Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, August 20, 2018

OTP 2018 August 20: Sick of divisive summertime politics? Baseball’s thrills offer an escape

First, things starting with the letter “L” come to mind when thinking about this summer.
“The Summer of Lying?” Nah, let’s keep this positive.

It seems like certain politicians and college coaches have been competing in a never-ending race to the bottom of the dishonesty cesspool.
“The Summer of LeBron?” Maybe. But no, LeBron James doesn’t need any more attention.

But his decision to build a new public school for at-risk kids in his hometown of Akron, Ohio, and cover all student costs should be commended by everyone, including the U.S. Secretary of Education and her boss.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 20, 2018 at 07:45 AM | 2230 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: off topic, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 23 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
   1. Zonk is a Doppleclapper Posted: August 20, 2018 at 10:43 AM (#5730117)
   2. Stormy JE Posted: August 20, 2018 at 10:51 AM (#5730125)
Def fitting the lefty stereotype there, but here's hoping it locks Jason even further into a faulty worldview.
You're overthinking again.
   3. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 20, 2018 at 10:56 AM (#5730127)
It only seems like I keep posting the same thing over and over - new link to a new source - Democrats in stronger position to take the House: CBS News Battleground Tracker

Democrats have improved their standing in the fight for control of the House of Representatives. Our House model now shows the party poised to win 222 seats if the election were today, up from our estimate of 219 earlier this summer. The range on that estimate is plus or minus 11 seats, or 5% of House seats. It reflects the political reality that many contests are still toss-ups and that Republicans are still in a position to hold the House, if a less comfortable one. Even if Democrats' seat gains are in the double digits, there are plausible scenarios in which Republicans hang on to control.


All in all it's just another brick in the wall, All in all you're just another brick in the wall ... Lehigh Valley velodrome board put Pennsylvania congressional candidate Marty Nothstein on leave after sexual misconduct allegation

Congressional candidate Marty Nothstein was placed on unpaid leave from his decade-long post as executive director of the Lehigh Valley velodrome in February after its board was notified he was the subject of a sexual misconduct investigation, The Morning Call has learned.
   4. perros Posted: August 20, 2018 at 10:57 AM (#5730129)
(Hey perros, I was joking)


Thanks for the levity.

It's a fair cop.


I apologize for flying off the handle (again). For whatever reason, we often misinterpret the other's words and intentions. I was digressing about religion in general, and you were still locked on the case.

The crazy thing is your outlook so closely resembles my own.

zenbitz vs. perros is "win win."

Def fitting the lefty stereotype there, but here's hoping it locks Jason even further into a faulty worldview.


Maybe I need further desensitivity training...
   5. perros Posted: August 20, 2018 at 10:59 AM (#5730130)
You're overthinking again.


Lefty -- overthinking

Righty -- underthinking
   6. Zonk is a Doppleclapper Posted: August 20, 2018 at 10:59 AM (#5730131)
McCarthy, after all, was “an essentially destructive force,” according to biographer Richard H. Rovere. He was “a chronic opportunist.” He was “a political speculator.” He was “a Republican who had started as a Democrat.” He was “a fertile innovator, a first-rate organizer and galvanizer of mobs, a skilled manipulator of public opinion, and something like a genius at that essential American strategy: publicity.” He was “a vulgarian.” He was “a man with an almost aesthetic preference for untruth.” He “faked it all and could not understand anyone who didn’t.” He “made sages of screwballs and accused wise men of being fools.” He was “the first American ever to be actively hated and feared by foreigners in large numbers.” He “favored the third person.”

He was “a great sophisticate in human relationships, as every demagogue must be. He knew a good deal about people’s fears and anxieties, and he was a superb juggler of them. But he was himself numb to the sensation he produced in others. He could not comprehend true outrage, true indignation, true anything,” Rovere wrote.

“If he was anything at all in the realm of ideas, principles, doctrines, he was a species of nihilist,” he said.

“The haters rallied around him.”


The man in the mirror...
   7. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 11:00 AM (#5730132)

Well, it seems to be, seeing as how "Treat others the way you'd like to be treated" turned out to be too horrifying heretical.
I like that principle; it perfectly comports with libertarianism. I would not want to be coerced to provide services to someone, so I would never do that to someone.
   8. perros Posted: August 20, 2018 at 11:02 AM (#5730133)
Speaking of underthinking:


Mr. Trump’s lawyers realized on Saturday that they had not been provided a full accounting after The New York Times published an article describing Mr. McGahn’s extensive cooperation with Mr. Mueller’s office. After Mr. McGahn was initially interviewed by the special counsel’s office in November, Mr. Trump’s lawyers never asked for a complete description of what Mr. McGahn had said, according to a person close to the president.
   9. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 11:07 AM (#5730136)
Well, it seems to be, seeing as how "Treat others the way you'd like to be treated" turned out to be too horrifying heretical.

I like that principle; it perfectly comports with libertarianism.


Sure, I wouldn't want to eat in a Negro restaurant so why would I want to serve one?
   10. Lassus Posted: August 20, 2018 at 11:09 AM (#5730137)
I would not want to be coerced to provide services to someone, so I would never do that to someone.

"Tell your Jew daughter to get out of my damn store."
   11. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 11:12 AM (#5730139)
"I wouldn't want to go into a ghetto so it's perfectly reasonable to ban ghetto-dwellers from my establishment."
   12. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 11:13 AM (#5730140)
Round and round you want to go, huh? The court had no clue Hillary and the DNC (“Candidate 2,” maybe?) were bankrolling the operation via Perkins Coie, where the campaign’s general counsel happens to chair the political law division. Funny how the Bureau left out those juicy morsels.
Setting aside your unsubstantiated belief that the FBI knew those specifics, the court was informed that the research was funded by someone opposed to Trump's candidacy. That's all that's necessary in a warrant application. The court was not deceived or misled; it was told the motives of the people providing the information.

The agent quoted Comey as saying the FBI agents "saw nothing that led them to believe [he was] lying."
Right. So in other words, Comey isn't saying that Flynn was being truthful. Comey is saying that other people said that. Or, rather, an agent is saying that Comey said that. Except that's not what Comey or the interviewing agents actually said. The problem is that you and Kessler and many other people are paraphrasing. What Comey said -- as Kessler also quoted -- was that the agents "discerned no physical indications of deception." "We didn't see changes in eye contact or posture" is not remotely the same thing as "He didn't purposefully lie."
   13. Stormy JE Posted: August 20, 2018 at 11:27 AM (#5730144)
Setting aside your unsubstantiated belief that the FBI knew those specifics, the court was informed that the research was funded by someone opposed to Trump's candidacy. That's all that's necessary in a warrant application. The court was not deceived or misled; it was told the motives of the people providing the information.
Where David the "libertarian" endorses federal government deception before a secret court in order to trample a USC's Fourth Amendment rights.

Where David the "libertarian" entertains -- and defends -- the possibility that the FBI didn't even bother to check who bankrolled this super-duper-important information.

Awesome.
Right. So in other words, Comey isn't saying that Flynn was being truthful. Comey is saying that other people said that. Or, rather, an agent is saying that Comey said that. Except that's not what Comey or the interviewing agents actually said. The problem is that you and Kessler and many other people are paraphrasing. What Comey said -- as Kessler also quoted -- was that the agents "discerned no physical indications of deception." "We didn't see changes in eye contact or posture" is not remotely the same thing as "He didn't purposefully lie."
And what did Comey subsequently say to Bret Baier?

BAIER: Did you tell law makers that FBI agents didn't believe former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was lying intentionally to investigators.

COMEY: No.

BAIER: You did not --

(CROSSTALK)

COMEY: And I saw that in the media. I don't know what -- maybe someone misunderstood something I said. I didn't believe that and didn't say that.
And as was observed in the Kessler "fact check," the House Democrats didn't challenge the Republicans' interpretation.
   14. perros Posted: August 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM (#5730145)
maybe someone misunderstood something I said. I didn't believe that and didn't say that


Fact is Flynn was lying, and Trump fired him, allegedly for lying to Pence.
   15. Stormy JE Posted: August 20, 2018 at 11:41 AM (#5730150)
Trump Essentially Dares Brennan to Sue Over Stripped Clearance:
That first prompted Trump’s personal counsel, former New York Mayor and U.S. Attorney Rudolph Giuliani, to say over the weekend he would “love to hear” Brennan testify under oath. His client followed up a day later, tweeting this: “I hope John Brennan, the worst CIA Director in our country’s history, brings a lawsuit.”

If the clearance flap lands in court, Trump calculates, it would “be very easy to get all of his records, texts, emails and documents to show not only the poor job he did, but how he was involved with the Mueller Rigged Witch Hunt.”
Your move, Johnny Boy.

EDIT: We're so accustomed to Trump threatening to sue others, then quietly backing down, not (perhaps) the other way around.
   16. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 11:44 AM (#5730152)

Oh I see, I'm not permitted to reason what the notes mean but you're allowed to reason that Ohr was referring to "other information?" Dude.
You're permitted to reason; your reasoning just doesn't make sense. Why would Simpson be providing, secondhand, information that Steele had already provided firsthand several months before? (Why would Simpson have hired Steele in the first place if Simpson were actually getting the information from Akhmetshin?) It seems far more plausible that Simpson would have been providing to Ohr different information, information that he himself had developed. And that since Simpson, unlike Steele, didn't have lots of contacts in Russia, that he'd have been getting them from someone here.

And let's not forget, Simpson and Ohr collaborated so that the Bureau could continue to work with Steele and use his product even after they had supposedly terminated the arrangement.
So what? Wait, let me rephrase that in more technical jargon that I would use in a legal brief: "So what?"

What would the campaign have supplied as evidence that such a meeting took place and what was discussed there? And how that info was obtained? Um...
Really? You can't figure out any way that the information could have gotten out? How about in the dossier? How about Steele calling one of his FBI contacts and telling them that it happened, and then leaking to the media that the FBI was investigating a meeting between Donald Trump's inner circle and Russian agents? How about Veselnitskya or Akhmetshin 'accidentally' revealing it?

And lest we forget, not only did no criminal activity take place at the meeting, DTJr, JK, and RM weren't the least bit interested in discussing Magnitsky, which is strange, as you would think for a campaign supposedly taking it in the ass from the Kremlin would do anything to help.
Lest we forget, you are taking the word of participants in a meeting expressly set up to talk about a drug deal that no drugs were actually exchanged and in fact they never actually discussed drugs and in fact they can't even figure out why they were meeting and it was probably just a coincidence that they all ended up in the same room at the same time and boy it's been rainy lately and how about them Mets?


Lest we forget, you can't possibly explain any motive for the Hillary campaign to do this. What could they possibly get from "entrapping" -- scare quotes very much intentional here -- Trump with the Russians but not telling anyone about it?

Your best answer is that Hillary and the DNC and Simpson came up with this elaborate plan and worked with a bunch of different Russians to put it into effect, but after it was over they slapped themselves on their foreheads and said, "Hey, wait, how are we going to let people know about this? Gosh, how could we have overlooked that flaw in our plan? Crap. Oh, well. Guess we might as well stick this information in the back of a filing cabinet somewhere and never look at it again."
   17. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 11:45 AM (#5730153)

Now explain why the sneaky language and not "Candidate #2?" They knew about Perkins Coie and Marc Elias, hello?
No matter how many times you say it, you don't have any evidence for that last claim.
   18. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 11:46 AM (#5730155)
Where David the "libertarian" endorses federal government deception before a secret court in order to trample a USC's Fourth Amendment rights.


For all your Deep State Conspiracy needs, follow the breadcrumbs to the hashtag everyone is talking about! #Q&Juan;
   19. zenbitz Posted: August 20, 2018 at 11:47 AM (#5730156)
Is it wrong that i kinda hope JE is right because i sorta hate watching a decent man decend into insanity?

Stockholm syndrome?
   20. zenbitz Posted: August 20, 2018 at 11:49 AM (#5730157)
Say, when a dime might be lost.


Why you gotta make it a jew thing, Lassus?
   21. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 11:49 AM (#5730158)

And yet you don't find it the least bit curious that the Clinton campaign affirmatively denied to Haberman and other reporters that they had bankrolled the Fusion GPS dossier?
Curious? No. I think attempts at plausible deniability in opposition research are quite normal, if sleazy.
   22. Zonk is a Doppleclapper Posted: August 20, 2018 at 11:53 AM (#5730160)
The breadcrumbs appear to be extra flaky this week!
   23. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 11:54 AM (#5730161)

"Tell your Jew daughter to get out of my damn store."
If someone said that to me, here's about the very last thing I would say in response: "No, I demand that you take my money." Seems like a boycott of the store would far more be in order than insisting on doing business with this person.
   24. Lassus Posted: August 20, 2018 at 11:55 AM (#5730164)
As I said, the Invisible Hand all the way down. What could go wrong?
   25. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 20, 2018 at 11:57 AM (#5730168)
McCarthy, after all, was “an essentially destructive force,” according to biographer Richard H. Rovere. He was “a chronic opportunist.” He was “a political speculator.” He was “a Republican who had started as a Democrat.” He was “a fertile innovator, a first-rate organizer and galvanizer of mobs, a skilled manipulator of public opinion, and something like a genius at that essential American strategy: publicity.” He was “a vulgarian.” He was “a man with an almost aesthetic preference for untruth.” He “faked it all and could not understand anyone who didn’t.” He “made sages of screwballs and accused wise men of being fools.” He was “the first American ever to be actively hated and feared by foreigners in large numbers.” He “favored the third person.”

He was “a great sophisticate in human relationships, as every demagogue must be. He knew a good deal about people’s fears and anxieties, and he was a superb juggler of them. But he was himself numb to the sensation he produced in others. He could not comprehend true outrage, true indignation, true anything,” Rovere wrote.

“If he was anything at all in the realm of ideas, principles, doctrines, he was a species of nihilist,” he said.

“The haters rallied around him.”


Another famous McCarthy trait that finds its counterpart in Trump was his complete inability to understand why any of his victims would take his charges personally. After smearing Dean Acheson all over the country,** one day McCarthy entered a Senate elevator to find himself standing next to Acheson. Without even batting an eye, McCarthy stuck out his hand and said "Hi, Dean!", and when Acheson walked out of the elevator McCarthy turned to the rest of the people in the elevator, and asked "What was the matter with him?"

** "That striped pants asshole" and "the Red Dean of Fashion" were two of his milder comments
   26. stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongoose Posted: August 20, 2018 at 11:57 AM (#5730169)
the Invisible Hand all the way down


Keep your vulgarity out of this.
   27. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 11:58 AM (#5730170)
"Tell your Jew daughter to get out of my damn store."

If someone said that to me, here's about the very last thing I would say in response: "No, I demand that you take my money." Seems like a boycott of the store would far more be in order than insisting on doing business with this person.


So what do you think was lacking from the Negro when he insisted on being served at an establishment that didn't wish to serve him? Character? Fortitude? Gumption? I'm trying to understand where and why their morality fell short of yours.
   28. perros Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:00 PM (#5730172)
Seems like a boycott of the store would far more be in order than insisting on doing business with this person.


Having redress to government to equally enforce the law beats a boycott, and benefits all who may be discriminated against in the future. Particularly since boycotts rarely work due to the power disparity between the business community and customers.
   29. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:01 PM (#5730173)
Where David the "libertarian" endorses federal government deception before a secret court in order to trample a USC's Fourth Amendment rights.
Nope. No deception. 100% accurate. ("Secret court" is just rhetoric to make it sound scarier here; all warrant applications are ex parte.) And none of us have seen very much of the warrant applications, but four different judges found them sufficient to establish probable cause, so fourth amendment rights likely weren't trampled.

But if they were, it wasn't because it said "The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign" instead of "Candidate #2's campaign asked the identified U.S. person to gather the information to discredit Candidate #1's campaign." Those are functionally equivalent for the purposes of establishing probable cause.

Where David the "libertarian" entertains -- and defends -- the possibility that the FBI didn't even bother to check who bankrolled this super-duper-important information.
Not clear what the relevance of libertarianism is to that issue. But how was the FBI to "check"? The application all-but-says that Steele, their source, didn't know.
   30. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:02 PM (#5730174)
Zonk, #1880:
I notice Trump has also lost count of the Angry Democrats... It was 12... then 13... then spiked up to 17 just a few weeks ago.. now, they are beyond counting.


"Study the late Joseph McCarthy, because we are now in period with Mueller and his gang that make Joseph McCarthy look like a baby! Rigged Witch Hunt!"

Donald Trump, the human tell, whose every go-to insult represents one of his own failings or fears or schemes, would get slaughtered at the poker table.

This morning Trump's insisting John Brennan "won't sue!" over his stripped clearance because that would expose him to discovery. Speaking of which, how are all those lawsuits against the lying bitches who accused trump of sexual misconduct going? How about those multiple lawsuits against the New York Times, NBC, the Associated Press and the Washington Post? And the other lawsuit against the guy who wrote "The Art of the Deal"? Maybe Trump's too busy suing AND arresting Omarosa.

[EDIT: Half a Coke to JE (#15), except he seems to think today's tweet is an expression of strength.]

   31. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:03 PM (#5730175)
Greg K, #1769 of previous thread:
Yeah, I could gush about Stewart Lee all day...but I'm usually able to restrain myself and save my dignity. Plus Gonfalon Bubble frequents these threads and he'd probably just point out how I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to comedy.


I wouldn't do that. Especially since my grasp of Stewart Lee's work is barely rudimentary. However, if you said you didn't find Chris Morris funny, or Peter Cook, or Eddie Izzard, I'd hunt you down and crap in your mailbox.
   32. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:03 PM (#5730176)

And what did Comey subsequently say to Bret Baier?
Uh, the same thing I said he said, which is not what you said he said.
   33. Stormy JE Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:06 PM (#5730179)
You're permitted to reason; your reasoning just doesn't make sense. Why would Simpson be providing, secondhand, information that Steele had already provided firsthand several months before? (Why would Simpson have hired Steele in the first place if Simpson were actually getting the information from Akhmetshin?) It seems far more plausible that Simpson would have been providing to Ohr different information, information that he himself had developed. And that since Simpson, unlike Steele, didn't have lots of contacts in Russia, that he'd have been getting them from someone here.
You forget that Ohr was brought in as a go-between only after Steele's direct ties to the FBI had been severed.
Really? You can't figure out any way that the information could have gotten out? How about in the dossier? How about Steele calling one of his FBI contacts and telling them that it happened, and then leaking to the media that the FBI was investigating a meeting between Donald Trump's inner circle and Russian agents? How about Veselnitskya or Akhmetshin 'accidentally' revealing it?
Because nothing happened. And even now, two years later, none of the Russians have indicated otherwise, let alone produced contradictory evidence. Curious, huh?
No matter how many times you say it, you don't have any evidence for that last claim.
This is beyond pathetic. They know about a law firm but nothing else about it. And this was supposed to trigger something as critically important as a FISC warrant? Dude.
Curious? No. I think attempts at plausible deniability in opposition research are quite normal, if sleazy.
Except the Clintonistas were denying this even after Trump had been sworn into office. So no, it's not normal.
   34. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:06 PM (#5730178)
Yankee Clapper, #1793 of previous thread:
The NYT buried the lede in the 9th paragraph:
Mr. McGahn cautioned to investigators that he never saw Mr. Trump go beyond his legal authorities
As might be expected, Gonfalon outdid the Times by omitting it entirely.


It's always a fun game to see when Yankee Clapper will criticize someone for quoting far too little, and when he’ll criticize them for quoting much too much. Unlike Goldilocks, in Clapper's fairytale nothing is ever juuust right.
   35. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:06 PM (#5730182)
David N, #1838:
What was unreasonable was vindictively trying to get the baker punished, instead of just going to a different bakery, when he declined.



Instead of? They quite properly did both.
   36. Stormy JE Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:07 PM (#5730183)
Uh, the same thing I said he said, which is not what you said he said.
You can play these games all you want but Comey has repeatedly lied, purposefully or otherwise. Good for him there's no 302 on him.
   37. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:09 PM (#5730184)

Having redress to government to equally enforce the law beats a boycott,
That's just repeating the disputed premise, not substantiating it.
and benefits all who may be discriminated against in the future.
Only if one considers giving your money to someone who hates you a benefit.
Particularly since boycotts rarely work due to the power disparity between the business community and customers.
No such power disparity. And if a business owner actually did say that to me about my daughter, the resulting boycott would do far more damage to the business than a lawsuit would.
   38. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:10 PM (#5730186)
John Brennan, desperately trying to walk back his comments on NBC yesterday:
"I called his behavior treasonous, which is to betray one's trust, and aid and abet the enemy. And I stand very much by that claim.

...I have been speaking, but rather forcefully, because I think it is important to do so. I don’t believe I’m being political at all. I am not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. And many members of the Congress over the years who have security clearances have spoken out rather forcefully against whoever was in the Oval Office if they weren’t from the same political party. So now, as a private citizen, they are telling me that I should not do that? I am sorry, I just fundamentally disagree with them."
   39. Zonk is a Doppleclapper Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:10 PM (#5730187)
But enough about Juannity....

What we're hearing: One of those strategists told me he's detecting something interesting — and concerning — from focus groups of Trump voters. "You have Trump-MAGA loyalists, and their friends on Fox, who have reached a point of not believing polls and media people telling them things are going wrong, that I believe is actually causing the Republicans problems," the strategist told me, granted anonymity in order to be candid.
   40. -- Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:16 PM (#5730194)
Yeah, who could ever tell the difference between restaurants being segregated by law, and a handful of individual random weirdos????

The mysteries. They are so mysterious.
   41. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:17 PM (#5730195)

This is beyond pathetic. They know about a law firm but nothing else about it. And this was supposed to trigger something as critically important as a FISC warrant? Dude.
No. The substantive information they had about Page was supposed to trigger something as critically important as a FISA warrant. The identity of the law firm isn't even relevant to the issue of probable cause.

Probable cause would exist just as much, or not, if it were Perkins Coie, Squire Patton Boggs, or Dershowitz & Turley, P.C.

You forget that Ohr was brought in as a go-between only after Steele's direct ties to the FBI had been severed.
And now we're back to "So what?" The dossier had already been given to them months earlier by Steele and they had already extensively debriefed him. Ending their formal relationship with him didn't retroactively erase that information. They didn't need to get it again from Simpson.

   42. Stormy JE Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:17 PM (#5730196)
Nope. No deception. 100% accurate. ("Secret court" is just rhetoric to make it sound scarier here; all warrant applications are ex parte.) And none of us have seen very much of the warrant applications, but four different judges found them sufficient to establish probable cause, so fourth amendment rights likely weren't trampled.
More likely, four different judges were given deceitful information. While folks like Sanchez and Wittes still run around claiming the dossier wasn't at all important, McCabe's admission that warrant approval was based on it has yet to be refuted, never mind that the information inside hadn't been vetted.
Not clear what the relevance of libertarianism is to that issue. But how was the FBI to "check"? The application all-but-says that Steele, their source, didn't know.
Nice try. Even if true, Simpson knew. And in the scenario you present, even a perfunctory attempt at verification would have discovered Perkins Coie and Marc Elias.
   43. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:17 PM (#5730197)

Instead of? They quite properly did both.
We disagree. I think what they did was immoral.
   44. Stormy JE Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:21 PM (#5730200)
No. The substantive information they had about Page was supposed to trigger something as critically important as a FISA warrant. The identity of the law firm isn't even relevant to the issue of probable cause.

Probable cause would exist just as much, or not, if it were Perkins Coie, Squire Patton Boggs, or Dershowitz & Turley, P.C.
One more time: The Bureau hadn't vetted the information Steele had given to the FBI when the FISC warrant application was sought. Accordingly, your claim that in a matter as sensitive and important as one involving a FISC warrant application weeks before the election involving a former Trump campaign staffer, there was no need to examine who bankrolled the research and why is plain nutso.
   45. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:26 PM (#5730204)

More likely, four different judges were given deceitful information.
Deceitful? Are you saying that it's not true "that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign"? Because that seems 100% true. It would've been obvious at the time, and in retrospect we know for a fact that it was true.

Also, you're misquoting McCabe's supposed admission. Plus, Trump can order the full warrant applications released at any time. And if there's really nothing of substance in the applications other than the dossier, then he'd have done so. (You're going to try to dodge that by saying that the DOJ would raise complaints if Trump tried to do that. Which has never stopped him before. And would quickly lead to them being discredited once the bulk of the applications were revealed to be nothing other than oatmeal cookie recipes.)

Nice try. Even if true, Simpson knew. And in the scenario you present, even a perfunctory attempt at verification would have discovered Perkins Coie and Marc Elias.
Of course Simpson knew. But Simpson wasn't their source; Steele was. And Simpson was under no obligation to tell them, and they had no lawful grounds to force the information to be disclosed or to obtain it by, e.g., getting bank records or something.
   46. Stormy JE Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:27 PM (#5730206)
And of course, no one here been able to explain why Mueller's team is effectively seeking only 30 days of jail time for George Papadopoulos, eventually claimed to be the *actual* reason why L'affaire Russe was launched. If his cooperation was so minimal and disappointing, why didn't the SC folks attempt to throw the book at him?
   47. -- Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:30 PM (#5730207)
Immoral is a stretch, but extremely poor citizenship in a pluralistic society isn’t. The problem though is that modern liberals don’t want a pluralistic societ, preferring instead thought police and forced conformity— via state power if necessary. They aren’t boycotting because that isn’t their aim; their aim is to force his compliance with modern liberal dogma.

Petty tyrants gonna petty tyrant.
   48. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:30 PM (#5730209)
Accordingly, your claim that in a matter as sensitive and important as one involving a FISC warrant application weeks before the election involving a former Trump campaign staffer, there was no need to examine who bankrolled the research and why is plain nutso.
One more time: you're inventing new legal standards. There was no need to examine who bankrolled the research and why. Whether Page was conspiring with the Russians did not turn in any way on who funded Steele. If there were going to be a trial and Steele were going to testify against Page, then it would be necessary to know who paid Steele, since that would come up on cross-examination. But to establish probable cause to investigate Page, it's just not important. Especially if you know the motives of who paid Steele.
   49. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:32 PM (#5730210)

And of course, no one here been able to explain why Mueller's team is effectively seeking only 30 days of jail time for George Papadopoulos, eventually claimed to be the *actual* reason why L'affaire Russe was launched. If his cooperation was so minimal and disappointing, why didn't the SC folks attempt to throw the book at him?
They are not seeking only 30 days, and if you read the reports you're relying on, the Sentencing Guidelines only call for a 0-6 month sentence. Whether George Papadopoulos's drunken ramblings were the impetus for the investigation has no bearing on his criminal culpability.
   50. Stormy JE Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:32 PM (#5730211)
Deceitful? Are you saying that it's not true "that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign"? Because that seems 100% true. It would've been obvious at the time, and in retrospect we know for a fact that it was true.
Yes, David, they left out pertinent information. You're covering for this by claiming there's no evidence the Bureau knew that it was Clinton/DNC-funded.
Also, you're misquoting McCabe's supposed admission.
I am? How so?
Plus, Trump can order the full warrant applications released at any time. And if there's really nothing of substance in the applications other than the dossier, then he'd have done so. (You're going to try to dodge that by saying that the DOJ would raise complaints if Trump tried to do that. Which has never stopped him before. And would quickly lead to them being discredited once the bulk of the applications were revealed to be nothing other than oatmeal cookie recipes.)
Indeed. Funny how neither Schiff, Cummings, Feinstein, Warner, etc. have asked for additional disclosure but the their Republican counterparts have -- and I suspect more info will be made public.
   51. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM (#5730212)
David N, #43:
We disagree. I think what they did was immoral.

You're right: a definition of morality that accedes to and fortifies bigotry is certainly a definition of morality with which I disagree. The appeals process of Colorado is also going to disagree.
   52. SandyRiver Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM (#5730213)
double post
   53. SandyRiver Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:36 PM (#5730215)
[quote]Well, it seems to be, seeing as how "Treat others the way you'd like to be treated" turned out to be too horrifying heretical.

I like that principle; it perfectly comports with libertarianism.


Sure, I wouldn't want to eat in a Negro restaurant so why would I want to serve one?


Of course, that alters the quotation to, "Treat others the way you would treat yourself," which is quite different. Using the same terms but in line with the original quotation: "I wouldn't want to be coerced into eating at a Negro restaurant, so why would I want to coerce a Negro to eat in mine?"
   54. Stormy JE Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:36 PM (#5730216)
They are not seeking only 30 days, and if you read the reports you're relying on, the Sentencing Guidelines only call for a 0-6 month sentence. Whether George Papadopoulos's drunken ramblings were the impetus for the investigation has no bearing on his criminal culpability.
The SC used the 30-day sentence of Alex van der Zwaan as the model.

And yes, I'm not shocked that a federal investigation into a major party's nominee launched over what is now conveniently handwaved away as "drunken ramblings" doesn't concern you in the least.

EDIT: So we're led to believe that George P, after agreeing to a plea deal, susbsequently lied, provided no cooperation of substance per his plea deal, delayed handing over evidence, chatted up the media, yet it's totally normal that the SC asks only for 0-6 months, using van der Zwaan's 30-day jail sentence as the template?

Yeah, now pull the other finger.
   55. -- Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:39 PM (#5730220)
GB the tyrant represent!
   56. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:42 PM (#5730224)
Of course, that alters the quotation to, "Treat others the way you would treat yourself," which is quite different. Using the same terms but in line with the original quotation: "I wouldn't want to be coerced into eating at a Negro restaurant, so why would I want to coerce a Negro to eat in mine?"


WUT?

Is this one of those "you hippies are the real racists for demanding I serve a Negro" kind of thing?
   57. Swoboda is freedom Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:44 PM (#5730226)
We're so accustomed to Trump threatening to sue others, then quietly backing down, not (perhaps) the other way around.

Don't you remember the campaign? He was constantly short changing contractors for his businesses, then telling him to sue as he had bigger pockets. Now he has the Feds bankrolling him.
   58. zenbitz Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:44 PM (#5730227)
News Flash: Republicans learn police work often sloppy! Prosecutors lie and deceive to put "criminals away". Liberals right all along! Details at 11.

And that is literally the BEST they can hope for.
   59. zenbitz Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:47 PM (#5730229)
In other news.... Ancient files reveal FBI/IRS trumped up Tax Evasion charges on Alphonse Capone!
   60. perros Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:51 PM (#5730232)
Yeah, who could ever tell the difference between restaurants being segregated by law, and a handful of individual random weirdos????


By law and custom. The fiction that changing the law automatically fixes a problem is not a position held by individual random weirdos (though you're included), but by a political party and most of its representatives and judges, one they know by fact and evidence to be false.

By your lights, re-segregation is completely legit as long as the law doesn't require it.

GOP America
   61. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:52 PM (#5730233)
And yes, I'm not shocked that a federal investigation into a major party's nominee launched over what is now conveniently handwaved away as "drunken ramblings" doesn't concern you in the least.


Follow the breadcrumbs Juan! They lead all the way to the top! All the way to George Soros!
   62. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:54 PM (#5730234)
The SC used the 30-day sentence of Alex van der Zwaan as the model.
They informed the court about it, but they conspicuously did not recommend it.
And yes, I'm not shocked that a federal investigation into a major party's nominee launched over what is now conveniently handwaved away as "drunken ramblings" doesn't concern you in the least.
I don't see any handwaving away. The thing he was drunkenly rambling about was substantively serious. But his personal conduct was relatively minor.
   63. zenbitz Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:56 PM (#5730235)
You're covering for this by claiming there's no evidence the Bureau knew that it was Clinton/DNC-funded.


JE - seriously - I hope you are just throwing poop at a message board of old white guys because I *am* beginning to be worried for your sanity.

1) David did not claim this
2) No one* claimed this, it's not true. Everyone - including the FBI knew it was Clinton/DNC funded.
3) It doesn't MATTER who funded it, because the motivations of the "tipper" (which - if I am following and I am probably not - was Steele himself) don't NECESSARILY mean it's not worth investigating.

The FBI investigates people. That's what it does. I am 100% sure *SOMETIMES* it investigates people and doesn't find anything. I am 80% sure that *SOMETIMES* it investigates people, doesn't find anything AND FABRICATES EVIDENCE to charge them. That's what cops do. That's what cops always have done.

None of that is material to Trump and his buddies, unless it's proven to be true IN THIS CASE.

* No one who is believable. I am sure some clinton sycophant desperately foolishly claimed this praying that whomever suggested it was guessing. Wait. maybe I have this backwards. Didn't Nunes claim something like this - that this is what the Bureau claimed to "hoodwink" the judges?
   64. Swoboda is freedom Posted: August 20, 2018 at 12:59 PM (#5730237)
Yeah, who could ever tell the difference between restaurants being segregated by law, and a handful of individual random weirdos????


By law and custom.


I was just reading a book about Jim Jones. His first ministries were in Indianapolis. Indianapolis did not begin to integrate schools until 1967, 13 years after Brown v Board. This was mostly due to the fact that black families couldn't purchase homes outside of one area, where the one black high school was.

So even with the law being overturned, it stayed the same. Same in a lot of areas.
   65. Stormy JE Posted: August 20, 2018 at 01:00 PM (#5730238)
They informed the court about it, but they conspicuously did not recommend it.
Did they have to mention it at all?
The thing he was drunkenly rambling about was substantively serious.
And yet no one bothered to interview George P. Funny that.

Funny too how he didn't do anything with any of the dirt he supposedly had access to.

Central figure my ass.

And I'm still hoping to hear your thoughts re: Mifsud.
   66. BrianBrianson Posted: August 20, 2018 at 01:01 PM (#5730240)
News Flash: Republicans learn police work often sloppy! Prosecutors lie and deceive to put "criminals away". Liberals right all along! Details at 11.


Ah, it only works if the person is too poor to afford a proper lawyer.

I suppose it might work if they have a reputation of screwing their lawyers that prevents them from hiring a proper lawyer. So Trumpkins may have a case.
   67. Stormy JE Posted: August 20, 2018 at 01:03 PM (#5730241)
JE - seriously - I hope you are just throwing poop at a message board of old white guys because I *am* beginning to be worried for your sanity.
That none of you can even acknowledge that my concerns basically mirror Grassley's and Graham's says plenty about who's clinging to conspiracy theories.

Anyway, don't you have a war to wage with perros? :)
   68. BDC Posted: August 20, 2018 at 01:08 PM (#5730245)
Absolute knowledge have I none.
But my aunt's Facebook friend's stepdaughter's son
Heard a deliveryman on the street
Mention a 4chan midnight tweet
That he saw a subReddit's red-hot take —
A subReddit he opened by mistake —
From a Russian hooker in Timbuctoo,
Who said that her brother in Cuba knew
Of an Internet troll on the Upper West Side,
Who learned from activists for White Pride
Who had learned by reading QAnon
Of a big-data-crunching Cambridge don
Who'd exposed a leaker who had it straight
From a guy in the undisclosed Deep State,
That an Instagrammer in Borneo
Was told by Ukrainians who ought to know,
Of a well-known social media hound,
Whose brother-in-law had recently found
That his third ex-husband's sister's niece
Wrote in an old-school dead-tree piece:
"There's a Memo far from the light of day
That explains all about the Dossier."
   69. Lassus Posted: August 20, 2018 at 01:13 PM (#5730246)
BDC, did you write that?
   70. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 20, 2018 at 01:17 PM (#5730248)
BDC, did you write that?

I just assumed he copied it from JE's diary.
   71. Morty Causa Posted: August 20, 2018 at 01:20 PM (#5730250)
He did break it in verse lines. Ezra Pound Lives!
   72. BDC Posted: August 20, 2018 at 01:28 PM (#5730252)
BDC, did you write that?


Well, sort of, but it's an old, old comic poem, probably anonymous. The version I know best is about the Teapot Dome but it's a good deal older than that. Gonfalon would know where it comes from. I just threw in current idiotic references.
   73. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 01:29 PM (#5730253)
That was splendid. Ice Cube seems wack and bougie compared to that hot fire.
   74. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 01:37 PM (#5730255)
Re: #8 Speaking of McGahn's testimony to Mueller:

Seth Masket:
Viewing John Dean as the villain in the Watergate story seems like kind of a tell.
@realDonaldTrump
The failing @nytimes wrote a Fake piece today implying that because White House Councel Don McGahn was giving hours of testimony to the Special Councel, he must be a John Dean type “RAT.” But I allowed him and all others to testify - I didn’t have to. I have nothing to hide......
   75. Stormy JE Posted: August 20, 2018 at 01:44 PM (#5730256)
Viewing John Dean as the villain in the Watergate story seems like kind of a tell.
Well, it's equally hard to say a dude who helped plan and cover up the Watergate break-in, was convicted in a court of law of obstruction, ultimately serving four months in jail, and disbarred is a ####### national hero.
   76. Shredder Posted: August 20, 2018 at 01:45 PM (#5730257)
Jason blocks me, so he won't read this, but it must take an impressive amount of cement to craft the skull of the person who still gets this wrong, despite how many times it has been explained to him. From #1876 in the last thread:
In a letter dated May 11 to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, quoted from notes taken by a "career, nonpartisan law enforcement officer" who attended a March 15, 2017, briefing by Comey. The agent quoted Comey as saying the FBI agents "saw nothing that led them to believe [he was] lying." Grassley also quoted from committee staff notes that "agents saw no change in his demeanor or tone that would say he was being untruthful."

The majority report of the House Intelligence Committee includes a finding that FBI agents "did not detect any deception during Flynn's interview." As evidence, the report quotes Comey from a private briefing on March 2, 2017: "the agents . . . discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn't see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them."
Emphasis Jason's. Now, most people with a working brain will read this and think "If the FBI said it didn't look like he was lying, but later found he was lying, and then got him to admit he was lying, then they're essentially saying that Flynn is a really good liar in interviews". Not Jason, though. Jason seems to think that the FBI brings some "Expert Lie Figure Outers" to interviews, and they completely base their case on what the subject "appeared" to do during the interview. Of course, one would expect an organization like the FBI to look into whether the statement was truthful, see if there's any evidence that either corroborates or discredits the subject. But not sweet, gullible Jason, though. He thinks the FBI just looks into the subject's eyes and tries to see what's in the subject's heart. No need for additional investigation.

I'll bet Bill Clinton wishes Jason had been part of the Starr investigation. "Sir, we interviewed the president, and he clearly did not have sex with that woman, because there was no change in posture, tone, inflection, or eye contact when he answered our questions. What's that you saw about a blue dress and DNA? Sorry sir, but that evidence is clearly fabricated, and I know so, because I saw no change in his demeanor or tone when he answered my questions, so, ya know, QED." What a #######.
   77. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 20, 2018 at 01:46 PM (#5730258)
BDC did a lot more good work on #68 than the previous updaters who just changed the reference in the last line, and the rhyming word in the next-to-last line. The poem's been used to joke about the end of both World Wars, the Depression, nuclear annihilation and... Charlie Crist??
   78. Zonk is a Doppleclapper Posted: August 20, 2018 at 01:52 PM (#5730260)
Well, it's equally hard to say a dude who helped plan and cover up the Watergate break-in, was convicted in a court of law of obstruction, ultimately serving four months in jail, and disbarred is a ####### national hero.


All the President's Spin....
   79. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 01:56 PM (#5730262)
Well, it's equally hard to say a dude who helped plan and cover up the Watergate break-in, was convicted in a court of law of obstruction, ultimately serving four months in jail, and disbarred is a ####### national hero.

All the President's Spin....


What's funny is that Juan's fat, bald, cellulite-ridden dimwit of a hero doesn't hold any of THAT against Dean. No, he thinks Dean is a bad guy because he is a RAT. The real crime is not being loyal to his criminal conspirators.
   80. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 20, 2018 at 02:01 PM (#5730263)
And let's not forget, Simpson and Ohr collaborated so that the Bureau could continue to work with Steele and use his product even after they had supposedly terminated the arrangement.

So what? Wait, let me rephrase that in more technical jargon that I would use in a legal brief: "So what?"

Steele's allegations had nothing to do with Ohr's official duties, nothing at all. He was helping Steele for political reasons, while failing to disclose that his wife was employed by the outfit that had commissioned Steele's hit piece. Thats quite a bit to handwave.
   81. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 20, 2018 at 02:02 PM (#5730264)
Well, it's equally hard to say a dude who helped plan and cover up the Watergate break-in, was convicted in a court of law of obstruction, ultimately serving four months in jail, and disbarred is a ####### national hero.

Dean may not be a hero, but he helped get the necessary job done. Maybe that explains Trump's outburst about him, even if he probably needed a Twitterprompter to tell him who John Dean even is.
   82. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 02:02 PM (#5730265)
Well, it's equally hard to say a dude who helped plan and cover up the Watergate break-in, was convicted in a court of law of obstruction, ultimately serving four months in jail, and disbarred is a ####### national hero.
You miss the point. Trump didn't criticize Dean for any of those things. (Glass houses and all that.) Trump criticized Dean for flipping on Nixon.


EDIT: Coca-cola with real cocaine for YR.
   83. Stormy JE Posted: August 20, 2018 at 02:04 PM (#5730266)
All the President's Spin....
Wow, even zonk has chosen to go substance-free today.
   84. DavidFoss Posted: August 20, 2018 at 02:07 PM (#5730267)
Wow, even zonk has chosen to go substance-free today.

What's funny is that you act as if you think that Trump and/or his campaign are guilty. Your defense strategy seems to be to try to minimize the amount of evidence which is admissable. I mean, if nobody did anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about! Especially since Trump & his campaign have deep pockets and can get great legal representation.
   85. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 20, 2018 at 02:10 PM (#5730268)
Your best answer is that Hillary and the DNC and Simpson came up with this elaborate plan and worked with a bunch of different Russians to put it into effect, but after it was over they slapped themselves on their foreheads and said, "Hey, wait, how are we going to let people know about this? Gosh, how could we have overlooked that flaw in our plan? Crap. Oh, well. Guess we might as well stick this information in the back of a filing cabinet somewhere and never look at it again."

Hillary's camp made a concerted effort to get Steele's stuff out before the election. They very much wanted to have it reported that the Trump campaign was under investigation. Steele peddled the story all over town, but since his material was completely unverified, nobody would publish it except David Corn. From the beginning, Hillary's team tried to hide their involvement, lying repeatedly, because they knew that promoting unverified, possibly completely phony, info on a political opponent could blow up in their face. I don't see why anyone would be so willing to give them so much credit for simply being aware of, and attempting to limit, their own vulnerability.
   86. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: August 20, 2018 at 02:11 PM (#5730269)
That none of you can even acknowledge that my concerns basically mirror Grassley's and Graham's says plenty about who's clinging to conspiracy theories.
You realize that Simpson demanded that the full transcript of his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee (which Grassley chairs) be released because the Republican members of the committee selectively leaked only portions of his testimony? And that at every turn in the Russian Interference Investigation, Grassley has blindly defended Trump and all of his sycophants?
   87. Stormy JE Posted: August 20, 2018 at 02:12 PM (#5730270)
You miss the point. Trump didn't criticize Dean for any of those things. (Glass houses and all that.) Trump criticized Dean for flipping on Nixon.
Dean may not be a hero, but he helped get the necessary job done. Maybe that explains Trump's outburst about him, even if he probably needed a Twitterprompter to tell him who John Dean even is.

Meh, the spelling of "Councel" is the tell that this tweet was probably designed to do little more than light up switchboards.
   88. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 20, 2018 at 02:14 PM (#5730271)
#86:
You realize that Simpson demanded that the full transcript of his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee (which Grassley chairs) be released because the Republican members of the committee selectively leaked only portions of his testimony? And that at every turn in the Russian Interference Investigation, Grassley has blindly defended Trump and all of his sycophants?


blah blah blah GRASSLEY blah blah blah blah blah blah FUSION blah blah blah blah...
   89. zenbitz Posted: August 20, 2018 at 02:17 PM (#5730272)
Anyway, don't you have a war to wage with perros? :)


I won. Unfortunately, the congress of Zenbitzia has approved the Perros Marshall Plan for rebuilding...
   90. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 02:19 PM (#5730276)
Hillary's camp made a concerted effort to get Steele's stuff out before the election. They very much wanted to have it reported that the Trump campaign was under investigation. Steele peddled the story all over town, but since his material was completely unverified, nobody would publish it except David Corn. From the beginning, Hillary's team tried to hide their involvement, lying repeatedly, because they knew that promoting unverified, possibly completely phony, info on a political opponent could blow up in their face. I don't see why anyone would be so willing to give them so much credit for simply being aware of, and attempting to limit, their own vulnerability.
All that was a very longwinded way of not answering the question. Which, to remind you, was why, if the entire Trump Tower meeting was an attempt by Hillary¹ to entrap Trump, Hillary made no attempt to actually use the Trump Tower meeting. I'm not asking about the dossier. I'm asking about the Trump Tower meeting. A meeting which we know for a fact -- and she would have known for a fact, if she was involved in planning it -- actually took place.



¹For "Hillary," read Hillary, her campaign, the DNC, Simpson, and any other agents of Hillary.
   91. zenbitz Posted: August 20, 2018 at 02:21 PM (#5730277)
They very much wanted to have it reported that the Trump campaign was under investigation.


But failed because the Media is under control of... wait. I was going somewhere with this.
   92. Stormy JE Posted: August 20, 2018 at 02:22 PM (#5730278)
You realize that Simpson demanded that the full transcript of his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee (which Grassley chairs) be released because the Republican members of the committee selectively leaked only portions of his testimony?
That's not what Grassley said. He had offered Simpson the opportunity to testify in public but was turned down. Moreover, Grassley said that Simpson had not fully cooperated with his committee staff's requests.
And that at every turn in the Russian Interference Investigation, Grassley has blindly defended Trump and all of his sycophants?
IYHO, does that make the Judiciary Committee Chairman a trafficker in conspiracy theories?

But I do give you props for being the first genius here in weeks (months?) to mention Grassley's name, let alone discuss his involvement.
   93. Zonk is a Doppleclapper Posted: August 20, 2018 at 02:22 PM (#5730279)
Meh, the spelling of "Councel" is the tell that this tweet was probably designed to do little more than light up switchboards.


As with all things Trumpkin Defense Force - it can never just be because their Dear Leader is a moron.

Truth isn't truth.
   94. zenbitz Posted: August 20, 2018 at 02:22 PM (#5730280)
jews? It's Jews right?
   95. Stormy JE Posted: August 20, 2018 at 02:29 PM (#5730285)
All that was a very longwinded way of not answering the question. Which, to remind you, was why, if the entire Trump Tower meeting was an attempt by Hillary¹ to entrap Trump, Hillary made no attempt to actually use the Trump Tower meeting. I'm not asking about the dossier. I'm asking about the Trump Tower meeting. A meeting which we know for a fact -- and she would have known for a fact, if she was involved in planning it -- actually took place.
Reading Clapper's comment, he wasn't claiming Hillary had anything to do with setting up the Trump Tower meeting. And neither was I.

EDIT:
¹For "Hillary," read Hillary, her campaign, the DNC, Simpson, and any other agents of Hillary.

Oh, so now you do link Hillary to Simpson and Steele? Hmmm.

Well, there was nothing worth peddling, and wouldn't want questions raised about how they knew about said meeting.

* * *
But failed because the Media is under control of... wait. I was going somewhere with this.
Yes, zenbitz, that tells you Simpson and Steele had so much nothingburger in their files that even ABGL was unable to print their tales.
   96. stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongoose Posted: August 20, 2018 at 02:34 PM (#5730288)
I was just reading a book about Jim Jones.


Was it perchance this one? Read it about a year ago -- pretty interesting.
   97. Zonk is a Doppleclapper Posted: August 20, 2018 at 02:38 PM (#5730289)
Mocking the Trumpkin Qanon brigade is both pithier and easier than following them down their rabbit holes of nonsensical conspiracy theories.

I honestly don't get why folks bother - I gave it up last year... there's always another co-conspirator, it always goes even deeper, and every piece of evidence - including the nonsense out of their Dear Leader's own mouth - of Trumpkin malfeasance is ultimately just more evidence of how much deeper the conspiracy goes.
   98. Count Posted: August 20, 2018 at 02:40 PM (#5730290)
So JE are you acknowledging that it makes no sense to say that the Trump Tower meeting was a set up or not? It seems like you’re not- you’re sticking to the idea that they set it up but didn’t want anyone to know that they knew about it so they didn’t tell the press or include it in the dossier or do anything like that?
   99. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 02:43 PM (#5730292)
Reading Clapper's comment, he wasn't claiming Hillary had anything to do with setting up the Trump Tower meeting. And neither was I.
Well, if you weren't, you were a pretty darn good simulacrum of someone claiming that. In post 1805 of last week's thread, the story you posted said:

This along with the bombshell of Ohr’s notes brings up the $56,000 question: Were the Russians at this meeting there as Putin government operatives OR were they actually there as Fusion GPS operatives working on behalf of Hillary Clinton campaign & the DNC trying to entrap the Trump team by lying to them and misrepresenting themselves?

Emphasis added. Yeah, yeah, I know: it was just a "what if," right? You weren't actually claiming it. It's that Ray thing where one posts a quote and then claims later that even though one never indicated disagreement, one never meant to actually endorse what one posted, right?
   100. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 20, 2018 at 02:47 PM (#5730296)
Oh, so now you do link Hillary to Simpson and Steele? Hmmm.
FTR I've never delinked (unlinked? nonlinked?) Hillary to Simpson. Only to Steele.
Page 1 of 23 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BFFB
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogHall of Famer John Smoltz says MLB needs an overhaul and proposes drastic changes
(60 - 5:00pm, Sep 21)
Last: BDC

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Thread (Pre-Season Edition)
(496 - 4:59pm, Sep 21)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogOTP 2018 September 17: How Brett Kavanaugh explains his baseball ticket debt
(1815 - 4:58pm, Sep 21)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogIt's not the full moon that excites OMNICHATTER! for Sept. 21, 2018
(9 - 4:53pm, Sep 21)
Last: Meatwad

NewsblogJeff Banister fired as Texas Rangers manager
(2 - 4:34pm, Sep 21)
Last: BDC

NewsblogAddison Russell’s Ex-Wife Releases Detailed Allegations Of Abuse
(29 - 4:28pm, Sep 21)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogSimon - Why Does Bryce Harper Have -25 Defensive Runs Saved?
(7 - 4:27pm, Sep 21)
Last: Dale Sams

NewsblogJoe Maddon is angry with MLB over Cubs weather-impacted schedule
(59 - 4:26pm, Sep 21)
Last: bfan

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(820 - 3:57pm, Sep 21)
Last: I am going to be Frank

Gonfalon CubsThe Final Push
(153 - 3:53pm, Sep 21)
Last: Zonk is a Doppleclapper

NewsblogRed Sox Fan Dies Climbing On Top of Train Leaving Yankee Stadium
(13 - 3:52pm, Sep 21)
Last: SandyRiver

NewsblogMarlins CEO Derek Jeter: Don Mattingly 'under contract' for 2019
(11 - 3:11pm, Sep 21)
Last: BrianBrianson

NewsblogRed Sox division title banner falls off truck; its return may cost them - The Boston Globe
(33 - 1:40pm, Sep 21)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogShohei Ohtani may prove to be baseball’s future, and what a future it could be
(1 - 1:22pm, Sep 21)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-21-2018
(19 - 1:17pm, Sep 21)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

Page rendered in 0.7663 seconds
46 querie(s) executed