[W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

[Hamish Howl]

Really? Every other President would have accepted information about political rivals from, say, the GRU?
I call bull****.

Well, this is our first actual traitor president.

 

[dixon01767]

A private company called Fusion GPS was hired by a radical-right organisation, The Washington Free Beacon, to dig up dirt on Trump. The Free Beacon backed away in May and the DNC picked it up. Fusion hired Steele without telling him who the customer was.
Where do you think it came from?

We know it came from Russia.

 

[dixon01767]

So says someone who simply hasn't bothered to follow the links to the actual American statutes what actually deal with that actual point.

So full of it.

 

[dixon01767]

Why not?

After all if the highest court in the land rules that it is "legal" to engage in hyper-partisan gerrymandering, why shouldn't it be "legal" for other countries to pervert America's elections..

Revealing the truth isnt a perversion of our elections no matter where the truth comes from. Is revealing how the left views hiding the truth to be essential to our elections.

 

[Grand Mal]

We know it came from Russia.

Who's 'we'? I assume you mean the dossier came from Russia, do you know anything that indicates it did or do you just 'know' it because it is known?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

We know it came from Russia.

So, we should conclude that any information about Russia, that "comes from Russia", or that comes from a Russian, or that involves a Russian in any way, is completely false, should we?

Isn't that going to make it slightly difficult to have any idea what the Russians are, or are not, doing?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So full of it.

I'd much rather put the misrepresentation of what the laws of the United States of America are down to sloth than I would to deliberate ignorance and falsehoods.

However, if you want, I'm prepared to change my opinion.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Revealing the truth isnt a perversion of our elections no matter where the truth comes from. Is revealing how the left views hiding the truth to be essential to our elections.

I don't have any problem with "revealing the truth", it's "revealing the non-truth and mindlessly accepting/repeating it as truth" that I have an issue with.

The laws of the United States of America (which I'm still crediting you with being too lazy to actually look at, despite having been provided with actual links to the actual sections of the actual laws) are quite specific on the point of "accepting foreign help".

If someone doesn't like what the law is, then the appropriate course of action (in a civilized country that is governed by the rule of law) is to get off their butt and work to get the law changed WHILE OBEYING the existing law until such time as the manage to have it changed.

I do understand that there are some people who believe that they have the right to refuse to comply with laws that they think should not have been passed and that that right extends to being immune from the legislatively enacted penalties for not complying with those laws. I don't happen to be one of them. You seem to be one of them.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Who's 'we'? I assume you mean the dossier came from Russia, do you know anything that indicates it did or do you just 'know' it because it is known?

Well, obviously "it came from Russia".

1. Where else would information about what the Russians were doing come from - Bermuda?
2. And, if that's the case, where would the Bermudans get that information from - Norway?
3. And, if that's the case, where would the Norwegians get that information from - __[fill in the blank]__?
4. And, if that's the case, where would the __[fill in the blank]__s get that nformation from - __[fill in the blank]__?
5. (Continue repeating Line 4 until the second blank is filled in with "Russia".)

Therefore EVERYTHING about Russia "comes from Russia" and, thus, must be totally discounted.

Right?

 

[Ouroboros]

Re: [W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

I want the president to have an off hand approach and let the FBI and the Judges decide how far they should go with an investigation. I also want an FBI being aware of everybody who tries to deliver oppo information to the president and investigate their background to see if and what type of contacts they have to foreign agencies.

And ideally, should the same FBI be entirely transparent as to the people paying for the oppo research when making applications to judges?

 

[Ouroboros]

Re: [W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

Okay, you base your argument on a speculation based on the claim that "somebody" (who?) left the dossier on his desk for weeks (was this the only copy and was this person the only one dealing with the file). I base my argument on comparing the FBI's time of investigation to other cases in the past and I see nothing unusual in this time to support the claim that the FBI was dragging its heels.

Actually, though I said weeks, the cited essay in Wiki says two months, according to political writer Nancy LeTourneau. She does specify that the dossier languished in the New York field office, so if it's real important, I guess one might be able to find out who was the head honcho there at the time.

It doesn't seem overly important to me. I have no problem with the Dossier being investigated, but I think one ought to remain aware than in any organization, there will be employees who aren't that excited about such big revelations, and others who are, whether or not the latter are politically motivated or not.

 

[Ouroboros]

But I cannot accept as reasonable the idea that the FBI did not have employees who were NOT politically motivated and who would not say anything. It is one thing to say that a certain FBI had perhaps a political motivation and it is another thing to believe that there was some type of FBI collective conspiracy to mislead a judge. Plus, I think one of the most obvious questions for anybody who would examine the validity of the application would have been the source of the information. Also, from what I recall Nunes' claim that the Steele file was very important in the FISA applications proved to be misleading.

Well, all this comes down to the fundamental disagreement about the Dossier's utility when not proved. You think that it could have a vital effect if released, and that politically motivated anti-Trump agents, if any, would've found some way to release the Dossier quickly in order to smear Trump and cost him the election. IMO, Trump's alleged ties to Russia were already a major Democratic talking-point in 2016, and I see no evidence that loose talk was hurting Trump with his base. So the hypothetical anti-Trump agent might feel it would be better to get all the facts, ma'am, and then take action as soon as real evidence was obtained, no matter how long it took.

 

[Ouroboros]

I do not understand how the first part of your quote is linked as some type of argument for the point.

Can a file be used for political purposes even if it is not public knowledge? Temporarily this can happen, but the intention will be to publicize the "fruits" of such labor at some point. This is how politicians in democratic countries win the public opinion and the votes, and because of this, I do not find any reasonable explanation for why a politically motivated president would not decide to reveal the existence of Steele file before the elections. That was the best time to do it.

Politicians often choose to keep opposition research files private up until a few weeks before the election. This is why we have the term "The October surprise" which often comes with outrageous claims against the political opponent

October surprise - Wikipedia

As I more or less implied in my previous post, an October surprise has to be compelling to have any effect, and an unverified dossier just wasn't that compelling.

 

[Ouroboros]

And then there is the real world where the existence of the dossier and its content was made public in October. And the existence of the investigation based upon the dossier, months earlier in July

Good point: I didn't trouble to look up anything regarding the dossier's public release 'cause I assumed Pamak was accurate about its being after the election. Guess not.

 

[Ouroboros]

One of the main reasons why I don't give simple answers to the simple minded when they ask simple minded questions about complex matters is that there are no simple answers to complex matters.

However, I quite understand that your opinion differs.



That's what's known as actually examining the evidence and no simply relying on what someone else tells you what they heard you were supposed to think the evidence is.

I quite understand that actually looking at the evidence and thinking for themselves is something that some people REALLY don't like to do.



Really? Exactly how does "My opinion of what that report says could well differ from what your opinion is, and that difference might well have something to do with the differences in our respective differences in legal interpretation, contract interpretation, intelligence interpretation, legal analysis, contract analysis, and intelligence analysis." (which a simple person could reduce to "Because we have different backgrounds and different skills, our opinions might not be the same.") say that?

Or is your statement actually a tacit admission that you don't have the same quality of comprehension, analytical, and interpretive skills as another person does but don't want to admit it (especially in conjunction with an admission that you just plain old have not bothered to actually take a look at the actual evidence that is actually available and much prefer to have someone [of totally unknown experience and ability] tell you what to think?



Never having met your mentor and tutor, I leave such judgments to you.

All you had to do, in order to reply cogently to the question, was to locate someone online whose summation of Mueller you believed to be (however incorrectly) supportive of your view of things. Then you could have provided a link, and we could've argued as to whether the items verified were in truth verified.

Instead, you took the chicken**** way out. Well, cluck you.:mrgreen:

 

[Ouroboros]

Re: [W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

Your "has convinced me that she probably would have been as divisive a president as Trump," is just about the same analysis as anyone who was able to stand outside the scrum when doing their analysis of the 2016 elections and election campaigns.

Your "if not worse" is quite correct PROVIDED you couple it with "but maybe not".

In short, by analogy, in the 2016 election the American people were presented with this question to answer

"Can I run faster if I shoot myself in my left foot, or can I run faster if I shoot myself in my right foot?"
​

When you show yourself capable of any level of analysis, then you can criticize my abilities. So far you've shown no ability save that of constructing over-elaborate sentences.

For instance, there's no reason a sentence that states an "if" proposition would need to append "but maybe not." The very word "if" implies that the judgment could go at least one of two ways.

To tie this post back into the main topic, I think one reason the Left has belabored the question of Trump's Russian ties is because they'd like to obscure that he's not actually doing all that bad a job as President, in spite of all of his personal failings, like being (as I've said elsewhere) a vulgar narcissist.

 

[Ouroboros]

Not really, because the laws of the United States of America do NOT make any distinction between what types of "assistance" an American political campaign/candidate is allowed to receive from foreigners.



True, but that decision is for the FBI to make and not for the person who wants to receive "assistance" from foreigners in their campaign for election/re-election.

This is an extremely jejune view of politics. Every day information of various types passes between heads of state, diplomats, intelligence agents, and other officials, and no one is prosecuted for failing to let the FBI vet everything. Context is everything, and you're arguing for a total lack of context with regard to communications between the Prez and foreign agents because it suits your agenda to define any transmission of info as an illicit "gift."

You're right on this tiny thing: if it can be proven that a Prez accepts info that a prosecutor chooses to define as "a gift," whether there's a provable quid pro quo or not, then the law as it exists can be used to prosecute the Prez.

But first you have to have proof that the gift even exists, as opposed to being something conjured up in the imaginations of rabid Leftists.

 

[Ouroboros]

When dealing with what the law IS, the word "moral" simply doesn't enter into consideration.

When dealing with what the law SHOULD BE, the word "moral" does enter into consideration.

Some people believe that it IS "moral" to rob banks in order to get money to feed starving people. Other people DO NOT believe that it is "moral" to rob banks in order to get money to feed starving people.

Regardless of whether someone does, or does not, believe that it IS "moral" to rob banks in order to get money to feed starving people, it IS NOT "legal" to rob banks.

If you think that it IS "moral" to rob banks in order to get money to feed starving people AND that it SHOULD NOT be illegal to rob banks in order to feed starving people, then the correct course of action to take is to CHANGE THE LAW, because, up until the time you do that you are going to go to jail if you rob a bank even if you do so in order to feed starving people.

Sadly for you, I can argue on this forum that a given law is immoral whether I do anything to change it or not. If you don't know how to construct counter-arguments, that's not my fault.

You know, if you chop your logic any finer, it'll start slipping beneath your fingers any time now.

 

[Ouroboros]

So foreign intelligence agencies seeking to influence the American election now have carte blanche to investigate Trump's rivals and hand him their findings.
That's what the President has said, literally.

I think that state of affairs has always existed; ir's just that "oppo research" was paid for outright by political opponents rather than being (in theory) handed over for some implied quid pro quo.

BTW, at no time in the Stephanopoulos interview does Trump say that he would give the informant anything in return, although this argument has been made here time and again. Yes, yes, I know, "gifts" are illegal whether the recipient returns the favor or not, but you're still going to have to prove legally that the information constitutes a "gift." And in case some people here haven't heard, we have this little thing called the legal system, in which lawyers on different sides spend hundreds of man-hours defining what is or isn't a crime.

 

[Ouroboros]

Quite right "BuzzFeed Posts Unverified Claims on Trump, Igniting a Debate". And "A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump -Has the bureau investigated this material?". Please pay absolutely no attention to the dates on those articles since everyone knows that they are lies maliciously inserted by the super-secret, hidden, covert, conspiracy's conspirators in order to super-secretly, conspire to covertly conspire in a hidden manner to reveal the obviously fake (after all Mr. Trump hasn't been convicted, let alone tried, or even indicted so - OBVIOUSLY - nothing at all happened) lies about the man that God Chose To Lead America.

PS - I do, however agree that those dates were "before the election" - just not as far in advance as you appear to want everyone to believe.

Do you plan, in the near future, to dispute the timing of the October release of info by an unnamed agent to Mother Jones Magazine?

Hey, it's in October, so does that make it eligible to be-- a "surprise?"

 

[Ouroboros]

So, we should conclude that any information about Russia, that "comes from Russia", or that comes from a Russian, or that involves a Russian in any way, is completely false, should we?

Isn't that going to make it slightly difficult to have any idea what the Russians are, or are not, doing?

Well, we do know that the Russians under Putin apparently think it's a good idea to suss out a possible Presidential asset by meeting his reps in a highly public place like Trump Tower.

It was such a deeply kept secret that the Times broke the story on the meeting about a month later.

That darn Putin! In intelligence all that time, and he can't keep a secret any better than that!

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

All you had to do, in order to reply cogently to the question, was to locate someone online whose summation of Mueller you believed to be (however incorrectly) supportive of your view of things. Then you could have provided a link, and we could've argued as to whether the items verified were in truth verified.

Instead, you took the chicken**** way out. Well, cluck you.:mrgreen:

Did you know that "finding someone who agrees with me after I have examined the evidence and come to my own conclusion" is NOT the same thing as "finding proof that I am correct"?

Did you know that "finding someone (who I have absolutely no idea whether they have actually examined the evidence) that says something that I want to be true because I have already made up my mind without actually examining the evidence for myself and reaching my own conclusions" is even less like "finding proof that I am correct" than "finding someone who agrees with me" is?

As you appear to be unwilling to establish that you have actually examined the evidence for yourself and reached your own conclusions (as opposed to "having read someone else's version of what you are supposed to think and adopted it in a knee-jerk manner") I'll gladly treat your (obviously superior) "wisdom" with all the respect and consideration that you have established it deserves.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Re: [W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

When you show yourself capable of any level of analysis, then you can criticize my abilities. So far you've shown no ability save that of constructing over-elaborate sentences.

For instance, there's no reason a sentence that states an "if" proposition would need to append "but maybe not." The very word "if" implies that the judgment could go at least one of two ways.

Interesting analysis, but somewhat lacking. There are THREE alternatives:

1. worse;
2. the same; and
3. better;

Your analysis does include the first two, of necessity, but does not include the third - of necessity.

To tie this post back into the main topic, I think one reason the Left has belabored the question of Trump's Russian ties is because they'd like to obscure that he's not actually doing all that bad a job as President, in spite of all of his personal failings, like being (as I've said elsewhere) a vulgar narcissist.

As you have expressed that as an OPINION, I do not have the slightest doubt that that is what you THINK. However, just because someone THINKS something is true, that does NOT mean that it IS true.

PS - Mind you, I will agree that Mr. Trump COULD BE worse as a President than he actually is being (and that statement does not rule out the possibility that "he's not actually doing all that bad a job as President" [although it does not, of necessity, mean that he IS "not actually doing that bad a job as President" - only that he could be doing a worse job of it]).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

This is an extremely jejune view of politics. Every day information of various types passes between heads of state, diplomats, intelligence agents, and other officials, and no one is prosecuted for failing to let the FBI vet everything.

Quite right. On the other hand, "heads of state, diplomats, intelligence agents, and other officials" are NOT "candidates for office in American elections or their campaign organizations" either.

Context is everything, ...

Quite right, and if (for example) the sitting President of the United States of America (who happens to be running for re-election) receives information from a foreign source and deals with it solely as "the President" that is one thing while (sticking with the same example) if the sitting President of the United States of America (who happens to be running for re-election) receives information from a foreign source and deals with it as a "political candidate who is seeking election" that is something else entirely.

... and you're arguing for a total lack of context with regard to communications between the Prez and foreign agents because it suits your agenda to define any transmission of info as an illicit "gift."

Only to someone who is unable to understand the concept of "wearing two hats" or the concept of "obeying the actual laws of the country even if those laws aren't what you would like them to be".

You're right on this tiny thing: if it can be proven that a Prez accepts info that a prosecutor chooses to define as "a gift," whether there's a provable quid pro quo or not, then the law as it exists can be used to prosecute the Prez.

My heavens, you appear to have finally actually read the law.

But first you have to have proof that the gift even exists, as opposed to being something conjured up in the imaginations of rabid Leftists.

And that differs from the prosecution of any other crime - how?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Sadly for you, I can argue on this forum that a given law is immoral whether I do anything to change it or not. If you don't know how to construct counter-arguments, that's not my fault.

Never for a moment disputed that.

On the other hand, from a LEGAL point of view the "morality" of a law is totally irrelevant (as is the imposition of the statutorily provided penalties for breaching it.

You know, if you chop your logic any finer, it'll start slipping beneath your fingers any time now.

Arguing that the law is what the law actually is, is not chopping logic. Arguing that you shouldn't have to obey the law because the law is "immoral" is not "logic" it is "theology".

The last time I looked, the United States of America was NOT a "Theocracy" (much as some Americans would like it to be one [provided that the rules of the Theocracy come from THEIR branch of THEIR self-declared religion of choice]).