's the "Wetness of water is party dependent" defense. It makes no sense no matter how many times this" defense" is rolled out.

Respectfully, Old Salt, we've been over this. It doesn't matter if there is bias. Are the allegations true, or not true? The person making the complaint is immaterial to the conversation. At no point do we have to judge the WB, because it's not about the WB's opinion on some abstract subject.

This defense was trotted out during Muller and Strozk. And this defense was even more bizarre, because Strozk found no evidence of what would normally be considered to be a criminal offense by the President. So Strozk found the POTUS not guilty, in effect. But R's still hit him for bias. Weird.

But in any event this ignores the obvious corollary. If the WB's complaint is invalidated because he hates Trump, does it not follow that the complaint is invalidated if he loves Trump? Of course it does. The water is wet defense seeks to confuse citizens to the point where they ignore whether or not the WB's allegations are true or not. And we already know that the primary complaint is true, because Trump told us it was.

I'm looking forward to hearing from the IG & learning about timing & process of changing the hearsay rules regarding IC WB's.

They're allowed to change rules. And it appears that they did it to get WB complaints through on Trump. Considering what has transpired, and that Trump has confirmed the key allegation, is this rule change bad?

If that law wasn't changed, odds are, this would have simply been leaked. Is that your preferred path? I would think you'd want it to be EASIER to use the WB act, not harder.

Much of the WB's claim had already been leaked & published, attributed to unnamed current & former officials.
The WB (& apparently his informants) did not have access to the transcript in the super secret server, so they were unable to leak it.
This was a mechanism to force the declassification & release of the transcript, as fodder for impeachment.

Q'Anon conspiracy theory...about as credible as any of the rest of their claptrap

+1

If a deep state existed and wanted to bring down Orange Duce -- he would be in his grave already.

Fairy tales can come true it can happen to you when you watch Faux News ...