+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Mueller. Just a reminder

  1. #11
    President - RNT Fan Club Elvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forums Elvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    26,304
    Rep Power
    1035148

    Re: Mueller. Just a reminder

    Quote Originally Posted by The Zou View Post
    That is what i was asking about -- procedurally, can they get drug into the mix? It sounds like it is possible.

    I wouldn't suggest that Podesta/HRC self-sabotaged; that is just crazy. You have to remember that my stance is that Russia didn't dump emails to Wikileaks. From that stand-point, the real investigation would revolve around the connections of Flynn & Manafort -- Podesta has the same connections... and so it would stand to reason that it would be investigated.

    If they did try to influence through Trump surrogates -- who is to say that they didn't also influence through Clinton? What if... instead of influencing the election outcome, they were more interested in being at the table (despite outcome)? Sort of like a good hedging strategy...??!?

    I think that now that there is Special Council... we should cover all angles. I know the anti-trumpers were biased towards a narrow review based on their concerns... but maybe we should just open this baby all the way up?!?
    I really have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe it's our professions and how we look at this. If your stance is that Russia did not dump emails to wikileaks, and Mueller somehow concludes the same, then the investigation is ended. There has to be something actionable. Like, for example, if this turns out to be true.
    2006 - Year of the Elvis
    2007 - Year of the Oil Baron
    2008 - Year of the Fab Five
    2012 - Year of the Stud
    Best of:
    Quote Originally Posted by USC90
    Elvis will have to ... what am I thinking, E is going to do whatever he wants to do anyway,
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawg in Dallas
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba

  2. #12
    Moderator The Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forums
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    4,635
    Rep Power
    1839164

    Re: Mueller. Just a reminder

    Quote Originally Posted by Elvis View Post
    I really have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe it's our professions and how we look at this. If your stance is that Russia did not dump emails to wikileaks, and Mueller somehow concludes the same, then the investigation is ended. There has to be something actionable. Like, for example, if this turns out to be true.
    It wasn't my opinion that the "influence" was limited to emails; the Intel report mostly named media influence through "fake news", been calls that Flynn being a foreign agent is suspect of collusion, Trump one time ate caviar , etc. there have been many claims to Russian interference & collusion.

    My point is, I didn't think Mueller was to simply look at Wikileaks -- if we are going to have a Special Council... they should investigate everything and get it over with.

    Peter Schweitzer did a lengthy review of the Clinton connections to Russia -- if we are to honestly say that we're are investigating Russian collusion/influence then why would we not investigate this?

    It seems silly that we would only investigate if Trump collided, and not collusion in general. It seems to me that a Special Council has the latitude to do exactly that.

    Will this turn into a "be careful what you ask for"?
    Get this out of this thread. I can moderate if you don't want to. -- DiD
    “I do not recognise this court’s right to try me.” -- Henry Rearden, Atlas Shrugged

  3. #13
    President - RNT Fan Club Elvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forums Elvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    26,304
    Rep Power
    1035148

    Re: Mueller. Just a reminder

    Quote Originally Posted by The Zou View Post
    It wasn't my opinion that the "influence" was limited to emails; the Intel report mostly named media influence through "fake news", been calls that Flynn being a foreign agent is suspect of collusion, Trump one time ate caviar , etc. there have been many claims to Russian interference & collusion.

    My point is, I didn't think Mueller was to simply look at Wikileaks -- if we are going to have a Special Council... they should investigate everything and get it over with.

    Peter Schweitzer did a lengthy review of the Clinton connections to Russia -- if we are to honestly say that we're are investigating Russian collusion/influence then why would we not investigate this?

    It seems silly that we would only investigate if Trump collided, and not collusion in general. It seems to me that a Special Council has the latitude to do exactly that.

    Will this turn into a "be careful what you ask for"?
    Do you mean this rhetorically? I've answered this question several times. Please identify what part of what I said was confusing?

    The legal definition of collusion is a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though an agreement. So, you're proposing that HRC colluded with the Russians to do what exactly?
    2006 - Year of the Elvis
    2007 - Year of the Oil Baron
    2008 - Year of the Fab Five
    2012 - Year of the Stud
    Best of:
    Quote Originally Posted by USC90
    Elvis will have to ... what am I thinking, E is going to do whatever he wants to do anyway,
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawg in Dallas
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba

  4. #14
    Moderator The Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forums
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    4,635
    Rep Power
    1839164

    Re: Mueller. Just a reminder

    Quote Originally Posted by Elvis View Post
    Do you mean this rhetorically? I've answered this question several times. Please identify what part of what I said was confusing?

    The legal definition of collusion is a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though an agreement. So, you're proposing that HRC colluded with the Russians to do what exactly?
    I'm not proposing -- I think the idea that HRC or Trump colluded with Russians is preposterous. BUT... perhaps I am wrong and this thing truly needs to be investigated.

    So... why in the hell would we limit the investigation to Trump collusion... if it is easy to see that HRC has stronger ties to Russia? It would be idiotic to limit the "collusion theory" only based on who won the election. I GET IT that your concern is that Trump may have colluded -- I'm saying that the evidence shows the same vs Clinton with exception of Wikileaks. If Wikileaks cannot be tied to Russia and we are going to investigate Flynn... then it only makes sense to investigate Clinton Camp ties as well.
    Get this out of this thread. I can moderate if you don't want to. -- DiD
    “I do not recognise this court’s right to try me.” -- Henry Rearden, Atlas Shrugged

  5. #15
    President - RNT Fan Club Elvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forums Elvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    26,304
    Rep Power
    1035148

    Re: Mueller. Just a reminder

    Quote Originally Posted by The Zou View Post
    I'm not proposing -- I think the idea that HRC or Trump colluded with Russians is preposterous. BUT... perhaps I am wrong and this thing truly needs to be investigated.

    So... why in the hell would we limit the investigation to Trump collusion... if it is easy to see that HRC has stronger ties to Russia? It would be idiotic to limit the "collusion theory" only based on who won the election. I GET IT that your concern is that Trump may have colluded -- I'm saying that the evidence shows the same vs Clinton with exception of Wikileaks. If Wikileaks cannot be tied to Russia and we are going to investigate Flynn... then it only makes sense to investigate Clinton Camp ties as well.
    I am going to ignore the unbolded portion because I am completely uninterested right now in trying to sort through a "connection" versus collusion.

    To answer you simply. It makes no sense at all. If that is what you truly believe. and that belief is widely shared among conservatives, then you do not need a special prosecutor. You just don't. The FBI director can go ahead and start an investigation. She is not a part of the government. A special prosecutor is not needed.

    I have to be completely honest. I'm completely baffled by your obsession with HRC.
    2006 - Year of the Elvis
    2007 - Year of the Oil Baron
    2008 - Year of the Fab Five
    2012 - Year of the Stud
    Best of:
    Quote Originally Posted by USC90
    Elvis will have to ... what am I thinking, E is going to do whatever he wants to do anyway,
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawg in Dallas
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba

  6. #16
    President - RNT Fan Club Elvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forums Elvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    26,304
    Rep Power
    1035148

    Re: Mueller. Just a reminder

    just to follow up. this now a report.

    “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
    Note: Both stances can reasonably be taken as true. Trump could think Comey was bad at his job, but if this report is to be believed. Further proof that the reason he fired Comey was because of Russia investigation.

    The quote comes from a document that summarized a meeting between Trump and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the Oval Office, one day after he fired Comey. The document was read by an unnamed American official to the Times.
    note: name the people in Trump's cabinet/inner circle.
    Meanwhile, The Washington Post reports that the ongoing probe into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia has “identified a current White House official as a significant person of interest.” The paper reported that its sources say the person is a current senior staffer, but would not further identify who it is.
    note: senior staffer, not cabinet member. That narrows the people of interest somewhat.
    pulling this link solely to quote Spicer
    White House press secretary Sean Spicer didn’t dispute the account to the Times, instead telling the newspaper that Comey harmed the president’s work with Russia.

    “By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia’s actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia,” Spicer said. “The investigation would have always continued, and obviously, the termination of Comey would not have ended it. Once again, the real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations.”
    Not commenting on the substance. Think about this objectively. Consider how this information is getting to the press? For example, recall that no one except Trump people were allowed at the meeting with the Russians a couple of weeks ago. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these leaks are coming from someone within Trump's circle.
    2006 - Year of the Elvis
    2007 - Year of the Oil Baron
    2008 - Year of the Fab Five
    2012 - Year of the Stud
    Best of:
    Quote Originally Posted by USC90
    Elvis will have to ... what am I thinking, E is going to do whatever he wants to do anyway,
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawg in Dallas
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba

  7. #17
    Moderator The Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forums
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    4,635
    Rep Power
    1839164

    Re: Mueller. Just a reminder

    Quote Originally Posted by Elvis View Post
    I am going to ignore the unbolded portion because I am completely uninterested right now in trying to sort through a "connection" versus collusion.

    To answer you simply. It makes no sense at all. If that is what you truly believe. and that belief is widely shared among conservatives, then you do not need a special prosecutor. You just don't. The FBI director can go ahead and start an investigation. She is not a part of the government. A special prosecutor is not needed.

    I have to be completely honest. I'm completely baffled by your obsession with HRC.
    Except that Mueller could provide an investigation that isn't marred by political influence -- that's all.

    And you should consider the possibility that I am not obsessed at all with Clinton, that perhaps I'm demonstrating how obnoxious the Trump hysteria is. I have found that it is more effective to allow people to witness in a non-threatening manner, rather than be told.

    Perhaps my hope is that you can see that the same principled argument can be made against HRC... and that if it's obnoxious against the goose...
    Get this out of this thread. I can moderate if you don't want to. -- DiD
    “I do not recognise this court’s right to try me.” -- Henry Rearden, Atlas Shrugged

  8. #18
    President - RNT Fan Club Elvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forums Elvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    26,304
    Rep Power
    1035148

    Re: Mueller. Just a reminder

    Quote Originally Posted by The Zou View Post
    Except that Mueller could provide an investigation that isn't marred by political influence -- that's all.

    And you should consider the possibility that I am not obsessed at all with Clinton, that perhaps I'm demonstrating how obnoxious the Trump hysteria is. I have found that it is more effective to allow people to witness in a non-threatening manner, rather than be told.

    Perhaps my hope is that you can see that the same principled argument can be made against HRC... and that if it's obnoxious against the goose...
    It's only obnoxious to the extent that you're asking for something that is not legal. If this is solely a hypothetical, then what you're proposing is like asking if a 12 year old kid can legally be allowed to drive in the United States. The answer is no. It doesn't matter what hypothetical you give, the answer is still no. If you were to continue spinning scenarios as to when a 12 year old could legally drive, people would think you're nuts. There's only so many ways to give the same explanation. Thus, you don't prove anything by your HRC hypothesis except a lack of understanding in the law. There's no shame in that. That's not what you do and you should not be expected to know it.

    If your stance is that HRC, had she been president, should be investigated further in her e-mails/servers/etc. Then I would agree that would already be happening. As a matter of fact, it's a pretty easy bet that is exactly what would have been going on right now with the House Oversight Committee, etc.

    I have otherwise made my views on HRC regarding this situation pretty clear.
    Quote Originally Posted by Elvis
    Hypothetically, Comey says there is an ongoing investigation into HRC, the e-mails etc. And let's say hypothetically, he never said that the investigation was closed as he did in October.

    If she, at any point after becoming POTUS, fired Comey prior to the end of the investigation? dude. F#ck yes. YOU SHOULD NEVER DO THIS. I would sit there and cram that humble pie down my throat and would walk around telling everyone who said HRC was a crook that I was wrong, you were right etc. To me, that's not a partisan issue. It just can't.
    2006 - Year of the Elvis
    2007 - Year of the Oil Baron
    2008 - Year of the Fab Five
    2012 - Year of the Stud
    Best of:
    Quote Originally Posted by USC90
    Elvis will have to ... what am I thinking, E is going to do whatever he wants to do anyway,
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawg in Dallas
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba

  9. #19
    Moderator The Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forums
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    4,635
    Rep Power
    1839164

    Re: Mueller. Just a reminder

    Quote Originally Posted by Elvis View Post
    just to follow up. this now a report.


    Note: Both stances can reasonably be taken as true. Trump could think Comey was bad at his job, but if this report is to be believed. Further proof that the reason he fired Comey was because of Russia investigation.


    note: name the people in Trump's cabinet/inner circle.

    note: senior staffer, not cabinet member. That narrows the people of interest somewhat.
    pulling this link solely to quote Spicer


    Not commenting on the substance. Think about this objectively. Consider how this information is getting to the press? For example, recall that no one except Trump people were allowed at the meeting with the Russians a couple of weeks ago. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these leaks are coming from someone within Trump's circle.
    That has to be an inside leak -- he either hired some bad eggs, or he's dropping that one himself. My guess is bad eggs...
    Get this out of this thread. I can moderate if you don't want to. -- DiD
    “I do not recognise this court’s right to try me.” -- Henry Rearden, Atlas Shrugged

  10. #20
    Moderator The Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forumsThe Zou has a great deal of respect on the forums
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    4,635
    Rep Power
    1839164

    Re: Mueller. Just a reminder

    Quote Originally Posted by Elvis View Post
    It's only obnoxious to the extent that you're asking for something that is not legal. If this is solely a hypothetical, then what you're proposing is like asking if a 12 year old kid can legally be allowed to drive in the United States. The answer is no. It doesn't matter what hypothetical you give, the answer is still no. If you were to continue spinning scenarios as to when a 12 year old could legally drive, people would think you're nuts. There's only so many ways to give the same explanation. Thus, you don't prove anything by your HRC hypothesis except a lack of understanding in the law. There's no shame in that. That's not what you do and you should not be expected to know it.

    If your stance is that HRC, had she been president, should be investigated further in her e-mails/servers/etc. Then I would agree that would already be happening. As a matter of fact, it's a pretty easy bet that is exactly what would have been going on right now with the House Oversight Committee, etc.

    I have otherwise made my views on HRC regarding this situation pretty clear.
    Andrew McCarthy says it should include the leaks:

    “It looks like Mueller has been given a very broad mandate. It’s actually, as a practical matter, with a special counsel it’s hard to rein in their mandate. This one I think is extraordinarily broad, because it’s the kind of a case that you shouldn’t have a prosecutor for in the first place. It’s an intelligence matter, it’s not a criminal matter,” he contended.

    “So he’s going to have a wide berth to pursue issues. What that means is that Congress is going to have to back off on a lot of stuff, and maybe you’ll stop having these high-profile hearings. Maybe that will mean Trump can go on his foreign policy trip, which is a big trip starting this weekend, and maybe he gets some movement on health care, and tax reform, and all the other stuff that he committed to do,” McCarthy speculated.
    Get this out of this thread. I can moderate if you don't want to. -- DiD
    “I do not recognise this court’s right to try me.” -- Henry Rearden, Atlas Shrugged

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Reminder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    By Herchel in forum SEC Football
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-08-2011, 04:22 PM
  2. reminder
    By TexasFight in forum Terry's Pub
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-20-2007, 11:24 PM
  3. reminder
    By TexasFight in forum SEC Recruiting
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-07-2007, 08:38 PM
  4. One last reminder
    By deterp in forum SECFanatics Think Tank
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-01-2006, 11:33 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts