Flynn has given "substantial" assistance to the special counsel

[Divine_Wind]

I have no doubt that you are right, but since I can't prove it, I'm not going to argue all the various unsubstantiated attempts to dismiss and undermine the investigation. It's just more of the same old.

In 1970 Alvin Toffler popularized the phrase "Information Overload" in the book "Future Shock". He rightly predicted that the Information Age provided by computers would also present so much information that people would be hard pressed to separate fact from opinion. Between the Internet and 24/7 cable news, it is very difficult for most Americans to wade through the tons of BS and recognize the actual truths.

The best thing to do, IMO, is to go straight to the source. In this case, the Constitution which delineates the powers of Congress. Examples: The Powers of Congress.
https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

A main power of Congress is oversight and they can wield that power because they also control funding. If an agency isn't cooperating, then it can be defunded. The claims that the DOJ and/or FBI aren't cooperating is bogus because, while there may be some stonewalling, in the end, what Congress wants, Congress gets. It can be legitimately argued that Congress doesn't always do its job, but again, Congress still has the power to get what it wants. There should be no doubt that a Republican Senate and a Republican House had committees look at the FISA warrants, the DOJ and FBI involvement. They also looked at the unredacted statements to verify veracity. All agencies and investigations run on funding and Congress controls funding.

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Investigations-Oversight/
The Constitution says nothing about congressional investigations and oversight, but the authority to conduct investigations is implied since Congress possesses “all legislative powers.” The Supreme Court determined that the framers intended for Congress to seek out information when crafting or reviewing legislation. George Mason of Virginia said at the Federal Convention that Members of Congress “are not only Legislators but they possess inquisitorial powers. They must meet frequently to inspect the Conduct of the public offices.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You know what the glaring problem is with your argument here is j-mac?

It's that you think that it's up to the accused to prove the negative...

Sorry, but that's not how it works

You are only 50% correct.

Check the politicians and the media.

That IS how it works - provided that the Accused is "The Other Guy".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No matter how much circumlocution you use to explain the IG report it didn't find "no wrongdoing".

You are quite right.

What it actually found was that there was POTENTIALLY some "wrongdoing" but that there was NO "substantial likelihood" of a conviction that would justify a prosecution.

What that means is that NO ONE was found guilty and, as Mr. Trump's supporters like to maintain (at least as far as anyone who supports Mr. Trump is concerned), that means that they MUST be treated as innocent.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You do not know if trump is a traitor or not; Dont count your chickens just yet.

To paraphrase the "Tema Trump" position:

Maybe he is, and maybe he isn't. All the evidence isn't in yet and so we shouldn't form any opinion. Besides, I have spoken to __[fill in the blank]__ and he has denied it. I find his denials compelling. I have looked at the evidence and decided to ignore it because I go with my gut and my gut tells me that the evidence is not correct.
​

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You said there was no evidence of wrong doing the IG said among other things Comey was Most of the focus of the report in the news has been on its criticism of then FBI director James Comey that some of his actions were "extraordinary and insubordinate" — a scathing indictment of wrong if there ever was one.

Omelet > Khayembii Communique face

Tell me, if someone is investigating something and determines that the evidence derived from that investigation does not disclose wrongdoing (or, at least, actions which are so strongly indicative of wrongdoing as to warrant a prosecution with some reasonable chance of obtaining a conviction) do actions of the investigator that are NOT related to the evidence mean that the person investigated did NOT commit any wrongdoing (or, at least, there were actions which are so strongly indicative of wrongdoing as to warrant a prosecution with some reasonable chance of obtaining a conviction)?

If so, why?

Tell me, if your position is that someone who has

• NOT been charged;
• NOT been tried;
• NOT been convicted;
• NOT exhausted all of their appeals (no matter how frivolous); and
• NOT personally admitted their guilt in public;

is to be considered innocent and treated accordingly, why do you treat Ms. Clinton who has

• NOT been charged;
• NOT been tried;
• NOT been convicted;
• NOT exhausted all of their appeals (no matter how frivolous); and
• NOT personally admitted their guilt in public;

as someone who has been actually found guilty?

I mean other than "That's DIFFERENT!!!", of course.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Love how one can go from ‘Lock her up!’ to ‘Hey now, despite all the felony convictions we don’t want to make any rash assumptions here.’ in a year.

Since those who were chanting "Lock her up!", haven't stopped even though they are now saying "Hey now, despite all the felony convictions we don’t want to make any rash assumptions here." with respect to someone else, there isn't any "going from" anything.

Remember the mantra "That's DIFFERENT!!!".

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

To paraphrase the "Tema Trump" position:

Maybe he is, and maybe he isn't. All the evidence isn't in yet and so we shouldn't form any opinion. Besides, I have spoken to __[fill in the blank]__ and he has denied it. I find his denials compelling. I have looked at the evidence and decided to ignore it because I go with my gut and my gut tells me that the evidence is not correct.
​

He has to go with his gut, just look at the size of it.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

He has to go with his gut, just look at the size of it.

You do know that it is just as easy for a fat man to be intelligent as it is for a thin man to be intelligent, don't you?

Of course, the flip side of that is that it is just as easy for a thin man to be stupid as it is for a fat man to be stupid.

That would appear to imply that the "size of a person's stomach" is totally irrelevant to intelligence and that any attempt to connect the two is - what?

Go ahead, take a guess.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

You do know that it is just as easy for a fat man to be intelligent as it is for a thin man to be intelligent, don't you?

Of course, the flip side of that is that it is just as easy for a thin man to be stupid as it is for a fat man to be stupid.

That would appear to imply that the "size of a person's stomach" is totally irrelevant to intelligence and that any attempt to connect the two is - what?

Go ahead, take a guess.

My guess is that you did not like my joke.

 

[Divine_Wind]

My guess is that you did not like my joke.

....and sensitive to fat jokes?

Besides; Trump’s ass is fatter than his gut. Just sayin’.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

My guess is that you did not like my joke.

Let's say that I'm not overly fond of judging people by physical appearance or conflating totally irrelevant factors with important ones.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

....and sensitive to fat jokes?

Besides; Trump’s ass is fatter than his gut. Just sayin’.

See previous post.

PS - At 74 I weigh 15 pounds more than I weighed when I joined the Army at 17 and can still pass the graduation physical test for the USMC. Not only that, but I don't really care about either of those facts because that is merely the way that my body is constructed and has absolutely nada to do with whether or not I can think.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Let's say that I'm not overly fond of judging people by physical appearance or conflating totally irrelevant factors with important ones.

Ok I get it you are on your high. And I am just a lowly idiot. Get over yourself dude.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Ok I get it you are on your high. And I am just a lowly idiot. Get over yourself dude.

Nope, you don't "Get it.".

I am who I am and that is the result of a lifetime of experiences in varied countries, dealing with varied peoples, and doing varied tasks plus 17 years of post secondary education scattered throughout 74 years and am a person DOES NOT judge people by their physical appearance and/or conflate totally irrelevant factors with important ones.

You are who you are and that is NOT the result of a lifetime of experiences in varied countries, dealing with varied peoples, and doing varied tasks plus 17 years of post secondary education scattered throughout 74 years and DO judge people by their physical appearance and/or conflate totally irrelevant factors with important ones.

That's what's known as being different.

If you feel that having been identified as a person who DOES judge people by their physical appearance and/or conflate totally irrelevant factors with important ones diminishes your self-assigned self-worth, then possibly you might consider WHY you don't like being identified as a person who DOES judge people by their physical appearance and/or conflate totally irrelevant factors with important ones and do something about it.

 

[Divine_Wind]

See previous post.

PS - At 74 I weigh 15 pounds more than I weighed when I joined the Army at 17 and can still pass the graduation physical test for the USMC. Not only that, but I don't really care about either of those facts because that is merely the way that my body is constructed and has absolutely nada to do with whether or not I can think.

Still, you seem really sensitive to body and IQ issues.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Still, you seem really sensitive to body and IQ issues.

I think you would have to be talking about the President then when it comes to those things.

 

[Divine_Wind]

I think you would have to be talking about the President then when it comes to those things.

Mushroom dick Trump too!

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Nope, you don't "Get it.".

I am who I am and that is the result of a lifetime of experiences in varied countries, dealing with varied peoples, and doing varied tasks plus 17 years of post secondary education scattered throughout 74 years and am a person DOES NOT judge people by their physical appearance and/or conflate totally irrelevant factors with important ones.

You are who you are and that is NOT the result of a lifetime of experiences in varied countries, dealing with varied peoples, and doing varied tasks plus 17 years of post secondary education scattered throughout 74 years and DO judge people by their physical appearance and/or conflate totally irrelevant factors with important ones.

That's what's known as being different.

If you feel that having been identified as a person who DOES judge people by their physical appearance and/or conflate totally irrelevant factors with important ones diminishes your self-assigned self-worth, then possibly you might consider WHY you don't like being identified as a person who DOES judge people by their physical appearance and/or conflate totally irrelevant factors with important ones and do something about it.

Despite all that you are judging me because of a joke. It was not serious and never will be serious. I do not think any differently of Trump or anyone based on their weight. You jumped to a conclusion and judged me. If you have any problem with a post that I make tell a mod. Just stop this crap of judging me on a joke.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Still, you seem really sensitive to body and IQ issues.

I don't make a point of taking issue with others who use language that I consider offensive or inappropriate (or even completely irrelevant) - NO ONE has that sort of time to waste.

If you choose to evaluate people according to some set of arbitrary physical standards rather than on their real, relevant, qualities, that's your right.

I don't, and that's my right as well.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Despite all that you are judging me because of a joke.

Nope, I'm judging the "joke".

I do not think any differently of Trump or anyone based on their weight.

Then why bother to mention it?

You jumped to a conclusion and judged me.

Nope, judged the "joke".

If you have any problem with a post that I make tell a mod. Just stop this crap of judging me on a joke.

I make it a policy not to bother moderators with insignificant matters. Now if someone were to come out and advocate the commission of violence or other crimes, THAT I would refer to a moderator.

If someone simply wants to appear foolish, I would not bother a moderator with it.

 

[Divine_Wind]

I don't make a point of taking issue with others who use language that I consider offensive or inappropriate (or even completely irrelevant) - NO ONE has that sort of time to waste.

If you choose to evaluate people according to some set of arbitrary physical standards rather than on their real, relevant, qualities, that's your right.

I don't, and that's my right as well.

"Lighten up, Francis".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

"Lighten up, Francis".

You're the one making an issue of it, not me.

If you want to let it rest, that's fine by me.

If you want to continue to be offended, that's also fine by me.

 

[Divine_Wind]

You're the one making an issue of it, not me.

If you want to let it rest, that's fine by me.

If you want to continue to be offended, that's also fine by me.

I'm not the one who is offended/butthurt/whatever you want to call it.

I don't make a point of taking issue with others who use language that I consider offensive or inappropriate (or even completely irrelevant) - NO ONE has that sort of time to waste.

If you choose to evaluate people according to some set of arbitrary physical standards rather than on their real, relevant, qualities, that's your right.

I don't, and that's my right as well.

Nope, I'm judging the "joke".

Then why bother to mention it?

Nope, judged the "joke".

I make it a policy not to bother moderators with insignificant matters. Now if someone were to come out and advocate the commission of violence or other crimes, THAT I would refer to a moderator.

If someone simply wants to appear foolish, I would not bother a moderator with it.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I'm not the one who is offended/butthurt/whatever you want to call it.

Have it your way.

Have a nice decade.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Have it your way.

Have a nice decade.

You too!