FBI Confirms Probe into Trump-Russian Collusion

[time4fun]

From Politico: (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/adam-schiff-trump-twitter-wiretapping-russia-ties-236249)


FBI Director James Comey confirmed Monday the FBI is investigating Russia’s meddling in the presidential election, including possible links between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

Watching the Congressional Hearing is about as cringe-worthy as every other public Congressional hearing.

Republicans are praising the FBI for not saying much and are trying the "But Obama!" lines.

Democrats are making public statements they hope will get into news articles and throwing a question mark at the end to make them look like questions.

This needs an independent prosecutor very, very badly.

[Wrathbringer]

No one cares.

[Parkbandit]

From Politico: (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/adam-schiff-trump-twitter-wiretapping-russia-ties-236249)



Watching the Congressional Hearing is about as cringe-worthy as every other public Congressional hearing.

Republicans are praising the FBI for not saying much and are trying the "But Obama!" lines.

Democrats are making public statements they hope will get into news articles and throwing a question mark at the end to make them look like questions.

This needs an independent prosecutor very, very badly.

If there is already a probe, maybe we should wait until that is done before salivating like a retard after a piece of candy and begging for a special prosecutor.

In before "I once worked in the independent prosecutor's office and have multiple years of experience.. so I know when it's needed" story.

[Tgo01]

This needs an independent prosecutor very, very badly.

Already thinking up excuses before it comes out that Trump isn't a Russia spy huh?

[RichardCranium]

Already thinking up excuses before it comes out that Trump isn't a Russia spy huh?

It really does need an independent prosecutor though.

[Parkbandit]

It really does need an independent prosecutor though.

Shouldn't we wait until there is actual evidence via an investigation before we start prosecuting President Trump for something that is probably a Democrat's fabricated story to explain how Hillary could have possibly lost?

[RichardCranium]

Prosecutor probably wasn't the word I should've used.

[time4fun]

Shouldn't we wait until there is actual evidence via an investigation before we start prosecuting President Trump for something that is probably a Democrat's fabricated story to explain how Hillary could have possibly lost?

There's clearly enough evidence for an investigation- several of them in fact. All of them with enough political entanglements to be suspect in the eyes of the public.

The point of an independent/special prosecutor is to do the investigating in a way that the American public feel is credible. And you need them to be a Prosecutor so they both have the authority to recommend charges if applicable and have expertise people can trust if they recommend against charges.

You don't bring them in after charges are recommended.

[Gelston]

There's clearly enough evidence for an investigation- several of them in fact. All of them with enough political entanglements to be suspect in the eyes of the public.

The point of an independent/special prosecutor is to do the investigating in a way that the American public feel is credible. And you need them to be a Prosecutor so they both have the authority to recommend charges if applicable and have expertise people can trust if they recommend against charges.

You don't bring them in after charges are recommended.

You don't need evidence for an investigation. Investigations exist to gather evidence. The first step of an investigation is to determine what crime, if any, has been committed.

[Tgo01]

There's clearly enough evidence for an investigation- several of them in fact. All of them with enough political entanglements to be suspect in the eyes of the public.

The point of an independent/special prosecutor is to do the investigating in a way that the American public feel is credible. And you need them to be a Prosecutor so they both have the authority to recommend charges if applicable and have expertise people can trust if they recommend against charges.

You don't bring them in after charges are recommended.

But if the FBI says no laws were broken then that's the end of it. This seems like the fastest way to ensure no laws were broken.

[Androidpk]

There's clearly enough evidence for an investigation- several of them in fact.

First of all it's not an investigation, its an inquiry. Secondly, Donald Trump is not the target of any of these inquiries. This is just character assassination by the fringe Left.

[Thondalar]

There's clearly enough evidence for an investigation- several of them in fact. All of them with enough political entanglements to be suspect in the eyes of the public.

The point of an independent/special prosecutor is to do the investigating in a way that the American public feel is credible. And you need them to be a Prosecutor so they both have the authority to recommend charges if applicable and have expertise people can trust if they recommend against charges.

You don't bring them in after charges are recommended.

In this case, the FBI is probably your best option. Anyone from the Office of Special Counsel would answer to Sessions, and any other independent prosecutor would answer to the President.

[time4fun]

You don't need evidence for an investigation. Investigations exist to gather evidence. The first step of an investigation is to determine what crime, if any, has been committed.

Actually you do. Special Prosecutors are only brought in for criminal investigations, and the US doesn't undertake a criminal investigation without some evidence to warrant (pun intended?) it.

That doesn't mean that there's so much evidence that they think a conviction is likely though. It really just needs to be enough evidence to suspect the possibility something illegal was done, as is the case here.

[time4fun]

In this case, the FBI is probably your best option. Anyone from the Office of Special Counsel would answer to Sessions, and any other independent prosecutor would answer to the President.

When a Special Prosecutor is brought in, it's generally someone from outside of the administration. That's kind of the point- to reassure people that the outcome isn't politically motivated. Even the FBI reports up to Trump, and the Deputy AG reports to Sessions.

At this point though, I think only the DoJ can appoint someone. Congress lost that right a few years back. So it's not a super likely thing.

[time4fun]

First of all it's not an investigation, its an inquiry. Secondly, Donald Trump is not the target of any of these inquiries. This is just character assassination by the fringe Left.

Did you read the article in the original post?

Comey confirmed an investigation is going on in the FBI. I think you're thinking of the Congressional work.

And everyone in the campaign- including Donald Trump- is under the purview of the investigations we know about publicly. It's not character assassination to say as such.

That doesn't mean that he is the primary target, but it's inaccurate to say that he's not being investigated.

[Gelston]

Actually you do. Special Prosecutors are only brought in for criminal investigations, and the US doesn't undertake a criminal investigation without some evidence to warrant (pun intended?) it.

That doesn't mean that there's so much evidence that they think a conviction is likely though. It really just needs to be enough evidence to suspect the possibility something illegal was done, as is the case here.

Investigations are started from a report. They are continued when a crime is proven to have occurred. That is the very first step of an investigation.

I'm sure you're going to invent some story where you are a Law Enforcement expert and have conducted numerous investigations now too though.

[Androidpk]

Did you read the article in the original post?

Comey confirmed an investigation is going on in the FBI. I think you're thinking of the Congressional work.

And everyone in the campaign- including Donald Trump- is under the purview of the investigations we know about publicly. It's not character assassination to say as such.

That doesn't mean that he is the primary target, but it's inaccurate to say that he's not being investigated.

:lol2:

[Methais]

I hope Comey comes out, says laws were broken but found no evidence of intent, says anyone else doing the same would be in big trouble, then recommends no charges and rolls out.

The meltdowns from the left would make all the hilarious shit they've done so far look like a cheap carnival side show. Which I heard time4fun used to travel with a carnival sideshow for a few years and has extensive knowledge of it and could therefore vouch for the accuracy of my prediction.

[Parkbandit]

There's clearly enough evidence for an investigation- several of them in fact.

Please, post all the actual evidence you have that the Trump Administration colluded with Russia to beat Hillary in the election. PLEASE, don't just post:

"Hillary lost and that was no possible, so Trump had to have outside help and, and, and, and, I'm just so sad and frightened from this election so much!" because so far, that is the only "evidence" you've given.

[time4fun]

I hope Comey comes out, says laws were broken but found no evidence of intent, says anyone else doing the same would be in big trouble, then recommends no charges and rolls out.

The meltdowns from the left would make all the hilarious shit they've done so far look like a cheap carnival side show. Which I heard time4fun used to travel with a carnival sideshow for a few years and has extensive knowledge of it and could therefore vouch for the accuracy of my prediction.

You mean like the meltdowns conservatives are now having over "leaks"? The House Oversight Committee itself was repeatedly accused of selectively leaking evidence in the Clinton campaign "probes" (look, I can do it too), but Republicans had no problems with them at that point.

I'm really sorry that it bothers you that intent is an official factor in the law (literally in the case of the Espionage Act), but you don't get to change that just because you happen to disagree with their politics.

This is an issue of national sovereignty. It shouldn't be a partisan one- which is why it needs to be taken into the hands of an independent Special Prosecutor. Neither side is thinking clearly right now- yourself included.

[Wrathbringer]

You mean like the meltdowns conservatives are now having over "leaks"? The House Oversight Committee itself was repeatedly accused of selectively leaking evidence in the Clinton campaign "probes" (look, I can do it too), but Republicans had no problems with them at that point.

I'm really sorry that it bothers you that intent is an official factor in the law (literally in the case of the Espionage Act), but you don't get to change that just because you happen to disagree with their politics.

This is an issue of national sovereignty. It shouldn't be a partisan one- which is why it needs to be taken into the hands of an independent Special Prosecutor. Neither side is thinking clearly right now- yourself included.

You are delusional. Seek help.

[time4fun]

Please, post all the actual evidence you have that the Trump Administration colluded with Russia to beat Hillary in the election. PLEASE, don't just post:

"Hillary lost and that was no possible, so Trump had to have outside help and, and, and, and, I'm just so sad and frightened from this election so much!" because so far, that is the only "evidence" you've given.

Why would I need to provide you with evidence when the FBI, House Intelligence Committee, and Senate Intelligence Committees are all actively investigating because they found enough evidence to include the specific issue of Russian-Trump collusion? You're acting as though the Republican heads of the Intelligence Committees rolled a dice one day and decided whether or not to include the issue.

We'll hear from the other Intelligence Agencies next week. They're also investigating the Russian Hacks- that likely includes the possibility of Trump-Russian collusion as well (as it has for Congress and the FBI).

Funny how sending Clinton to jail was just the most important thing in the world, but now we're sitting on the potential for FAR more serious crimes, and it's really not that big of a deal.

No one is saying that there is guilt here, but you don't get to pretend like they aren't looking into it based on at least circumstantial evidence.

[Gelston]

Why would I need to provide you with evidence when the FBI, House Intelligence Committee, and Senate Intelligence Committees are all actively investigating because they found enough evidence to include the specific issue of Russian-Trump collusion? You're acting as though the Republican heads of the Intelligence Committees rolled a dice one day and decided whether or not to include the issue.

We'll hear from the other Intelligence Agencies next week. They're also investigating the Russian Hacks- that likely includes the possibility of Trump-Russian collusion as well (as it has for Congress and the FBI).

Funny how sending Clinton to jail was just the most important thing in the world, but now we're sitting on the potential for FAR more serious crimes, and it's really not that big of a deal.

No one is saying that there is guilt here, but you don't get to pretend like they aren't looking into it based on at least circumstantial evidence.

Again, no one ever said there was evidence to support a collusion. They said they are looking into reports of a possible collusion. Comey straight up said the majority of this leaked information being published by the media is false.

[Tgo01]

You mean like the meltdowns conservatives are now having over "leaks"? The House Oversight Committee itself was repeatedly accused of selectively leaking evidence in the Clinton campaign "probes" (look, I can do it too), but Republicans had no problems with them at that point.

I'm really sorry that it bothers you that intent is an official factor in the law (literally in the case of the Espionage Act), but you don't get to change that just because you happen to disagree with their politics.

This is an issue of national sovereignty. It shouldn't be a partisan one- which is why it needs to be taken into the hands of an independent Special Prosecutor. Neither side is thinking clearly right now- yourself included.

So Hillary literally breaking the law didn't rise to the level of needing an independent prosecutor, but the exact no proof of Trump being a spy does? Okay.

[Gelston]

“I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI as part of our counterintelligence mission is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,” Comey said during widely anticipated testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. “And that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

That is the exact quote from Comey. where do you see him saying evidence exists? Collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia isn't even the main focus of the investigation.

[Wrathbringer]

“I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI as part of our counterintelligence mission is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,” Comey said during widely anticipated testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. “And that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

That is the exact quote from Comey. where do you see him saying evidence exists? Collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia isn't even the main focus of the investigation.

How dare you ruin her narrative with facts!

[Wrathbringer]

Why would I need to provide you with evidence when the FBI, House Intelligence Committee, and Senate Intelligence Committees are all actively investigating because they found enough evidence to include the specific issue of Russian-Trump collusion? You're acting as though the Republican heads of the Intelligence Committees rolled a dice one day and decided whether or not to include the issue.

We'll hear from the other Intelligence Agencies next week. They're also investigating the Russian Hacks- that likely includes the possibility of Trump-Russian collusion as well (as it has for Congress and the FBI).

Funny how sending Clinton to jail was just the most important thing in the world, but now we're sitting on the potential for FAR more serious crimes, and it's really not that big of a deal.

No one is saying that there is guilt here, but you don't get to pretend like they aren't looking into it based on at least circumstantial evidence.

You're obviously completely ignorant of how all of this works and that would be okay if you weren't acting like you understand it well enough to start a thread then double down with more retardation in said thread.

[Parkbandit]

Why would I need to provide you with evidence when the FBI, House Intelligence Committee, and Senate Intelligence Committees are all actively investigating because they found enough evidence to include the specific issue of Russian-Trump collusion? You're acting as though the Republican heads of the Intelligence Committees rolled a dice one day and decided whether or not to include the issue.

We'll hear from the other Intelligence Agencies next week. They're also investigating the Russian Hacks- that likely includes the possibility of Trump-Russian collusion as well (as it has for Congress and the FBI).

Funny how sending Clinton to jail was just the most important thing in the world, but now we're sitting on the potential for FAR more serious crimes, and it's really not that big of a deal.

No one is saying that there is guilt here, but you don't get to pretend like they aren't looking into it based on at least circumstantial evidence.

Translation: "Hillary lost and that was no possible, so Trump had to have outside help and, and, and, and, I'm just so sad and frightened from this election so much!"

[Donquix]

So Hillary literally breaking the law didn't rise to the level of needing an independent prosecutor, but the exact no proof of Trump being a spy does? Okay.

the FBI just investigates things for like, no reason all the time.

It's not about something rising to a level of needing independent inquiry, it's not the magical 4th branch of government that has extra power. It's required when there is a conflict of interest between those investigating and the those being investigated. As in, the entire administration (essentially) investigating itself, which this is.

There is no smoking gun that has been uncovered yet, there is however substantial circumstantial evidence that suggests the need for further inquiry. Which is exactly what is happening. What do you expect? The evidence fairy doesn't just leave evidence under your pillow every night.

[Gelston]

the FBI just investigates things for like, no reason all the time.

It's not about something rising to a level of needing independent inquiry, it's not the magical 4th branch of government that has extra power. It's required when there is a conflict of interest between those investigating and the those being investigated. As in, the entire administration (essentially) investigating itself, which this is.

There is no smoking gun that has been uncovered yet, there is however substantial circumstantial evidence that suggests the need for further inquiry. Which is exactly what is happening. What do you expect? The evidence fairy doesn't just leave evidence under your pillow every night.

They investigate reports of crimes. It is their job. Might they pull up some hard, actionable evidence? Maybe. There is nothing yet though, or at least, nothing that Comey has admitted to finding. Just like Republicans did during the Clinton investigation, Democrats are doing here, jumping the gun before anything is said or done. Just wait and let the FBI do their job.

[Tgo01]

It's required when there is a conflict of interest between those investigating and the those being investigated. As in, the entire administration (essentially) investigating itself, which this is.

Or the current president who has campaigned on behalf of a person looking to succeed him being investigated?

[Androidpk]

Trump will be in handcuffs by the end of summer.

[Gelston]

Trump will be in handcuffs by the end of summer.

Oh, I see what you did there.

[Parkbandit]

Trump will be in handcuffs by the end of summer.

So what you are saying is... 8 years of the Trump Presidency.

Awesome!

[Luftstreitkräfte]

Liberals need to fucking stop. This cooked up Russia nonsense is hurting our country.

[Fortybox]

Investigations are started from a report. They are continued when a crime is proven to have occurred. That is the very first step of an investigation.

I'm sure you're going to invent some story where you are a Law Enforcement expert and have conducted numerous investigations now too though.

She was poor and discriminated against. She worked her way up and received a double PhD in Law Enforcement.

[Tgo01]

I can't wait for the next time4funism. Maybe it will be revealed that she used to be president of a small country.

[Fortybox]

From Politico: (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/adam-schiff-trump-twitter-wiretapping-russia-ties-236249)



Watching the Congressional Hearing is about as cringe-worthy as every other public Congressional hearing.

Republicans are praising the FBI for not saying much and are trying the "But Obama!" lines.

Democrats are making public statements they hope will get into news articles and throwing a question mark at the end to make them look like questions.

This needs an independent prosecutor very, very badly.

https://i.imgflip.com/1ls9ct.jpg

[Fortybox]

I can't wait for the next time4funism. Maybe it will be revealed that she used to be president of a small country.

Small???? How dare you discriminate against her. It's a large country where women have equal pay!!11one

[time4fun]

Liberals need to fucking stop. This cooked up Russia nonsense is hurting our country.

Comey is not a liberal.

The head of the NSA is not a liberal.

The DOJ reports into Trump.

There's a lot of suspicious activity here- the amount of energy that has gone into covering up meetings and relationships with Russia (and if they didn't do anything wrong- why do they keep lying about their activity?), the appointment of people with deep Russian ties into high profile government positions, the constant attack on NATO by the Trump administration (which is unprecedented in a US administration), and the relentless work to offend our NATO allies is all...strange to say the least.

[Fortybox]

Comey is not a liberal.

The head of the NSA is not a liberal.

The DOJ reports into Trump.

There's a lot of suspicious activity here- the amount of energy that has gone into covering up meetings and relationships with Russia (and if they didn't do anything wrong- why do they keep lying about their activity?), the appointment of people with deep Russian ties into high profile government positions, the constant attack on NATO by the Trump administration (which is unprecedented in a US administration), and the relentless work to offend our NATO allies is all...strange to say the least.

https://i.imgflip.com/1g91z9.jpg

[drauz]

http://i.imgur.com/CZ3BOkc.gif

[Androidpk]

There's a lot of suspicious activity here- the amount of energy that has gone into covering up meetings and relationships with Russia (and if they didn't do anything wrong- why do they keep lying about their activity?), the appointment of people with deep Russian ties into high profile government positions, the constant attack on NATO by the Trump administration (which is unprecedented in a US administration), and the relentless work to offend our NATO allies is all...strange to say the least.

Why did Hillary constantly lie and try to cover stuff up? You didn't have a problem with any of that.

[Methais]

Why did Hillary constantly lie and try to cover stuff up? You didn't have a problem with any of that.

But but that's different! And you're sexist for bringing it up!

[Methais]

You mean like the meltdowns conservatives are now having over "leaks"? The House Oversight Committee itself was repeatedly accused of selectively leaking evidence in the Clinton campaign "probes" (look, I can do it too), but Republicans had no problems with them at that point.

I'm really sorry that it bothers you that intent is an official factor in the law (literally in the case of the Espionage Act), but you don't get to change that just because you happen to disagree with their politics.

This is an issue of national sovereignty. It shouldn't be a partisan one- which is why it needs to be taken into the hands of an independent Special Prosecutor. Neither side is thinking clearly right now- yourself included.

No, I mean the meltdowns that retards like you will have when you get told yet again that you're wrong and stupid and full of shit.

I bet you spent several years as Russian spy. That would explain how you're so easily able to see all this despite the complete lack of evidence.

You:
https://i.makeagif.com/media/5-15-2015/_5S3eP.gif

[time4fun]

Why did Hillary constantly lie and try to cover stuff up? You didn't have a problem with any of that.

For once in your life, can you stop talking about Clinton and focus on something that's potentially, actually damaging to our country?

It world be easier to take your proclamations that your interest in the Clinton server was just about your concern for national security and honesty if you weren't so dismissive when faced with a real threat to national security.

The sitting President is following the Putin plant playbook and can't stop complimenting someone who ordered unprecedented interference into our electoral process on his behalf.

Get some perspective.

[Androidpk]

For once in your life, can you stop talking about Clinton and focus on something that's potentially, actually damaging to our country?

It world be easier to take your proclamations that your interest in the Clinton server was just about your concern for national security and honesty if you weren't so dismissive when faced with a real threat to national security.

The sitting President is following the Putin plant playbook and can't stop complimenting someone who ordered unprecedented interference into our electoral process on his behalf.

Get some perspective.

I just find it funny that you didn't care about it in her situation but you care about it now.

[time4fun]

I just find it funny that you didn't care about it in her situation but you care about it now.

Hey PK- help me out here.

What was it that Russia got caught doing to interfere with the 2016 election again?

[Methais]

For once in your life, can you stop talking about Clinton and focus on something that's potentially, actually damaging to our country?

It world be easier to take your proclamations that your interest in the Clinton server was just about your concern for national security and honesty if you weren't so dismissive when faced with a real threat to national security.

The sitting President is following the Putin plant playbook and can't stop complimenting someone who ordered unprecedented interference into our electoral process on his behalf.

Get some perspective.

So in other words you don't want to answer the question because you already know you're gonna stick your foot in your mouth and look even more retarded than you've already done.

But let's try anyway:

Why did Hillary constantly lie and try to cover stuff up? You didn't have a problem with any of that.

I'm just curious what your opinion is on it, despite that Russia is super duper serious and Hillary's emails were totally not even worthy of the dog catcher's attention or something.

But despite all that...why did she constantly lie and try to cover it up? You didn't have a problem with any of that.

in b4 non-answer fart sniffing non-response

[time4fun]

So in other words you don't want to answer the question because you already know you're gonna stick your foot in your mouth and look even more retarded than you've already done.

But let's try anyway:

Why did Hillary constantly lie and try to cover stuff up? You didn't have a problem with any of that.

I'm just curious what your opinion is on it, despite that Russia is super duper serious and Hillary's emails were totally not even worthy of the dog catcher's attention or something.

But despite all that...why did she constantly lie and try to cover it up? You didn't have a problem with any of that.

in b4 non-answer fart sniffing non-response

Yes Methais, because having a private email server and colluding with a foreign enemy to throw a Democratic election are absolutely comparable.

[Methais]

Yes Methais, because having a private email server and colluding with a foreign enemy to throw a Democratic election are absolutely comparable.

If it's such small change then why did Hillary constantly lie and try to cover stuff up? You didn't have a problem with any of that.

[Parkbandit]

For once in your life, can you stop talking about Clinton and focus on something that's potentially, actually damaging to our country?

It world be easier to take your proclamations that your interest in the Clinton server was just about your concern for national security and honesty if you weren't so dismissive when faced with a real threat to national security.

The sitting President is following the Putin plant playbook and can't stop complimenting someone who ordered unprecedented interference into our electoral process on his behalf.

Get some perspective.

You asking ANYONE to get some perspective is hilarious.

And I used BOLD, underline AND italics.

[Parkbandit]

If it's such small change then why did Hillary constantly lie and try to cover stuff up? You didn't have a problem with any of that.


When you are a world leader like time4fun is.. you don't have time for the small minutia because you are looking at the big picture.

She has a PhD in World Leadership and has done many speaking engagements on the subject... so she knows better than you.

Also, when she was dirt poor, she worked for Apple in the Genius Bar.. so she knows all about private servers and hacking.

Get up on her level before you comment further.

Thank you.

[Androidpk]

Yes Methais, because having a private email server and colluding with a foreign enemy to throw a Democratic election are absolutely comparable.

Such mental gymnastics..

[Savageheart]

I'm looking forward to getting railed for this but.... why not.

For perspective sake, Nixon had the same amount of apologists, and disbelief - so did Bill Clinton

You all seem to have your own tidy little echo chamber in this tiny community where you parrot one each others ideas, a new talking point comes through rarely but an original one wins through...

Clinton isn't president and if you want to litigate her crimes (or lack there of) it is a separate issue one does not excuse any behavior of the other in fact there are no actual correlations between the two nor are they mutually exclusive. Minding of course the FBI may or may not have concluded their open investigation on Hillary Clinton and no charges were brought.

Supposing you might say but but but the former administration, realize the current administration has full access to the material investigation and they too chose to bring no charges.

Have a ball, break down the merit of each side go crazy.

Trying to win one argument with another argument is laughable, trying to boil everything down to Hillary didn't win and thats why this is a big deal is comical and impossible to take serious.

The OBJECTIVE: When talking about Crimes, for the sake of reality they are defined legally by what you have been indicted, convicted, or aqquited of (very generally speaking)
NSA and FBI confirmed that there is an active investigation into Trump's CAMPAIGN
They will not discuss the facts of the investigation IN DETAIL with congress in an open session - it quite literally sabotages any future indictment should you share facts of an ongoing investigation until it is concluded.
The investigation is NOT CONCLUDED it is ONGOING.
Trump's 'wires' were not tapped as part of any FISA, NSA, FBI or Justice investigation by "bad (or sick)" President Obama.
Whether or not charges will appear out of the investigation is SPECULATIVE in one direction or the other.

The SUBJECTIVE: Trump is a lying liar who lies about things, undermines our intelligence community and Allies which benefits the nations health not at all vs. Trump speaks "Americanese" and his people understand that the intent of his statements are not in the literal interpretation of his words. When he said "wires were tapped" he meant people were investigating him... Not that President Obama did it specifically (regardless of being bad or sick) but that people who worked during the time he was still president did things and stuff.

[chalion]

lol look at this idiot with all his words. NICE WORDS IDIOT

[Savageheart]

:punch:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn283OjPb1g

[Androidpk]

I have no problem with the FBI and others investigating. It's their job. I personally have no strong opinions on this case simply because I haven't seen any evidence yet to prove one thing or another.

[drauz]

I have no problem with the FBI and others investigating. It's their job. I personally have no strong opinions on this case simply because I haven't seen any evidence yet to prove one thing or another.

http://imgur.com/PpuJHmj.jpg

[Savageheart]

It is 100% accurate to state no evidence has been presented to prove one thing or the other.

That isn't what the FBI does, that is not what the NSA does, that is what the DoJ does, or in special circumstances the legislative branch.

It would only be inaccurate to state there is "no evidence" as that chicken just hasn't come home to roost yet one way or the tother...

Dramatics on both sides of the isle exist about all sorts of smoke and fire though, which are to date editorialized.

When/If discovery is presented we can speculate further as to it's accuracy.

[Parkbandit]

It is 100% accurate to state no evidence has been presented to prove one thing or the other.

That isn't what the FBI does, that is not what the NSA does, that is what the DoJ does, or in special circumstances the legislative branch.

It would only be inaccurate to state there is "no evidence" as that chicken just hasn't come home to roost yet one way or the tother...

Dramatics on both sides of the isle exist about all sorts of smoke and fire though, which are to date editorialized.

When/If discovery is presented we can speculate further as to it's accuracy.

Aisle.

[Androidpk]

http://imgur.com/PpuJHmj.jpg

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/aVOSkIC.gif

[Savageheart]

Aisle.

I has shame.

[Tgo01]

Clinton isn't president and if you want to litigate her crimes (or lack there of) it is a separate issue one does not excuse any behavior of the other in fact there are no actual correlations between the two nor are they mutually exclusive. Minding of course the FBI may or may not have concluded their open investigation on Hillary Clinton and no charges were brought.

Supposing you might say but but but the former administration, realize the current administration has full access to the material investigation and they too chose to bring no charges.

Have a ball, break down the merit of each side go crazy.

Trying to win one argument with another argument is laughable, trying to boil everything down to Hillary didn't win and thats why this is a big deal is comical and impossible to take serious.

We are giving time4fun shit because her arguments were basically the exact opposite during Hillary's FBI investigation.

An independent/special prosecutor wasn't needed for Hillary because if the FBI says no laws were broken then no laws were broken according to her, so why do we need an independent prosecutor now?

There was a lot more evidence at the time that Hillary broke the law and tried to cover her tracks than there are that Trump is a Russian spy and tried to cover his tracks yet time4fun managed to always give Hillary a pass and yet insists Trump literally colluded with Russia to rig our election process.

time4fun gave people shit for talking about Hillary's server yet she's constantly hanging on Trump's nuts in regards to Russia.

There really is no conversation to be had with time4fun because she isn't presenting any rational or logical arguments, it's all fucking hysterics. Just look at her last post in this thread:


Yes Methais, because having a private email server and colluding with a foreign enemy to throw a Democratic election are absolutely comparable.

I mean look at this shit! So far all the facts we have is the FBI is doing a routine investigation at the behest of the DOJ and time4fun is already convinced Trump colluded with a "foreign enemy" to throw a Democratic election. We don't even have any evidence that Russia "threw" our elections much less Trump had any involvement in it.

[Androidpk]

I mean look at this shit! So far all the facts we have is the FBI is doing a routine investigation at the behest of the DOJ and time4fun is already convinced Trump colluded with a "foreign enemy" to throw a Democratic election. We don't even have any evidence that Russia "threw" our elections much less Trump had any involvement in it.

Routine inquiry

[time4fun]

The SUBJECTIVE: Trump is a lying liar who lies about things, undermines our intelligence community and Allies which benefits the nations health not at all vs. Trump speaks "Americanese" and his people understand that the intent of his statements are not in the literal interpretation of his words. When he said "wires were tapped" he meant people were investigating him... Not that President Obama did it specifically (regardless of being bad or sick) but that people who worked during the time he was still president did things and stuff.

Here's the thing though- most of this isn't subjective.

Trump clearly stated on multiple occasions that no one in his campaign had any contact with anyone in the Russian government. The Russian ambassador was in Trump Tower. The campaign knew that Carter Page went to Russia- he asked for approval. The Russian ambassador was introduced to Trump in a private gathering at a policy event. The campaign knew for weeks that Flynn had been in contact with the Russian ambassador and had lied about conversation's content- and he STILL said that no one in his campaign had met with Russian officials.

And it's not subjective that he undermined the intelligence communities- he did so repeatedly and publicly.

It's also not subjective that he has repeatedly insulted our allies. Australia? Germany?

And the whole "You can't take Trump literally" is one of the weaker arguments out there. It's actually just an acknowledgement that he says things that aren't true.

[Tgo01]

Here's the thing though- most of this isn't subjective.

Trump clearly stated on multiple occasions that no one in his campaign had any contact with anyone in the Russian government. The Russian ambassador was in Trump Tower. The campaign knew that Carter Page went to Russia- he asked for approval. The Russian ambassador was introduced to Trump in a private gathering at a policy event. The campaign knew for weeks that Flynn had been in contact with the Russian ambassador and had lied about conversation's content- and he STILL said that no one in his campaign had met with Russian officials.

And it's not subjective that he undermined the intelligence communities- he did so repeatedly and publicly.

It's also not subjective that he has repeatedly insulted our allies. Australia? Germany?

And the whole "You can't take Trump literally" is one of the weaker arguments out there. It's actually just an acknowledgement that he says things that aren't true.


There really is no conversation to be had with time4fun because she isn't presenting any rational or logical arguments, it's all fucking hysterics.

See?

[Methais]

We are giving time4fun shit because her arguments were basically the exact opposite during Hillary's FBI investigation.

An independent/special prosecutor wasn't needed for Hillary because if the FBI says no laws were broken then no laws were broken according to her, so why do we need an independent prosecutor now?

There was a lot more evidence at the time that Hillary broke the law and tried to cover her tracks than there are that Trump is a Russian spy and tried to cover his tracks yet time4fun managed to always give Hillary a pass and yet insists Trump literally colluded with Russia to rig our election process.

time4fun gave people shit for talking about Hillary's server yet she's constantly hanging on Trump's nuts in regards to Russia.

There really is no conversation to be had with time4fun because she isn't presenting any rational or logical arguments, it's all fucking hysterics. Just look at her last post in this thread:



I mean look at this shit! So far all the facts we have is the FBI is doing a routine investigation at the behest of the DOJ and time4fun is already convinced Trump colluded with a "foreign enemy" to throw a Democratic election. We don't even have any evidence that Russia "threw" our elections much less Trump had any involvement in it.

And this:
https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xSSfPn6zRSjJPa/giphy.gif


EDIT:

And this red rep I just noticed for lulz:
Thread: Vishra's Locker
If you don't want to hear about it, stop asking about it and speculating manchild

1. You're sexist.
2. Did you just assume my gender?
3. No matter what happens, you'll still be a cunt.

[Neovik1]

Didn't Hillary fix her election against Bernie so she could win?

[time4fun]

Didn't Hillary fix her election against Bernie so she could win?

Depends on which Russian media outlet you were reading.

[time4fun]

Such mental gymnastics..

Remember that whole thing where Russia was intentionally spreading fake articles and stories about Clinton to convince people she was the devil? And remember how news outlets on the Right, in particular, were picking up and running with them?

But of course, you would never have fallen for any of that. There's no way you're a product of that strategy.

I mean, if you had been- wouldn't there have been some sign? Like, for instance, being utterly convinced that she was on her way to prison when actually that was never a likely outcome?

But, you know, that must've been an American government conspiracy. No way it could've been a result of a Russian government campaign of misinformation you fell for.

Really waiting for the day when you finally put 2 and 2 together.

[Wrathbringer]

Remember that whole thing where Russia was intentionally spreading fake articles and stories about Clinton to convince people she was the devil? And remember how news outlets on the Right, in particular, were picking up and running with them?

But of course, you would never have fallen for any of that. There's no way you're a product of that strategy.

I mean, if you had been- wouldn't there have been some sign? Like, for instance, being utterly convinced that she was on her way to prison when actually that was never a likely outcome?

But, you know, that must've been an American government conspiracy. No way it could've been a result of a Russian government campaign of misinformation you fell for.

Really waiting for the day when you finally put 2 and 2 together.

lol you lost

[Androidpk]

Remember that whole thing where Russia was intentionally spreading fake articles and stories about Clinton to convince people she was the devil? And remember how news outlets on the Right, in particular, were picking up and running with them?

But of course, you would never have fallen for any of that. There's no way you're a product of that strategy.

I mean, if you had been- wouldn't there have been some sign? Like, for instance, being utterly convinced that she was on her way to prison when actually that was never a likely outcome?

But, you know, that must've been an American government conspiracy. No way it could've been a result of a Russian government campaign of misinformation you fell for.

Really waiting for the day when you finally put 2 and 2 together.

no

[Tgo01]

Remember that whole thing where Russia was intentionally spreading fake articles and stories about Clinton to convince people she was the devil? And remember how news outlets on the Right, in particular, were picking up and running with them?

Like there wasn't fake news stories going on about Trump and other Republican candidates? Shit, look at all of the fake articles going on now about Trump! That can't honestly be your idea of Russia destroying our Democracy, is it?

[Androidpk]

Like there wasn't fake news stories going on about Trump and other Republican candidates? Shit, look at all of the fake articles going on now about Trump! That can't honestly be your idea of Russia destroying our Democracy, is it?

Or the fake news about Sanders.

[Tgo01]

Or the fake news about Sanders.

Exactly. Fake news isn't anything new in elections or about any candidate, people like time4fun just suddenly give a shit about it because it's apparently sexist when it happens to a woman. A Democrat woman.

[Methais]

Depends on which Russian media outlet you were reading.

Please elaborate. We need your full explanation on this one. Like really bad.

I hope you give a real response to this instead of your usual cunting response. It's going to be hilarious as fuck.

[Parkbandit]

Please elaborate. We need your full explanation on this one. Like really bad.

I hope you give a real response to this instead of your usual cunting response. It's going to be hilarious as fuck.

Generally speaking, only someone with a PhD in Russian Journalism (with a minor in Russian language) would know which Russian media outlets are fair and unbiased.. and which ones are purveyors of fake news.

I would just take time4fun at her word that she's the best one here to know which media sites are good and which ones are bad.

One rule of thumb can be used for uneducated peasants like you.. if it has the word "fact" in the website address, it's undoubtedly a factual based news outlet that only uses facts for fact checking.

[Thondalar]

When a Special Prosecutor is brought in, it's generally someone from outside of the administration.

The only time it has ever happened before (that the President was part of an investigation) was during the Nixon administration, and Nixon fired the special prosecutor, because Presidents can do that.


At this point though, I think only the DoJ can appoint someone. Congress lost that right a few years back. So it's not a super likely thing.

Right. Since Sessions recused himself, though, it would up to Boente.

[Savageheart]

An independent/special prosecutor wasn't needed for Hillary because if the FBI says no laws were broken then no laws were broken according to her, so why do we need an independent prosecutor now?

There was a lot more evidence at the time that Hillary broke the law and tried to cover her tracks than there are that Trump is a Russian spy and tried to cover his tracks yet time4fun managed to always give Hillary a pass and yet insists Trump literally colluded with Russia to rig our election process.

False equivocation - In one case both administrations past and present recommended no charges after the FBI - CONCLUDED (read closed reopened then closed again) their investigation into HRC


I mean look at this shit! So far all the facts we have is the FBI is doing a routine investigation at the behest of the DOJ and time4fun is already convinced Trump colluded with a "foreign enemy" to throw a Democratic election. We don't even have any evidence that Russia "threw" our elections much less Trump had any involvement in it.

Evidentiary documents are presented in the discovery process which follow AFTER investigatory ones. The investigation is on going this is at best misleading and at worst obfuscation

And lastly


Routine inquiry

I don't know if this was a joke, however this is not routine inquiry - routine inquiries stop at the request of documents, or materials - this is essentially graduated to a full investigation

Again lets not editorialize the facts

If you want to Flame on by all means flame but honestly I see everyone using hyperbolics not one side or the other. The politics forum in general is screaming at the abyss no?

[Savageheart]

Remember that whole thing where Russia was intentionally spreading fake articles and stories about Clinton to convince people she was the devil? And remember how news outlets on the Right, in particular, were picking up and running with them?

But of course, you would never have fallen for any of that. There's no way you're a product of that strategy.

I mean, if you had been- wouldn't there have been some sign? Like, for instance, being utterly convinced that she was on her way to prison when actually that was never a likely outcome?

But, you know, that must've been an American government conspiracy. No way it could've been a result of a Russian government campaign of misinformation you fell for.

Really waiting for the day when you finally put 2 and 2 together.

This is misleading as well - fact of the matter what is being investigated (BRIETBART and INFOWARS are both under the same investigation) is complicity or outright cooperation with a foreign state. Russia did not write the articles, what is under determination is whether or not Russia did MORE THAN just spam articles which fit their interests.

[Savageheart]

It's a slow work day for me....

[Tgo01]

False equivocation - In one case both administrations past and present recommended no charges after the FBI - CONCLUDED (read closed reopened then closed again) their investigation into HRC

Not a false equivocation at all. time4fun literally said since the FBI recommended no charges against Hillary then case was closed, any further talk on the matter was literally sexist since the FBI said she was "innocent." So why isn't the same courtesy being extended to Trump and his administration? Wait for the FBI to conclude their investigation/inquiry, and once they declare no charges should be filed that should be the end of it, right? Why all of a sudden do we need a special prosecutor before the FBI even finishes their inquiry?


Evidentiary documents are presented in the discovery process which follow AFTER investigatory ones. The investigation is on going this is at best misleading and at worst obfuscation

time4fun has already made up her mind that Trump is guilty of being a Russian agent, look no further than this very thread for evidence of such. And yet when evidence was released that Hillary literally broke the law she shoved her fingers so far in her ears she probably gave herself brain damage. That's my point. I don't give a flying fuck if the FBI continues with their investigation because I know this is all just a stupid witch hunt drummed up by Democrats because they forgot how to actually govern and can only win elections anymore by distraction bullshit. I'm just here to give time4fun shit for being a gigantic hypocrite while claiming she's better than all of us and is above such shit.

[time4fun]

This is misleading as well - fact of the matter what is being investigated (BRIETBART and INFOWARS are both under the same investigation) is complicity or outright cooperation with a foreign state. Russia did not write the articles, what is under determination is whether or not Russia did MORE THAN just spam articles which fit their interests.

Clapper himself (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/01/05/russia_used_fake_news_to_influence_the_election_ja mes_clapper_says.html)confirmed that Russia was generating false stories to help Trump and hurt Clinton, and that they were using bots to spread the stories widely, specifically in right-wing media- precisely the kind of media PK was so fond of reading and quoting last year.


This was a multifaceted campaign. So the hacking was only one part of it, and it also entailed classical propaganda, disinformation, fake news.

You're right that a few publications are under investigation for overtly working with the Russians, but the Russians had their own propaganda machine in full force independently of that.

[Gelston]

Wait, was anyone doubting that Russia was creating fake news? If you were, slap yourself. Of course they were. Of course they were trying to influence our election. They do it with every country's elections. We do too. How much they are able to influence is what is being investigated.

[Androidpk]

precisely the kind of media PK was so fond of reading and quoting last year.

Never happened. Fake comment is fake.

[time4fun]

The only time it has ever happened before (that the President was part of an investigation) was during the Nixon administration, and Nixon fired the special prosecutor, because Presidents can do that.



Right. Since Sessions recused himself, though, it would up to Boente.


I'm not sure why you think that. The statute that expired in 1999 explicitly required the special prosecutor to be outside of the US Government, and it's still a requirement for anyone appointed under 28 CFR Section 600. (I think there's only been one appointment that wasn't made under those guidelines since 1999) There have been dozens of special prosecutors in the last few decades. It wasn't just a Nixon issue.

And Nixon firing the special prosecutor is...wow. Apparently you missed the whole point of the scandal of Watergate.

[time4fun]

Never happened. Fake comment is fake.

Yes Mr Briebart.

[Methais]

Yes Mr Briebart.

You could just link the posts in question here and prove your point.

in b4 "Search it yourself. It's not my job to prove things, only to make accusations."

[Androidpk]

Yes Mr Briebart.

Yes, we all know you obsess over Breitbart, but I don't link to their articles. The only time I've ever posted them in sincerity was when they directly linked to US government documents. So take your lies elsewhere.

[Tgo01]

Clapper himself (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/01/05/russia_used_fake_news_to_influence_the_election_ja mes_clapper_says.html)confirmed that Russia was generating false stories to help Trump and hurt Clinton, and that they were using bots to spread the stories widely, specifically in right-wing media- precisely the kind of media PK was so fond of reading and quoting last year.



You're right that a few publications are under investigation for overtly working with the Russians, but the Russians had their own propaganda machine in full force independently of that.

No shit Russia was trying to influence the election. There is a huge difference in publishing stories and literally hacking our votes and Trump being complicit with Russia in trying to influence our elections. Even if Trump was in talks with Russia the question then becomes were those actions illegal.

No way you used to teach logic. Just at least come clean on that lie.

[Savageheart]

Not a false equivocation at all. time4fun literally said since the FBI recommended no charges against Hillary then case was closed, any further talk on the matter was literally sexist since the FBI said she was "innocent." So why isn't the same courtesy being extended to Trump and his administration? Wait for the FBI to conclude their investigation/inquiry, and once they declare no charges should be filed that should be the end of it, right? Why all of a sudden do we need a special prosecutor before the FBI even finishes their inquiry?



time4fun has already made up her mind that Trump is guilty of being a Russian agent, look no further than this very thread for evidence of such. And yet when evidence was released that Hillary literally broke the law she shoved her fingers so far in her ears she probably gave herself brain damage. That's my point. I don't give a flying fuck if the FBI continues with their investigation because I know this is all just a stupid witch hunt drummed up by Democrats because they forgot how to actually govern and can only win elections anymore by distraction bullshit. I'm just here to give time4fun shit for being a gigantic hypocrite while claiming she's better than all of us and is above such shit.


AG did not recuse themselves during the HRC investigation. Once the AG recuses themselves and an investigation WHILE still ongoing a Special Investigator is assigned. This is exactly the circumstance when Special Counsel would be required, and they do help with the investigation.

Your entire argument hinges upon whether some courtesy which doesn't exist should be extended. While we're at it Sessions Recused himself of any further HRC investigations as well - one would expect any future or re-opened investigations would now request Special Counsel.

We're talking about a court of law not a court of public opinion, so when you mention evidence of a crime, that was not indicted, charged, convicted or aquited you are talking about something that is demonstrably false. If not a lie it is a very aggressive assumption and once again nearly entirely editorialized.

The rest of the stuff about Russia fake news etc, except for the part where I state under investigation the other stuff while distasteful was not a crime, outside of perhaps libel. The things that were crimes were the dissemination of classified materials and investigations ahead of any public hearing.

[time4fun]

No shit Russia was trying to influence the election. There is a huge difference in publishing stories and literally hacking our votes and Trump being complicit with Russia in trying to influence our elections. Even if Trump was in talks with Russia the question then becomes were those actions illegal.

No way you used to teach logic. Just at least come clean on that lie.


You are very much like my dumbest students. I used to have to make reading comprehension exercises for them because they genuinely couldn't objectively read an argument in front of them without inserting their own assumptions into their recaps.

So I'm going to give you a bit of free tutoring here. There are three tricks that will help you with your reading comprehension:

1) Read the entire argument- including prior lines of argumentation. For example, noting the previous posts before the one you quoted would have helped you realize I wasn't talking about Trump at all, I was talking about PK's obsession with Clinton you nitwit. A single thread can have multiple lines of argumentation- the trick for you is going to be learning how to separate them out from each other.

2) Pause and Paraphrase- this one always helped my students with poor reading comprehension immensely. As you go through a post or an article, stop after each chunk (I'm going to recommend after each sentence) and rephrase back to yourself what you just read. That'll help you chunk the information into concepts instead of clogging up your short-term memory with individual words. Once you fill up your short-term memory it becomes impossible to continue to process new information without losing some of the old. This will help you maintain a big picture view on what you're reading.

3) Repeat the arguments back to yourself as <conclusion> because of <evidence>. That will help you wrap your brain around the entirety of the argument. It also helps you spot your own assumptions (as well as that of the author's).

You're welcome.

[Methais]

No way you used to teach logic. Just at least come clean on that lie.

Did this claim really happen?

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/930/865/5bf.jpg

[Wrathbringer]

You are very much like my dumbest students. I used to have to make reading comprehension exercises for them because they genuinely couldn't objectively read an argument in front of them without inserting their own assumptions into their recaps.

So I'm going to give you a bit of free tutoring here. There are three tricks that will help you with your reading comprehension:

1) Read the entire argument- including prior lines of argumentation. For example, noting the previous posts before the one you quoted would have helped you realize I wasn't talking about Trump at all, I was talking about PK's obsession with Clinton you nitwit. A single thread can have multiple lines of argumentation- the trick for you is going to be learning how to separate them out from each other.

2) Pause and Paraphrase- this one always helped my students with poor reading comprehension immensely. As you go through a post or an article, stop after each chunk (I'm going to recommend after each sentence) and rephrase back to yourself what you just read. That'll help you chunk the information into concepts instead of clogging up your short-term memory with individual words. Once you fill up your short-term memory it becomes impossible to continue to process new information without losing some of the old. This will help you maintain a big picture view on what you're reading.

3) Repeat the arguments back to yourself as <conclusion> because of <evidence>. That will help you wrap your brain around the entirety of the argument. It also helps you spot your own assumptions (as well as that of the author's).

You're welcome.

shut up already

[time4fun]

Not a false equivocation at all. time4fun literally said since the FBI recommended no charges against Hillary then case was closed, any further talk on the matter was literally sexist since the FBI said she was "innocent." So why isn't the same courtesy being extended to Trump and his administration? Wait for the FBI to conclude their investigation/inquiry, and once they declare no charges should be filed that should be the end of it, right? Why all of a sudden do we need a special prosecutor before the FBI even finishes their inquiry?



time4fun has already made up her mind that Trump is guilty of being a Russian agent, look no further than this very thread for evidence of such. And yet when evidence was released that Hillary literally broke the law she shoved her fingers so far in her ears she probably gave herself brain damage. That's my point. I don't give a flying fuck if the FBI continues with their investigation because I know this is all just a stupid witch hunt drummed up by Democrats because they forgot how to actually govern and can only win elections anymore by distraction bullshit. I'm just here to give time4fun shit for being a gigantic hypocrite while claiming she's better than all of us and is above such shit.

Okay, so let's jump to lesson #2.

2a
Definition of literally: in a literal manner or sense; exactly.

So when you're trying to paraphrase someone else's argument, it's important that you ensure that you're rephrasing is properly and presenting your recap accurately. Use of the word "literally", for example, should only be used in cases where someone used your exact language. Since the person you're quoting never actually said that talking about Clinton was sexist, you would be incorrect for using the word "literally".

When recapping other arguments, it's important to take a moment to ensure that you're not inserting your own interpretations into the words on the page. When you do so, you run the high risk of "recapping" an argument that doesn't exist.

A good way to help avoid running into this problem is to make sure you've got an exact quote. It helps you and the readers evaluate the accuracy of your statement.

2b
Ensure that when you are paraphrasing someone, you're taking into account their entire argument. We talked about this in lesson one. That would mean reading through the posts someone has made in a particular thread. This also serves as a way to check your own accuracy before someone else does it for you. Reading some previous posts in this instance, would have yielded several instances where the author you're purporting to recap explicitly stated that they did not necessarily believe Trump was guilty.

For example:

No one is saying that there is guilt here, but you don't get to pretend like they aren't looking into it based on at least circumstantial evidence.

That would be a line that directly contradicts your own.

You could even take this further- try to locate specific statements that directly support your assertions. You might want to locate a sentence from the author, for example, that explicitly states Trump is guilty of being a Russian spy. Be sure that you're taking into account degree and amount words in your search. Conceptually, for example, if someone says that something should be investigated because of circumstantial evidence, that is not the same thing as saying "this person needs to go to jail because they are guilty". Try circling degree and amount words as you read. It can help immensely with comprehension.

[Wrathbringer]

Okay, so let's jump to lesson #2.

2a
Definition of literally: in a literal manner or sense; exactly.

So when you're trying to paraphrase someone else's argument, it's important that you ensure that you're rephrasing is properly and presenting your recap accurately. Use of the word "literally", for example, should only be used in cases where someone used your exact language. Since the person you're quoting never actually said that talking about Clinton was sexist, you would be incorrect for using the word "literally".

When recapping other arguments, it's important to take a moment to ensure that you're not inserting your own interpretations into the words on the page. When you do so, you run the high risk of "recapping" an argument that doesn't exist.

A good way to help avoid running into this problem is to make sure you've got an exact quote. It helps you and the readers evaluate the accuracy of your statement.

2b
Ensure that when you are paraphrasing someone, you're taking into account their entire argument. We talked about this in lesson one. That would mean reading through the posts someone has made in a particular thread. This also serves as a way to check your own accuracy before someone else does it for you. Reading some previous posts in this instance, would have yielded several instances where the author you're purporting to recap explicitly stated that they did not necessarily believe Trump was guilty.

For example:


That would be a line that directly contradicts your own.

You could even take this further- try to locate specific statements that directly support your assertions. You might want to locate a sentence from the author, for example, that explicitly states Trump is guilty of being a Russian spy. Be sure that you're taking into account degree and amount words in your search. Conceptually, for example, if someone says that something should be investigated because of circumstantial evidence, that is not the same thing as saying "this person needs to go to jail because they are guilty". Try circling degree and amount words as you read. It can help immensely with comprehension.

you're retarded

[time4fun]

shut up already

Oh dear, I didn't mean to leave you out.

Here you go! (https://therapists.psychologytoday.com/anger-management)

[Methais]

Okay, so let's jump to lesson #2.

2a
Definition of literally: in a literal manner or sense; exactly.

So when you're trying to paraphrase someone else's argument, it's important that you ensure that you're rephrasing is properly and presenting your recap accurately. Use of the word "literally", for example, should only be used in cases where someone used your exact language. Since the person you're quoting never actually said that talking about Clinton was sexist, you would be incorrect for using the word "literally".

When recapping other arguments, it's important to take a moment to ensure that you're not inserting your own interpretations into the words on the page. When you do so, you run the high risk of "recapping" an argument that doesn't exist.

A good way to help avoid running into this problem is to make sure you've got an exact quote. It helps you and the readers evaluate the accuracy of your statement.

2b
Ensure that when you are paraphrasing someone, you're taking into account their entire argument. We talked about this in lesson one. That would mean reading through the posts someone has made in a particular thread. This also serves as a way to check your own accuracy before someone else does it for you. Reading some previous posts in this instance, would have yielded several instances where the author you're purporting to recap explicitly stated that they did not necessarily believe Trump was guilty.

For example:


That would be a line that directly contradicts your own.

You could even take this further- try to locate specific statements that directly support your assertions. You might want to locate a sentence from the author, for example, that explicitly states Trump is guilty of being a Russian spy. Be sure that you're taking into account degree and amount words in your search. Conceptually, for example, if someone says that something should be investigated because of circumstantial evidence, that is not the same thing as saying "this person needs to go to jail because they are guilty". Try circling degree and amount words as you read. It can help immensely with comprehension.

What Tgo is saying is factually correct. You can try to bury it in 432784092 paragraphs of word game nonsense and trying to act like a snooty cunt, but that won't actually change anything.

[Parkbandit]

Wait, was anyone doubting that Russia was creating fake news? If you were, slap yourself. Of course they were. Of course they were trying to influence our election. They do it with every country's elections. We do too. How much they are able to influence is what is being investigated.

We actually do more than that.. we bankroll candidates of other countries.

[Gelston]

We actually do more than that.. we bankroll candidates of other countries.

Shit, we've done way more than that... Including arming opposition groups. We have done some dirty fucking stuff.

[Fortybox]

https://i.imgflip.com/1luebk.jpg

[drauz]

Okay, so let's jump to lesson #2.

2a
Definition of literally: in a literal manner or sense; exactly.

So when you're trying to paraphrase someone else's argument, it's important that you ensure that you're rephrasing is properly and presenting your recap accurately. Use of the word "literally", for example, should only be used in cases where someone used your exact language. Since the person you're quoting never actually said that talking about Clinton was sexist, you would be incorrect for using the word "literally".

When recapping other arguments, it's important to take a moment to ensure that you're not inserting your own interpretations into the words on the page. When you do so, you run the high risk of "recapping" an argument that doesn't exist.

A good way to help avoid running into this problem is to make sure you've got an exact quote. It helps you and the readers evaluate the accuracy of your statement.

2b
Ensure that when you are paraphrasing someone, you're taking into account their entire argument. We talked about this in lesson one. That would mean reading through the posts someone has made in a particular thread. This also serves as a way to check your own accuracy before someone else does it for you. Reading some previous posts in this instance, would have yielded several instances where the author you're purporting to recap explicitly stated that they did not necessarily believe Trump was guilty.

For example:


That would be a line that directly contradicts your own.

You could even take this further- try to locate specific statements that directly support your assertions. You might want to locate a sentence from the author, for example, that explicitly states Trump is guilty of being a Russian spy. Be sure that you're taking into account degree and amount words in your search. Conceptually, for example, if someone says that something should be investigated because of circumstantial evidence, that is not the same thing as saying "this person needs to go to jail because they are guilty". Try circling degree and amount words as you read. It can help immensely with comprehension.

Actually the word literally has been changed to have two meanings. It has the definition you described but it can also have the definition of figuratively. It is the dumbest change.

[Androidpk]

Is Time4un also Ashliana?

[time4fun]

Actually the word literally has been changed to have two meanings. It has the definition you described but it can also have the definition of figuratively. It is the dumbest change.

Just In: Webster's now adds "cool, of lower temperature" to the definition of "hot".

[drauz]

Just In: Webster's now adds "cool, of lower temperature" to the definition of "hot".

.... What ...

[Thondalar]

I'm not sure why you think that. The statute that expired in 1999 explicitly required the special prosecutor to be outside of the US Government, and it's still a requirement for anyone appointed under 28 CFR Section 600. (I think there's only been one appointment that wasn't made under those guidelines since 1999) There have been dozens of special prosecutors in the last few decades. It wasn't just a Nixon issue.

And Nixon firing the special prosecutor is...wow. Apparently you missed the whole point of the scandal of Watergate.

You should really research this a little better.

Nothing has ever been outside of the US Government...they're all government agencies and people doing all of this. The main question was which branch of the US government it falls under. My statements are factually correct...while we've had special prosecutors in many cases, the only other case that involved a sitting President was Nixon, and Nixon did fire the special prosecutor. This resulted in the resignation of the AG and assistant AG, but it still happened.

Traditionally, as per the Constitution, these things fell to the Executive Branch. After the Nixon fiasco, a series of events occurred which ultimately resulted in Morrison v. Olson...one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time, imo. I honestly wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out, a year from now, that all of this was a carefully designed gambit by Trump to find a way to overturn Morrison.

Even under the Ethics in Government Act, which I assume you're referring to as expiring in 1999, the AG was still in charge.

[Thondalar]

Is Time4un also Ashliana?

This would not surprise me a bit...except Ashliana was a dude. Supposedly.

[Fortybox]

This would not surprise me a bit...except Ashliana was a dude. Supposedly.

She-he is probably a dude and just trollin folks on liberal comments in game and here.

[Tgo01]

AG did not recuse themselves during the HRC investigation. Once the AG recuses themselves and an investigation WHILE still ongoing a Special Investigator is assigned. This is exactly the circumstance when Special Counsel would be required, and they do help with the investigation.

Your entire argument hinges upon whether some courtesy which doesn't exist should be extended. While we're at it Sessions Recused himself of any further HRC investigations as well - one would expect any future or re-opened investigations would now request Special Counsel.

It's adorable you think time4fun considered any of this in any of her arguments.

Lynch said she would leave it up to the FBI to decide, why is this not good enough for her this time around? What has changed, other than the people involved having the letter R or D after their names?

[Tgo01]

You are very much like my dumbest students. I used to have to make reading comprehension exercises for them because they genuinely couldn't objectively read an argument in front of them without inserting their own assumptions into their recaps.

So I'm going to give you a bit of free tutoring here. There are three tricks that will help you with your reading comprehension:

1) Read the entire argument- including prior lines of argumentation. For example, noting the previous posts before the one you quoted would have helped you realize I wasn't talking about Trump at all, I was talking about PK's obsession with Clinton you nitwit. A single thread can have multiple lines of argumentation- the trick for you is going to be learning how to separate them out from each other.

2) Pause and Paraphrase- this one always helped my students with poor reading comprehension immensely. As you go through a post or an article, stop after each chunk (I'm going to recommend after each sentence) and rephrase back to yourself what you just read. That'll help you chunk the information into concepts instead of clogging up your short-term memory with individual words. Once you fill up your short-term memory it becomes impossible to continue to process new information without losing some of the old. This will help you maintain a big picture view on what you're reading.

3) Repeat the arguments back to yourself as <conclusion> because of <evidence>. That will help you wrap your brain around the entirety of the argument. It also helps you spot your own assumptions (as well as that of the author's).

You're welcome.

I ain't got time for all this, I'll just leave my response up to the greatest debater of our times:

https://i.imgflip.com/1dxet4.jpg

[Fortybox]

I ain't got time for all this, I'll just leave my response up to the greatest debater of our times:

https://i.imgflip.com/1dxet4.jpg

I prefer this:

https://i.imgflip.com/1lukwg.jpg

[Thondalar]

2) Pause and Paraphrase- this one always helped my students with poor reading comprehension immensely. As you go through a post or an article, stop after each chunk (I'm going to recommend after each sentence) and rephrase back to yourself what you just read. That'll help you chunk the information into concepts instead of clogging up your short-term memory with individual words. Once you fill up your short-term memory it becomes impossible to continue to process new information without losing some of the old. This will help you maintain a big picture view on what you're reading.

I've caught a bit of hell over the years for how I respond to a lot of people, because I use this very thing...not for my benefit, but for theirs.

Most people, when they post, tend to tirade a bit...they post a paragraph that contains many individual points that could, and imo should, be argued separately. Instead of dropping my own tirade in response, I like to break their argument down, line by line, and respond to individual points.

This helps me prove my position, and helps them understand the complexity of the issue they're attempting to argue. Helps everyone.

[time4fun]

I've caught a bit of hell over the years for how I respond to a lot of people, because I use this very thing...not for my benefit, but for theirs.

Most people, when they post, tend to tirade a bit...they post a paragraph that contains many individual points that could, and imo should, be argued separately. Instead of dropping my own tirade in response, I like to break their argument down, line by line, and respond to individual points.

This helps me prove my position, and helps them understand the complexity of the issue they're attempting to argue. Helps everyone.

It's actually the tip that had the biggest impact on my students' performance. They'd go from being completely lost to suddenly understanding the arguments in front of them, which, in turn, meant they could finally start to learn how to tease out an argument's assumption.

It's a garbage in/garbage out issue. If you don't understand the initial input, everything else is going to be bad.

[Thondalar]

It's actually the tip that had the biggest impact on my students' performance. They'd go from being completely lost to suddenly understanding the arguments in front of them, which, in turn, meant they could finally start to learn how to tease out an argument's assumption.

It is a cornerstone of debate. Don't allow your opponent to obfuscate the crux.


It's a garbage in/garbage out issue. If you don't understand the initial input, everything else is going to be bad.

In that respect, very true.

[time4fun]

You should really research this a little better.

Nothing has ever been outside of the US Government...they're all government agencies and people doing all of this. The main question was which branch of the US government it falls under. My statements are factually correct...while we've had special prosecutors in many cases, the only other case that involved a sitting President was Nixon, and Nixon did fire the special prosecutor. This resulted in the resignation of the AG and assistant AG, but it still happened.

Traditionally, as per the Constitution, these things fell to the Executive Branch. After the Nixon fiasco, a series of events occurred which ultimately resulted in Morrison v. Olson...one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time, imo. I honestly wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out, a year from now, that all of this was a carefully designed gambit by Trump to find a way to overturn Morrison.

Even under the Ethics in Government Act, which I assume you're referring to as expiring in 1999, the AG was still in charge.

Wha?

The AG does appoint (unless recused), but the regulations governing the selection of the prosecutor are very clear:




An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decision making, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.
28 CFR 600

You don't choose someone from within the administration. That would completely defeat the purpose of the Special Prosecutor.

In the original special counsel statutes, Congress could request a special counsel who would then be chosen by a 3 judge Federal Appeals panel. The AG had authority to say no, but they didn't get to choose the appointee if they said yes.

[Thondalar]

Wha?

The AG does appoint (unless recused), but the regulations governing the selection of the prosecutor are very clear:




28 CFR 600

You don't choose someone from within the administration. That would completely defeat the purpose of the Special Prosecutor.

In the original special counsel statutes, Congress could request a special counsel who would then be chosen by a 3 judge Federal Appeals panel. The AG had authority to say no, but they didn't get to choose the appointee if they said yes.

I was never talking about any selection process, only speaking on the fact that they ultimately report to either the President, or in this case the Attorney General.

Your own 28 CFR 200, section 1:
"The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter."

This was the crux of Morrison v. Olson, and why we now have a DoJ "Office of Special Counsel".

Not sure what we're arguing about here...my initial point was that, no matter what, special prosecutors, special investigators, whatever title you want to give them...ultimately report to either the President or acting AG. No matter what.

edit: added an "or" in the first line.

[time4fun]

I was never talking about any selection process, only speaking on the fact that they ultimately report to either the President, or in this case the Attorney General.

Your own 28 CFR 200, section 1:
"The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter."

This was the crux of Morrison v. Olson, and why we now have a DoJ "Office of Special Counsel".

Not sure what we're arguing about here...my initial point was that, no matter what, special prosecutors, special investigators, whatever title you want to give them...ultimately report to either the President or acting AG. No matter what.

edit: added an "or" in the first line.

Right, but I was talking about the actual prosecutor being outside of the government and bringing up the fact that the AG doesn't always choose that person.

The only time I mentioned the AG was when I specifically said a special prosecutor was unlikely in this case because it was up to AG.

PAUSE AND PARAPHRASE THONDALAR

[Savageheart]

It's adorable you think time4fun considered any of this in any of her arguments.

Lynch said she would leave it up to the FBI to decide, why is this not good enough for her this time around? What has changed, other than the people involved having the letter R or D after their names?

This was not a recuse Lynch did not Recuse; Jeffy did however recuse.

My previous statement stands and you did not address it you attempted to dissemble I'm not here to white knight anyone just keeping things somewhat accurate.

Further there is no good for the goose or gander in law. There is merit and qualification, of which the current circumstance meets.

Nothing has to change, and the two things are separate, individual things. What happens now matters, and is not based on the seperate findings and legal merit of the HRC investigation.

[Savageheart]

Special Counsel would not report to either the AG or President in this case. It goes to the next highest person in the chain of DoJ so far as I understand it. That being said this is the first thing Im not absolutely certain of so eh.

[Thondalar]

Right, but I was talking about the actual prosecutor being outside of the government and bringing up the fact that the AG doesn't always choose that person.

The only time I mentioned the AG was when I specifically said a special prosecutor was unlikely in this case because it was up to AG.

PAUSE AND PARAPHRASE THONDALAR

Except that it always HAS been inside the government, because nobody but the government would do any of this. The only question, like I already mentioned, is which branch of government it falls under.

[Thondalar]

Special Counsel would not report to either the AG or President in this case. It goes to the next highest person in the chain of DoJ so far as I understand it. That being said this is the first thing Im not absolutely certain of so eh.

Special Counsel always has, and always will, report to one of those two, ultimately. That's just how it works.

[Tgo01]

This was not a recuse Lynch did not Recuse; Jeffy did however recuse.

I didn't say Lynch recused herself, I said Lynch left the matter up to the FBI and that was good enough for time4fun. It was also bullshit on Lynch's part, she would "leave it up" to the FBI but she didn't fully commit to recusing herself.


My previous statement stands and you did not address it you attempted to dissemble I'm not here to white knight anyone just keeping things somewhat accurate.

You're not keeping things accurate at all because you act as if time4fun made these arguments at all. She has not.


What happens now matters, and is not based on the seperate findings and legal merit of the HRC investigation.

No shit, like I said before I don't give a single fuck about this FBI investigation, I'm just here to give time4fun shit for being a hypocrite. For someone not "white knighting" anyone you sure do seem to be white knighting people.

Separate issue but related to this investigation; I love how the brain dead left is now saying Trump is under investigation for treason. Democrats have officially hit rock bottom now. Time for you all to move to California and New York and stay there.

[Thondalar]

I didn't say Lynch recused herself, I said Lynch left the matter up to the FBI and that was good enough for time4fun. It was also bullshit on Lynch's part, she would "leave it up" to the FBI but she didn't fully commit to recusing herself.

If we take nothing else from all of this, we should recognize, in a bipartisan fashion, the fact that Lynch specifically did NOT recuse herself, and Sessions specifically has.

[SHAFT]

If there is already a probe, maybe we should wait until that is done before salivating like a retard after a piece of candy and begging for a special prosecutor.

In before "I once worked in the independent prosecutor's office and have multiple years of experience.. so I know when it's needed" story.

Check your microwave, PB. They could be watching you.

[Tgo01]

If we take nothing else from all of this, we should recognize, in a bipartisan fashion, the fact that Lynch specifically did NOT recuse herself, and Sessions specifically has.

Because Democrats are corrupt.

[time4fun]

Except that it always HAS been inside the government, because nobody but the government would do any of this. The only question, like I already mentioned, is which branch of government it falls under.

Thond- the special prosecutor must be outside of the government according to the regulations that govern the appointment. Just because the government appoints the person doesn't mean that they're appointing another government official. The person is selected because they aren't beholden to any branch of the government.


You're getting stuck on a rhetorical point that's unrelated to the core issue. With just one exception that I'm aware of (since the late 70s), every special prosecutor has been selected from outside of the US government. The one exception was someone who was already a Federal prosecutor.

And once appointed, the special prosecutor can only be removed by the AG and only for misconduct.

[drauz]

Check your microwave, PB. They could be watching you.

They're watching me but everytime I open the microwave they disappear, just like the guy that controls the light in my fridge.

[Thondalar]

Thond- the special prosecutor must be outside of the government according to the regulations that govern the appointment. Just because the government appoints the person doesn't mean that they're appointing another government official. The person is selected because they aren't beholden to any branch of the government.


You're getting stuck on a rhetorical point that's unrelated to the core issue. With just one exception that I'm aware of (since the late 70s), every special prosecutor has been selected from outside of the US government. The one exception was someone who was already a Federal prosecutor.

And once appointed, the special prosecutor can only be removed by the AG and only for misconduct.

They're appointed by the government, and they answer to the government, and they can be fired by the government.

You're the only one stuck on rhetorical points.

[time4fun]

If we take nothing else from all of this, we should recognize, in a bipartisan fashion, the fact that Lynch specifically did NOT recuse herself, and Sessions specifically has.

Lynch specifically took the FBI's recommendations. The whole notion that she didn't formally recuse herself is ridiculous. She removed herself from decision making. You'll recall that it was Comey, not Lynch, who held a press conference on the decision of the Clinton probe. It was the FBI who decided what happened.

And comparing the two situations is likewise ridiculous.

Loretta Lynch had an impromptu, public meeting with Bill Clinton. Anyone who thinks that the two of them would have arranged a public viewing of a nefarious meeting is deluding themselves.

Sessions lied under oath about meeting with a member of a foreign enemy's government, at a time when that government was illegally interfering with our electoral system,and he was a part of the very campaign that was under investigation. There is a reason why Sessions had to recuse himself. He was one of the subjects of the investigations he was presiding over.

[time4fun]

They're appointed by the government, and they answer to the government, and they can be fired by the government.

You're the only one stuck on rhetorical points.

No, they don't answer to the government Thond. The government answers to them.

They don't need permission to subpoena anyone, they don't need to clear their recommendations by anyone, they have sole authority to investigate and prosecute whom they choose, and any government interference is illegal. They're bound to misconduct rules, but if that qualifies as being a part of the government, then congratulations- every lawyer in the country is a part of the government.

[Tgo01]

Lynch specifically took the FBI's recommendations. The whole notion that she didn't formally recuse herself is ridiculous. She removed herself from decision making. You'll recall that it was Comey, not Lynch, who held a press conference on the decision of the Clinton probe. It was the FBI who decided what happened.

And comparing the two situations is likewise ridiculous.

Loretta Lynch had an impromptu, public meeting with Bill Clinton. Anyone who thinks that the two of them would have arranged a public viewing of a nefarious meeting is deluding themselves.

Sessions lied under oath about meeting with a member of a foreign enemy's government, at a time when that government was illegally interfering with our electoral system,and he was a part of the very campaign that was under investigation. There is a reason why Sessions had to recuse himself. He was one of the subjects of the investigations he was presiding over.

I eagerly await your apology, Savageheart.

I also like how in time4fun land the Russian ambassador meeting with a senator in his own office points towards Sessions being a Russian spy, but Bill Clinton suddenly deciding to meet Loretta Lynch of all people while she was on her airplane doesn't point to a conflict of interests.

Again, Savageheart, apology. I expect it. time4fun's own words in this very thread have basically destroyed all of the white knighting you have been attempting.

[Thondalar]

No, they don't answer to the government Thond. The government answers to them.

They don't need permission to subpoena anyone, they don't need to clear their recommendations by anyone, they have sole authority to investigate and prosecute whom they choose, and any government interference is illegal. They're bound to misconduct rules, but if that qualifies as being a part of the government, then congratulations- every lawyer in the country is a part of the government.

And this is where you're getting caught up in the "bigger picture" and not recognizing the details.

They don't need permission to subpoena anyone, but neither does any other investigator. They don't need to clear their recommendations by anyone, but neither does any other investigator. Government interference is illegal in either respect. All Law Enforcement is bound by misconduct rules.

I haven't decided yet if you're just really uneducated on this particular topic, or you've ignored your education. I'm leaning towards the latter, but that's just to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Savageheart]

I don't understand, why I'd apologize to your or even how I've offended you.

Hold your breath I guess?

What you've put in bold is an actual fact.

[Tgo01]

I don't understand, why I'd apologize to your or even how I've offended you.

Apologize for being wrong, Mr. Wrong.


What you've put in bold is an actual fact.

?

[Savageheart]

Not the first time I've been called Mr Wrong! Take that, oh...

[time4fun]

And this is where you're getting caught up in the "bigger picture" and not recognizing the details.

They don't need permission to subpoena anyone, but neither does any other investigator. They don't need to clear their recommendations by anyone, but neither does any other investigator. Government interference is illegal in either respect. All Law Enforcement is bound by misconduct rules.

I haven't decided yet if you're just really uneducated on this particular topic, or you've ignored your education. I'm leaning towards the latter, but that's just to give you the benefit of the doubt.

*facepalm*

Let's try this once more:

1) A regular person on the street can't subpoena someone for fun. It's exclusively the right of a government agency- generally a Court. A career prosecutor who works for the DOJ can request a subpoena, but that request is subject to their agency's approval. The AG could, if they wanted, step in and say "No. You may not make this request." A special prosecutor, on the other hand, cannot have their request denied by the AG. Or Congress, for that matter. Or even the President. This is a key difference.

2) Career Prosecutors in the DOJ (or one of its composite agencies) make recommendations that are then either accepted or not by the head of their agency. Then the head of the agency submits the recommendation to the AG, who then either accepts it or doesn't. Then, the AG makes the recommendation. At that point the President can either accept it- or fire them. A special prosecutor's recommendations are not subject to anyone in that chain. No one in the Executive has the power to decide whether or not the recommendation goes forward, and no one in the agency has the power to penalize them for the recommendation. This is also a key difference

3) In both of the above cases- neither rejecting a career prosecutor's request for a subpoena nor squashing their final recommendations is considered to be illegal interference. It's considered to be the Executive Branch just going through its typical decision making process. If those things occur when a Special Prosecutor is involved, then it is 100% illegal interference. This is a key difference

4) The point of the misconduct piece is not that Special Prosecutors are the only ones who are bound by misconduct rules, it's that- unlike ANY OTHER career prosecutor in the Executive- Special Prosecutors can ONLY be fired due to misconduct. Career prosecutors can very much be fired for purely political reasons related to their investigations (or just in general) This is a key difference

You're the one who isn't understanding the law in this case. Your understanding of the situation fundamentally requires you to ignore the reason why Special Prosecutors exist. If they were the same thing as career prosecutors- just temporary- then there would be no point in having them. I promise the position was not created because people thought the word "Special" was nifty.

[Thondalar]

*facepalm*

Let's try this once more:

1) A regular person on the street can't subpoena someone for fun.

Correct, only a court can do that.


It's exclusively the right of a government agency- generally a Court.

Well, yes. A subpoena is literally a demand to appear before court...the court requesting your appearance issues the subpoena.


A career prosecutor who works for the DOJ can request a subpoena, but that request is subject to their agency's approval.

False. The prosecutor can request the court to subpoena, but that ultimately rests in the hands of the court in question...at that point it has dick to do with the "agency".


The AG could, if they wanted, step in and say "No. You may not make this request."

Well no, the AG wouldn't have anything to do with that process of it...this is separation of powers. The AG is part of the Executive branch, while the power of subpoena is distinctly within the Judicial and Legislative branches. The AG could take actions after the fact, but that's different.


A special prosecutor, on the other hand, cannot have their request denied by the AG. Or Congress, for that matter. Or even the President. This is a key difference.

This is...misleading. The special prosecutor wouldn't have any request that would be denied by the AG, or Congress, or the President...but under every system we have, or have had, they can still be fired by the AG or President.


2) Career Prosecutors in the DOJ (or one of its composite agencies) make recommendations that are then either accepted or not by the head of their agency.

You're attempting to open a different can of worms, here. DoJ prosecutors try cases in court where some investigative agency, like the FBI, has already presented them with a trial-worthy case...they don't go out on their own digging stuff up and running it up the ladder.


Then the head of the agency submits the recommendation to the AG, who then either accepts it or doesn't. Then, the AG makes the recommendation. At that point the President can either accept it- or fire them.

False.


A special prosecutor's recommendations are not subject to anyone in that chain. No one in the Executive has the power to decide whether or not the recommendation goes forward, and no one in the agency has the power to penalize them for the recommendation. This is also a key difference

Nobody has either of those abilities anyway, "special prosecutor" or not. I'm really starting to think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of this entire process.


3) In both of the above cases- neither rejecting a career prosecutor's request for a subpoena nor squashing their final recommendations is considered to be illegal interference. It's considered to be the Executive Branch just going through its typical decision making process. If those things occur when a Special Prosecutor is involved, then it is 100% illegal interference. This is a key difference

Only the court can issue a subpoena...that part of it comes well after any investigation. Prosecutors, special or otherwise, can make whatever recommendations they want, but ultimately it is up to a grand jury to decide if there is enough evidence to move forward with a case.


4) The point of the misconduct piece is not that Special Prosecutors are the only ones who are bound by misconduct rules, it's that- unlike ANY OTHER career prosecutor in the Executive- Special Prosecutors can ONLY be fired due to misconduct. Career prosecutors can very much be fired for purely political reasons related to their investigations (or just in general) This is a key difference

Again, patently false...since they are appointed by the AG, and fall under the purview of the Executive Branch...they can be fired by either the AG or the President, for any reason. I don't like it either, but that's just how it is.


You're the one who isn't understanding the law in this case. To pretend like the rules that a career prosecutor in the Executive are bound by are the same as those a Special Prosecutor are bound by is bordering on illiterate.

I've mentioned a few Supreme Court cases, and quite a few historical examples...all you've offered is "You're wrong because I say I'm right".

I get it...you'd really like this to work the way you think it should work. It is mind-boggling that it isn't really like that.

[time4fun]

Okay, so I think I see where you're getting yourself into trouble.

Subpoenas are not limited to the Courts. The Legislative and Executive Branches issue administrative subpoenas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_subpoena) and Congressional subpoenas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Subpoenas) that carry the same basic weight but without the judicial oversight. That's why you hear members of Congressional Committees talking about subpoenaing the Executive Branch, for example. It's also why the DOJ (and some of its composite agencies) are able to issue subpoenas during their investigations. (The FBI is the notable example here)

The vast majority of your argument falls to pieces at that point. The first four points you made are invalidated by this fact, as is the 9th.

As far some of your other bizarre points:



This is...misleading. The special prosecutor wouldn't have any request that would be denied by the AG, or Congress, or the President...but under every system we have, or have had, they can still be fired by the AG or President.


I already quoted the statutes on this. No one in the Executive Branch can fire a Special Prosecutor for anything having to do with an investigation unless there is blatant misconduct (even then- only the AG has that authority. The President does not. See below). A career prosecutor does not have that protection. I'm not sure how many more times I can quote the relevant statutes to you. This is a very important distinction. Career prosecutors can be fired for political reasons, but Special Prosecutors cannot.



You're attempting to open a different can of worms, here. DoJ prosecutors try cases in court where some investigative agency, like the FBI, has already presented them with a trial-worthy case...they don't go out on their own digging stuff up and running it up the ladder.


I'm not sure what's confusing you at this point. An FBI or DoJ prosecutor can only recommend that a case be taken to Court. The AG has ultimate authority over whether or not that's the case. (Hence why Lynch had to come out and formally say she would accept the decision of the FBI career prosecutors in the Clinton investigation- because cases are only prosecuted at the AG's discretion) A Special Prosecutor, on the other hand, is able to make recommendations that are not subject to anyone's approval in the Executive or Legislative Branches. Obviously the merits of the prosecution is decided by the Judiciary, but even the Judiciary can't prevent the prosecution from happening. They can absolutely throw it out if they'd like, but they can't keep it from going before the Courts.

The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.
28 CFR 600


Only the court can issue a subpoena...that part of it comes well after any investigation. Prosecutors, special or otherwise, can make whatever recommendations they want, but ultimately it is up to a grand jury to decide if there is enough evidence to move forward with a case.

So, I've already brought up the fact that the Executive and Legislative Branches can issue subpoenas, but Special Prosecutors can as well. That's why Archibald Cox was fired by Nixon- he issued a subpoena for the White House Watergate tapes. And Nixon was furious. Hence the whole Saturday Night Massacre. (The Courts later determined that it was an illegal firing in Nader v Bork)

As far as the Grand Jury goes- that's still the Judiciary. The point here is that no one can stop the case from going before a Grand Jury. That is authority that rests solely with the Special Prosecutor. Normally, the only other person who can claim that authority directly is the AG. (Though in this case, the AG has relinquished that authority by appointing the Special Prosecutor)


Again, patently false...since they are appointed by the AG, and fall under the purview of the Executive Branch...they can be fired by either the AG or the President, for any reason. I don't like it either, but that's just how it is.


Again, you're wrong. I quoted this once, but I'll do it again:

The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal. (emphasis mine)
28 CFR 600

Notice "good cause". They cannot be fired for political reasons. They cannot be fired for issuing a subpoena or for conducting their investigation within the normal bounds of the law. And they cannot be fired by the President under any circumstances.

[Thondalar]

Okay, so I think I see where you're getting yourself into trouble.

Subpoenas are not limited to the Courts. The Legislative and Executive Branches issue administrative subpoenas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_subpoena) and Congressional subpoenas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Subpoenas) that carry the same basic weight but without the judicial oversight. That's why you hear members of Congressional Committees talking about subpoenaing the Executive Branch, for example. It's also why the DOJ (and some of its composite agencies) are able to issue subpoenas during their investigations. (The FBI is the notable example here)

The vast majority of your argument falls to pieces at that point. The first four points you made are invalidated by this fact.

I said subpoenas were issued by the courts that you are to appear before, and that holds true with everything you've posted. The notable exception would be the Administrative Subpoena, which I would argue, along with the ACLU and many others you'd probably support under other circumstances, clearly violates the 4th amendment to the Constitution. Thankfully, this has only been used in a small handful of cases, and everything coming from it still required due process of law before a court...and is not something I would think you would be confident basing an argument on.


I already quoted the statutes on this. No one in the Executive Branch can fire a Special Prosecutor for anything having to do with an investigation unless there is blatant misconduct. A career prosecutor does not have that protection. I'm not sure how many more times I can quote the relevant statutes to you. This is a very important distinction. Career prosecutors can be fired for political reasons, but Special Prosecutors cannot.

This is your misinterpretation of the statute. In practice, they have been fired, by both the AG and the President.

According to the Constitution, this sort of thing falls directly under the powers of the Executive branch. Morrison v. Olson dealt a pretty stinging blow to that Constitutional Authority, but it still remains, at least in part. "career prosecutor" isn't a thing...I'm guessing you mean Federally appointed District Attorneys...yeah, they change out with every new administration. Special Prosecutors are appointed by the AG, and can be fired by the AG.


I'm not sure what's confusing you at this point. An FBI or DoJ prosecutor can only recommend that a case be taken to Court. The AG has ultimate authority over whether or not that's the case. A Special Prosecutor, on the other hand, is able to make recommendations that are not subject to anyone's approval in the Executive or Legislative Branches. Obviously the merits of the prosecution is decided by the Judiciary, but even the Judiciary can't prevent the prosecution from happening. They can absolutely throw it out if they'd like, but they can't keep it from going before the Courts.

And herein lies the ultimate evidence of your lack of understanding of this process.


The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.
28 CFR 600

I never disagreed with this. Once again, you're focusing on the form and ignoring the function.


So, I've already brought up the fact that the Executive and Legislative Branches can issue subpoenas, but Special Prosecutors can as well.

I already said Legislative could...I'd refer you back to the top about the Executive subpoena. Special Prosecutors can't, in and of themselves...they require some sort of body to facilitate it, be it a court or Congress.


That's why Archibald Cox was fired by Nixon- he issued a subpoena for the White House Watergate tapes. And Nixon was furious. Hence the whole Saturday Night Massacre. (The Courts later determined that it was an illegal firing in Nader v Bork)

Oh, well, if nothing else...at least you finally googled that and learned something I referenced 3 pages ago.




Again, you're wrong. I quoted this once, but I'll do it again:

The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal. (emphasis mine)
28 CFR 600

Notice "good cause". They cannot be fired for political reasons. They cannot be fired for issuing a subpoena or for conducting their investigation within the normal bounds of the law.

You should notice "good cause". That's a pretty broad stroke. This statue sets no measures for definition of these things, and ultimately does not restrict the power of the AG at all.

[Parkbandit]

Check your microwave, PB. They could be watching you.

Speaking of retards after a piece of candy... thanks for your insight into this Shaft. As always, you illustrate what happens to people that drop out of elementary school.

[Back]

The way some of you casually dismiss the idea that Russia has been involved in influencing our elections as normal is alarming. You guys are going to shrug your shoulders and say "oh well every country does it" or "they've been doing it forever", and thats ok with you? Yeah, no wonder Putin was successful... you clowns are so fucking stupid that not only have you eaten up all his propaganda you are now forgiving him for feeding it to you!

Putin has made some Americans anti-American.

https://www.apnews.com/122ae0b5848345faa88108a03de40c5a/Manafort's-plan-to-'greatly-benefit-the-Putin-Government

AP Exclusive: Manafort had plan to benefit Putin government



WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics, The Associated Press has learned. The work appears to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort himself that he never worked for Russian interests.

Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan as early as June 2005 that he would influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and the former Soviet republics to benefit the Putin government, even as U.S.-Russia relations under Republican President George W. Bush grew worse. Manafort pitched the plans to Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, a close Putin ally with whom Manafort eventually signed a $10 million annual contract beginning in 2006, according to interviews with several people familiar with payments to Manafort and business records obtained by the AP. Manafort and Deripaska maintained a business relationship until at least 2009, according to one person familiar with the work.

[Whirlin]

Speaking of retards after a piece of candy... thanks for your insight into this Shaft. As always, you illustrate what happens to people that drop out of elementary school.
I think you may have missed when Conway stated that Obama was spying on Trump with a microwave.

[Methais]

Is Time4un also Ashliana?

No, but they do share the same cunt.

[time4fun]

Uh Thondalar, you're contradicting yourself with each post. You said repeatedly that only Courts can issue subpoenas, and you questioned my understanding on the situation for saying SPs can issue subpoenas. Now you're saying that you totally said that's not true, and that you quoted a story earlier saying SPs can too. But then you're also arguing that they actually can't because of some reason you're not providing.

You said repeatedly that an SP could be fired by the President for any reason. Now you're saying it has to be good cause, but that good cause means anything you want because the statute doesn't define it. Good cause is a legally defined concept. The phrase isn't randomly generated. It was used for a reason. Laws don't have to define terms that already have a legally acceptable definition. Same reason why they don't have to define "the".

[time4fun]

Speaking of retards after a piece of candy... thanks for your insight into this Shaft. As always, you illustrate what happens to people that drop out of elementary school.

Hahahaha

Given Shaft was responding to a post where you argued we should really wait for the current investigations before bringing in a Special Prosecutor, that's hilarious.

Hey Mr Kindergarten graduate, SPs are brought in to do the actual investigation because there are too many entangling political ties in the normal folks who would do it. Why would you wait for those heavily biased people to say someone is guilty before having an independent investigation? They're also not the person you bring in for a do over, and being a Special Prosecutor doesn't mean you are bringing someone to trial. It means you're looking into it and deciding if that's warranted.

Sometimes you really are the best part of waking up.

[Wrathbringer]

The way some of you casually dismiss the idea that Russia has been involved in influencing our elections as normal is alarming. You guys are going to shrug your shoulders and say "oh well every country does it" or "they've been doing it forever", and thats ok with you? Yeah, no wonder Putin was successful... you clowns are so fucking stupid that not only have you eaten up all his propaganda you are now forgiving him for feeding it to you!

Putin has made some Americans anti-American.

https://www.apnews.com/122ae0b5848345faa88108a03de40c5a/Manafort's-plan-to-'greatly-benefit-the-Putin-Government

AP Exclusive: Manafort had plan to benefit Putin government

Fake news.

[time4fun]

US Officials: Info Suggests Trump Associates May Have Coordinated With Russia: (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/us-officials-info-suggests-trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians/)


The FBI is now reviewing that information, which includes human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings, according to those U.S. officials. The information is raising the suspicions of FBI counterintelligence investigators that the coordination may have taken place, though officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive and that the investigation is ongoing.


One law enforcement official said the information in hand suggests "people connected to the campaign were in contact and it appeared they were giving the thumbs up to release information when it was ready." But other U.S. officials who spoke to CNN say it's premature to draw that inference from the information gathered so far since it's largely circumstantial.

It's important to keep in mind that when this information is leaked out, it's usually second-hand info. But this would seem to match up to Schiff's earlier comments that the evidence he had seen was no longer purely circumstantial.

Incidentally Schiff and Nunes are both saying grossly inappropriate things these days. The investigation needs to be handed over to a Special Prosecutor.

[Tgo01]

The investigation needs to be handed over to a Special Prosecutor.

No. When the FBI exonerates Trump you're just going to have to fall in line and say the FBI said Trump broke no laws.

[time4fun]

No. When the FBI exonerates Trump you're just going to have to fall in line and say the FBI said Trump broke no laws.

Oh, Tgo-, god I am so sorry. I meant to make that post more Tgo friendly.

"Special" means out of the ordinary, not traditional. A prosecutor, in this context, is someone who both investigates issues and who has the power to refer them to trial. There are special (different definition of special) rules that apply to them.

Russia is what we now call the Former Soviet Union. It's located on the European Continent. Their President's name is Vladimir Putin. It's okay if you can't pronounce it, you don't have to say it out loud.

[Tgo01]

"Special" means out of the ordinary, not traditional. A prosecutor, in this context, is someone who both investigates issues and who has the power to refer them to trial. There are special (different definition of special) rules that apply to them.

Why bother with all of that nonsense? Just wait until the FBI says no laws were broken and we can forever put this behind us. This is how it works.


Russia is what we now call the Former Soviet Union.

See stupid shit like this is what I mean when I say you don't bring up any facts or arguments, you are now literally just parroting what Democrat pundits and politicians are saying/doing. "Russia bad! Remember like 40 years ago and junk and we had a cold war with them and stuff?"

Yeah, remember about 70 years ago when the "red scare" was so bad that a lot of people's lives were ruined because someone just mentioned that another person might have attended a socialist meeting that one time 20 years prior in college? Remember that in your history books, time4fun? And look at you now, doing the exact same shit because it's the most politically expedient way to get what you want, which is to impeach Trump because he dares to have won a presidential election while having the letter R after his name!

I think Obama was a failure on all sorts of levels, but I never once tried to impugn his character or motives in such a manner because I wanted him impeached so badly. In fact I actually recall one post I made where I said Obama loves his country and is doing what he thinks is best for his country, I just happen to disagree with a lot of shit he does. And people say I'm the right wing version of you? I'm beginning to take offense at such harsh words. You have a ways to go before you are even near my level of awesomeness.

[Fortybox]

Proof Vishra is a troll (the liberal labeling someone as autistic - what an oxymoron) and admitting she is bad at math!

[LNet]-GSIV:Vishra: "this is ridiculous. can everyone please get the hell out of my hunting area? kthx"
[LNet]-GSIV:Siierra: "haha."
[LNet]-GSIV:Diablic: "cry more. your tears feed the trolls"
[LNet]-GSIV:Vishra: "oh are you autistic?"
[LNet]-GSIV:Roelaren: "goldst ok on our way"
[LNet]-GSIV:Chaddeaux: "Autism is a joke now?"
[LNet]-GSIV:Zaoloo: "how does a barely capped noob claim a hunting area? oh yea bitchra"
[LNet]-GSIV:Huebald: "what's wrong with autistic people?? TRIGGERED!"
[LNet]-GSIV:Hadya: "It better fucking not be a joke."
[LNet]-GSIV:Vishra: "no, I just don't want to make fun of someone who can't recognize jokes"
[LNet]-GSIV:Ferghal: "Isn't that half of Lnet?"
[LNet]-GSIV:Vishra: "maybe- I'm bad at math"
[LNet]-GSIV:Ferghal: "*duck*"
[LNet]-GSIV:Diablic: "not make fun by asking if they are autistic? lol"

[drauz]

US Officials: Info Suggests Trump Associates May Have Coordinated With Russia: (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/us-officials-info-suggests-trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians/)





It's important to keep in mind that when this information is leaked out, it's usually second-hand info. But this would seem to match up to Schiff's earlier comments that the evidence he had seen was no longer purely circumstantial.

Incidentally Schiff and Nunes are both saying grossly inappropriate things these days. The investigation needs to be handed over to a Special Prosecutor.

I'm going to wait for the investigation to conclude to make up my mind about this. Theres a lot of BS getting thrown around from both sides and it is getting hard to parse the BS from the truth. I'm going to take whatever Comey says as the truth.

[time4fun]

I'm going to wait for the investigation to conclude to make up my mind about this. Theres a lot of BS getting thrown around from both sides and it is getting hard to parse the BS from the truth. I'm going to take whatever Comey says as the truth.

I don't think at this point anyone should be deciding whether or not there was actual collusion. But we can certainly look at his behavior and ask some genuine questions.

-Why did Paul Manafort- a man whose claim to fame is installing a Putin plant as President of Ukraine- suddenly call Trump out of the blue and offer to run his campaign for free? Why did Trump agree?
-If Trump knows he's being accused of being too cozy to Russia, why did he appoint so many people with very strong ties to Putin into his administration?
-Why does Trump- who seems never to have a kind word to say about anyone for long, continually praise Putin? After everything we've learned about Russian interference, why does he refuse to say anything critical of Putin?
-if Trump isn't playing by the Russian playbook, why has he adopted the same major political stances that other Russian planted officials have taken? (Namely anti-NATO, attacking NATO allies, and not arming Ukraine?)
-How did the leaked dossier know months in advance that Trump would take those exact positions? (For those who forgot- it stated that in return for DNC hacks and dumps, the Trump campaign had promised to take the aforementioned NATO/Ukraine stances)
-Why has Trump continually lied about contacts his administration had with the Russian government? If nothing nefarious was going on, why keep lying about it over and over again? What benefit does that bring him?
-When he found out about the election hacking report from the US Intelligence Community- why did he immediately attack THEM instead of Russia?
-Why does Trump refuse to release his taxes, when he knows that they would help rule out some major suspicions about his financial ties to the Kremlin? (Assuming no such ties were present in them)
-Why did Trump jump up on air during his campaign and ask Russia to hack Clinton when he knew full well what they were doing?

(And let's be honest- there are about 20 more questions I could add to the list)


The one conclusion that's unavoidable right now is that Trump is acting like a Putin plant. That doesn't mean he is, in fact, a Putin plant. But if that's not the explanation, it's incumbent on us to come up with some realistic alternative explanation for his behavior.

For me personally, the challenge is that I have neither seen anything definitive proving collusion nor have I heard anyone come up with any other explanation for his extremely suspicious behavior.

[Tgo01]

The one conclusion that's unavoidable right now is that Trump is acting like a Putin plant. That doesn't mean he is, in fact, a Putin plant. But if that's not the explanation, it's incumbent on us to come up with some realistic alternative explanation for his behavior.

Well isn't that convenient. I'm going to decide Trump is acting like a Putin plant, I mean I have no evidence or really any reason to say this, but I'm gonna say it anyways. Now that I have established this as fact it's up to you guys to come up with a explanation that proves he isn't a Putin plant, and until then I'm just going to have to go with my gut that he's a Putin plant.

[time4fun]

Well isn't that convenient. I'm going to decide Trump is acting like a Putin plant, I mean I have no evidence or really any reason to say this, but I'm gonna say it anyways. Now that I have established this as fact it's up to you guys to come up with a explanation that proves he isn't a Putin plant, and until then I'm just going to have to go with my gut that he's a Putin plant.

Okay, so I said I'd be nice this week. So I'm going to keep helping you out, little buddy!


I'm going to decide Trump is acting like a Putin plant, I mean I have no evidence or really any reason to say this, but I'm gonna say it anyways.

Now remember, we had a whole lesson on this just a day or two ago. When you're recapping an argument, you want to make sure that you're recapping it accurately. Remember those pesky degree and amount words? Those matter! Helpful hint- the more extreme your language is (only, every, no, not, any, all, etc) the less likely it's accurate. That's simply because most arguments aren't actually that extreme. Your degree and amount language should never be more extreme than the original argument. In your case, use of the words "No" and "Any" are red flags!

Let's compare to the original text:



-Why did Paul Manafort- a man whose claim to fame is installing a Putin plant as President of Ukraine- suddenly call Trump out of the blue and offer to run his campaign for free? Why did Trump agree?
-If Trump knows he's being accused of being too cozy to Russia, why did he appoint so many people with very strong ties to Putin into his administration?
-Why does Trump- who seems never to have a kind word to say about anyone for long, continually praise Putin? After everything we've learned about Russian interference, why does he refuse to say anything critical of Putin?
-if Trump isn't playing by the Russian playbook, why has he adopted the same major political stances that other Russian planted officials have taken? (Namely anti-NATO, attacking NATO allies, and not arming Ukraine?)
-How did the leaked dossier know months in advance that Trump would take those exact positions? (For those who forgot- it stated that in return for DNC hacks and dumps, the Trump campaign had promised to take the aforementioned NATO/Ukraine stances)
-Why has Trump continually lied about contacts his administration had with the Russian government? If nothing nefarious was going on, why keep lying about it over and over again? What benefit does that bring him?
-When he found out about the election hacking report from the US Intelligence Community- why did he immediately attack THEM instead of Russia?
-Why does Trump refuse to release his taxes, when he knows that they would help rule out some major suspicions about his financial ties to the Kremlin? (Assuming no such ties were present in them)
-Why did Trump jump up on air during his campaign and ask Russia to hack Clinton when he knew full well what they were doing?

Do you understand how your recap doesn't fit the original argument? I'm going to give you a hint: Paul Manafort was Trump's campaign manager, helped install a Putin plant as President of Ukraine, and offered to run Trump's campaign for free. Those are what we call "facts". When facts are used in support of an argument, we refer to them as "evidence". Okay now it's your turn. See if you can identify any other facts!

Ready for the next lesson?


Now that I have established this as fact it's up to you guys to come up with a explanation that proves he isn't a Putin plant...

There's a classic argument type that works like this: the author presents a series of factual statements generally presented as a pattern. Patterns of behavior are one common version of this. Then the author often presents an explanation for the pattern. In the real world, there's always at least one explanation for the pattern. In order to argue that explanation A is definitely incorrect, there must be an alternative explanation provided. Sometimes the alternative is that there is no pattern- that the events are completely unrelated, or that the pattern is actually the cause of the proposed explanation (reversal).

More often it's that explanation B is the reason for the pattern (and offers similar explanatory power to explanation A). This is the fundamental causal or alternative explanation argument.

It's not a requirement that the author imposes on the audience. It's just the reality of logic. In this case though, we've got a variation. The author didn't actually present an argument. Instead, they simply indicated the logical reality that in order to discount one explanation, there needed to be another equally viable explanation presented. Feeling a little lost? See if you can spot the extreme degree and amount language in your recap! Remember- those are red flags that you might be inaccurately describing an argument!

Did you take notes? This is going to help you with the next sections!


and until then I'm just going to have to go with my gut that he's a Putin plant.

Now remember we talked about how important it is to make sure that you are accurately recapping the argument. That means providing quotes where possible and pausing and paraphrasing! You don't want to avoid embarrassing mistakes in public! Be sure to read through the previous argument carefully so that you don't find anything that contradicts your own rehash. And, always repeat the argument back to yourself as <conclusion> because of <evidence>. In this case, spotting the conclusion would have made a big difference!

Let's take a look at the concluding line of the previous argument (the final line in an argument is often the argument's primary conclusion. Not always though- so be careful!)


For me personally, the challenge is that I have neither seen anything definitive proving collusion nor have I heard anyone come up with any other explanation for his extremely suspicious behavior.

Do you see how it contradicts your recap? Remember- the author (And I know the author well) never made a definitive conclusion as to the explanation for the pattern of behavior. Instead, the author ended with ambivalence- neither able to support nor deny a particular explanation.

See if you can explain how that is different from what you recapped. Don't worry- no one is going to make fun of you if it's a struggle.

[Androidpk]

Oh, Tgo-, god I am so sorry. I meant to make that post more Tgo friendly.

"Special" means out of the ordinary, not traditional. A prosecutor, in this context, is someone who both investigates issues and who has the power to refer them to trial. There are special (different definition of special) rules that apply to them.

Russia is what we now call the Former Soviet Union. It's located on the European Continent. Their President's name is Vladimir Putin. It's okay if you can't pronounce it, you don't have to say it out loud.

There's 0 need for a special prosecutor.

[Tgo01]

Sometimes the alternative is that there is no pattern- that the events are completely unrelated, or that the pattern is actually the cause of the proposed explanation (reversal).

Great, there's your explanation then. Whew! Glad we got that solved within 2 posts.

[time4fun]

There's 0 need for a special prosecutor.

So the fact that the Republican Head of the House Intelligence Committee is taking evidence uncovered during the investigation and running it over to the President he's supposed to be investigating isn't at all concerning?

Or that the same person was part of the President's transition team?

Or that they were calling up reporters to tell them to stop covering the story because there was no collusion- even though the investigation had just begun?

Or that the ranking Democrat is running around telling everyone there's more than circumstantial evidence of collusion?

So...no reason? Can't see a single reason?

....Nothing?

[time4fun]

Great, there's your explanation then. Whew! Glad we got that solved within 2 posts.

Okay Tgo, so I don't have time for it today, but tomorrow we're going to talk about basic argument structure.

Here's a hint- you have to present actual evidence for your argument. Otherwise, it's not an argument.

I want you to take some time here and think it over. Let's see what evidence you can provide that would make it less likely that the set of behaviors listed above are actually related to each other. OR that the causality is actually reversed.

Look, don't freak out, okay? This isn't a timed test. I'm sure the class will be happy to help you out if you're struggling.

[Tgo01]

Here's a hint- you have to present actual evidence for your argument. Otherwise, it's not an argument.

You just got finished whining that I wasn't describing your argument accurately and yet here you are proving I was describing your argument perfectly.

You have dreamed up this Trump-Putin collusion based on bullshit and even admitted you have seen no proof of said collusion, but this is what it "looks like." So since this is what it "looks like" ACCORDING TO YOU, you're waiting for someone else to come along and "present actual evidence" as to why the bullshit you came up with is in fact wrong. It's up to someone else to provide evidence to suggest that your argument, which hinges on no evidence, is in fact wrong.

This is absurd. Based on what I've seen it looks like you have a case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, my proof? Look at all of your hysterical posts found in the political folder where you insist Trump is Putin's lapdop. Now I don't have any evidence of you suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, I'm just saying this is what it "looks like." Now in order to prove you don't have Trump Derangement Syndrome you are going to have to provide evidence as to why your posts don't show you have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Only thing is my accusation of you having Trump Derangement Syndrome has more weight and more evidence than your Trump/Putin ties.

[Androidpk]

So the fact that the Republican Head of the House Intelligence Committee is taking evidence uncovered during the investigation and running it over to the President he's supposed to be investigating isn't at all concerning?

Or that the same person was part of the President's transition team?

Or that they were calling up reporters to tell them to stop covering the story because there was no collusion- even though the investigation had just begun?

Or that the ranking Democrat is running around telling everyone there's more than circumstantial evidence of collusion?

So...no reason? Can't see a single reason?

....Nothing?

Remember when AG Lynch had a private meeting with Bill Clinton and Democrats said there was no foul play?

[Tgo01]

In fact I actually recall one post I made where I said Obama loves his country and is doing what he thinks is best for his country, I just happen to disagree with a lot of shit he does.

Tgo01 coming through with the proofs!


Took the words right out of my mouth.

I'm sure Obama loves his country and really wants to help people. Unfortunately I think his ego is greater than either of the previous two traits I mentioned.

Now let's see time4fun make such a comment towards Trump, or heck any Republican for that matter (one that isn't acting like Democrats in wanting to make Trump look bad that is.) I have a feeling in her eyes though they are all either racist, sexist, bigoted, etc, and therefore don't love their country and don't want to help people.

[Parkbandit]

Hahahaha

Given Shaft was responding to a post where you argued we should really wait for the current investigations before bringing in a Special Prosecutor, that's hilarious.

Hey Mr Kindergarten graduate, SPs are brought in to do the actual investigation because there are too many entangling political ties in the normal folks who would do it. Why would you wait for those heavily biased people to say someone is guilty before having an independent investigation? They're also not the person you bring in for a do over, and being a Special Prosecutor doesn't mean you are bringing someone to trial. It means you're looking into it and deciding if that's warranted.

Sometimes you really are the best part of waking up.

Wait... so when half the country was calling for a special prosecutor for Hillary's email fiasco, you were right on board with that?

Hypocrisy.. what does it taste like?

Also, no one, in the history of this planet, has ever said you are the best part of anything.

Ever.

[Parkbandit]

The one conclusion that's unavoidable right now is that Trump is acting like a Putin plant. That doesn't mean he is, in fact, a Putin plant. But if that's not the explanation, it's incumbent on us to come up with some realistic alternative explanation for his behavior.


Well, now I'm convinced. This is the only evidence you've actually brought forward that sort of makes sense. I mean, if you feel in your heart that President Trump is acting like a Putin plant.. well then dammit, we DO need a special prosecutor! I mean I'm sure you have a PhD in Feelings.

Let's do this!

[Methais]

Why bother with all of that nonsense? Just wait until the FBI says no laws were broken and we can forever put this behind us. This is how it works.



See stupid shit like this is what I mean when I say you don't bring up any facts or arguments, you are now literally just parroting what Democrat pundits and politicians are saying/doing. "Russia bad! Remember like 40 years ago and junk and we had a cold war with them and stuff?"

Yeah, remember about 70 years ago when the "red scare" was so bad that a lot of people's lives were ruined because someone just mentioned that another person might have attended a socialist meeting that one time 20 years prior in college? Remember that in your history books, time4fun? And look at you now, doing the exact same shit because it's the most politically expedient way to get what you want, which is to impeach Trump because he dares to have won a presidential election while having the letter R after his name!

I think Obama was a failure on all sorts of levels, but I never once tried to impugn his character or motives in such a manner because I wanted him impeached so badly. In fact I actually recall one post I made where I said Obama loves his country and is doing what he thinks is best for his country, I just happen to disagree with a lot of shit he does. And people say I'm the right wing version of you? I'm beginning to take offense at such harsh words. You have a ways to go before you are even near my level of awesomeness.

Remember 5 years ago when democrats everywhere were making fun of Romney for talking about Russia and then Obama told him that the 1980s called wanting their foreign policy back?

What happened?

[Methais]

lapdop.

http://media.istockphoto.com/photos/dog-yawning-at-laptop-screen-on-white-background-picture-id96962777

[time4fun]

Remember when AG Lynch had a private meeting with Bill Clinton and Democrats said there was no foul play?

These are independent events. What happens with one has absolutely no bearing on the other. Where is your patriotism and common sense here?

[Androidpk]

These are independent events. What happens with one has absolutely no bearing on the other. Where is your patriotism and common sense here?

Why am I not surprised you refuse to see the connection.

Where is my patriotism? My patriotism is with the country. Your patriotism is to the Democratic party.

[time4fun]

Tgo01 coming through with the proofs!



Now let's see time4fun make such a comment towards Trump, or heck any Republican for that matter (one that isn't acting like Democrats in wanting to make Trump look bad that is.) I have a feeling in her eyes though they are all either racist, sexist, bigoted, etc, and therefore don't love their country and don't want to help people.

Truthfully every once in a while I see you say something so deeply stupid that I really do start thinking that maybe stupid is an act for you. Because who could possibly say something so ridiculous and believe it?

If you do actually think you came up with a reasonable explanation, I'm going to suggest getting tested.

[time4fun]

Why am I not surprised you refuse to see the connection.

Where is my patriotism? My patriotism is with the country. Your patriotism is to the Democratic party.

You're nothing but a petty fool.

[Methais]

These are independent events. What happens with one has absolutely no bearing on the other. Where is your patriotism and common sense here?

Truthfully every once in a while I see you say something so deeply stupid that I really do start thinking that maybe stupid is an act for you. Because who could possibly say something so ridiculous and believe it?

I honestly don't know if you're really this retarded or if ClydeR should should be presenting you with the master troll of the decade award.

[time4fun]

Truthfully every once in a while I see you say something so deeply stupid that I really do start thinking that maybe stupid is an act for you. Because who could possibly say something so ridiculous and believe it?

I honestly don't know if you're really this retarded or if ClydeR should should be presenting you with the master troll of the decade award.

Oh. So the tarmac meeting between Lynch and Bill Clinton IS related to the potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?

Fun. I eagerly await your evidence.

[Fortybox]

Truthfully every once in a while I see you say something so deeply stupid that I really do start thinking that maybe stupid is an act for you. Because who could possibly say something so ridiculous and believe it?

I honestly don't know if you're really this retarded or if ClydeR should should be presenting you with the master troll of the decade award.

She's a troll. You all keep feeding her :wtf:

[Methais]

Oh. So the tarmac meeting between Lynch and Bill Clinton IS related to the potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?

Fun. I eagerly await your evidence.

Despite the fact that you know that that isn't the point being made and are being willfully obtuse to avoid having to account for your own hypocrisy....yes. Had the tarmac meeting not happened, Hillary surely have won the election and then there would be no Trump/Russiagate.

Thanks for ruining everything Bill!

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/DXvx5XtgudA/maxresdefault.jpg

[Androidpk]

Oh. So the tarmac meeting between Lynch and Bill Clinton IS related to the potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?

Fun. I eagerly await your evidence.

No one is saying they are directly related..

If you can't see why I brought that up then there truly is no hope for you.

[time4fun]

No one is saying they are directly related..

If you can't see why I brought that up then there truly is no hope for you.

Newsflash PK, the only way you could consider an SP as favorable to the Dems would be if you both believed that Trump's campaign is guilty of collision AND that Republicans on the committee would work to keep people from knowing it.

[Parkbandit]

These are independent events. What happens with one has absolutely no bearing on the other. Where is your patriotism and common sense here?

There was far more evidence that there was collusion happening there than with your "Derp, derp, Trump is Putin's Puppet!" but I don't remember you posting that there should be a special investigation into that matter.

Weird.

[Gelston]

You're nothing but a petty fool.

Irony.

[Methais]

You're nothing but a petty fool.

Now if that isn't the pot calling the kettle African-American then I don't know what is.

[time4fun]

Apparently Nunes, head of the House Intelligence Committee investigating Russian election interference and possible Trump/Russia collusion (and former advisor to the Trump campaign and member of the Trump transition team) apparently met with his "source" for the surveillance evidence he supposedly has but hasn't shown anyone but Trump (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nunes-met-source-trump-monitoring-claim-white-house-n738906) on White House grounds:


The day before he announced to reporters that Donald Trump may have been incidentally monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies during the transition, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes met with the source of that information at the White House, a Nunes spokesman told NBC News.


It's unclear why Nunes would have to go to the White House to seek a secure location to view classified material, since his own committee has a secure room in the Capitol where Nunes and his aides review secret documents on a daily basis.

So, instead of meeting at the Congressional SCIF, he ran to the White House and got his "evidence" of this incredibly ominous surveillance of the Trump campaign, held a press conference the next day, and the ran BACK to the White House to show that evidence to Trump- the man he's investigating- "for the first time".

Yeah, who needs an independent investigation when you've got people like Nunes?

[time4fun]

Business Insider did an excellent article today pulling together the timeline of all of the events (meetings, sudden shifts in policy to favor Russia, the infamous dossier, etc. here. (http://www.businessinsider.com/updated-trump-russia-election-timeline-fbi-2017-3)

Super handy. Personally, I have a really hard time plugging all of the myriad of dates and meetings and all that into a coherent timeline. So this helped me get a better visual on things.

Note- none of this is anything more than circumstantial. There's no smoking gun here. Just some interesting correlations.

[Tgo01]

Note- none of this is anything more than circumstantial. There's no smoking gun here. Just some interesting correlations.

Other than the bullshit dossier it's not even circumstantial evidence.


Carter Page travels to Moscow to give a speech.


WikiLeaks publishes first hacked DNC emails.


Roger Stone begins speaking to Guccifer 2.0 on Twitter


Manafort resigns.

Why even wait for actual proof? This "circumstantial" evidence proves it all!

[Methais]

lol "apparently"

[Androidpk]

I don't see why people are making a big deal out of Stone speaking to Guccifer 2.0 on Twitter. I've done it.. does that mean I'm a Russian spy?

[Tgo01]

I've done it.. does that mean I'm a Russian spy?

Apparently.

Appears so.

I believe so.

Looks that way.

My anonymous sources say yes.

[Androidpk]

Fuck, I better call the FBI on myself.

[time4fun]

The Post reports today (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-sought-to-block-sally-yates-from-testifying-to-congress-on-russia/2017/03/28/82b73e18-13b4-11e7-9e4f-09aa75d3ec57_story.html?utm_term=.6a748d1cb469) that the White House tried to keep Sally Yates (acting Attorney General fired by Trump for refusing to defend the original Muslim Ban) from testifying in the Congressional investigations into Russia and Trump.


The Trump administration sought to block former acting attorney general Sally Yates from testifying to Congress in the House investigation of links between Russian officials and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, The Washington Post has learned, a position that is likely to further anger Democrats who have accused Republicans of trying to damage the inquiry.


Yates and other former intelligence officials had been asked to testify before the House Intelligence Committee this week, a hearing that was abruptly canceled by the panel’s chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.). Yates was the deputy attorney general in the final years of the Obama administration, and served as the acting attorney general in the first days of the Trump administration.


Yates and another witness at the planned hearing, former CIA director John Brennan, had made clear to government officials by Thursday that their testimony to the committee probably would contradict some statements that White House officials had made, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The following day, when Yates’s lawyer sent a letter to the White House indicating that she still wanted to testify, the hearing was canceled.

If the administration would stop treating this like a cover-up, people would be a lot less suspicious. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: it's their reactions to the whole situation that have always raised the most alarms.

Nunes is also appearing to work as a White House advocate in all of this. He needs to be pulled off of the committee at this point. His behavior is making it impossible for anyone to trust the outcome of the investigation.

[Tgo01]

If the administration would stop treating this like a cover-up, people would be a lot less suspicious.

HAHA

[Methais]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: it's their reactions to the whole situation that have always raised the most alarms.

HAHA

[Parkbandit]

If the administration would stop treating this like a cover-up, people would be a lot less suspicious.

HAHA

[Methais]

Apparently.

Appears so.

I believe so.

Looks that way.

My anonymous sources say yes.

Is your source a magic 8 ball?

[Tgo01]

Is your source a magic 8 ball?

Signs point to 'yes'.

[Parkbandit]

Is your source a magic 8 ball?

https://media.giphy.com/media/KCfujoyXO99bW/giphy.gif

[Tgo01]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/russian-trolls-hilary-clinton-fake-news-election-democrat-mark-warner-intelligence-committee-a7657641.html


Russia hired 1,000 people to create anti-Clinton 'fake news' in key US states during election, Trump-Russia hearings leader reveals

OMG! Looks like time4fun was right! Trump was colluding with Russia to steal the election.

Oh wait, no. No direct ties to Trump or his team. But...b b b but RUSSIA!

I especially love this part:


“It’s been reported to me, and we’ve got to find this out, whether they were able to affect specific areas in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, where you would not have been receiving off of whoever your vendor might have been, Trump versus Clinton, during the waning days of the election, but instead, ‘Clinton is sick’, or ‘Clinton is taking money from whoever for some source’ … fake news.

Now gee, why these three states in particular are they worried about? These three states sound so familiar...Oh right! They were the three states Democrats were positive the Russians literally hacked the votes to ensure Trump won. Democrats just can't let go.


“An outside foreign adversary effectively sought to hi-jack the most critical democratic process, the election of a President, and in that process, decided to favour one candidate over another.”

Foreign adversary? Russia? The 1980's called, they want their foreign policy back!!

Over 1,000,000,000 dollars was spent to get Hillary elected, but an "army" of 1000 "trolls" from Russia managed to sway the election in favor of Trump. I love the narrative. Because I'm sure there were NO trolls in the US or in other countries who dedicated themselves to make sure Trump lost. No siree! Clearly these people from Russia were the only ones trying to sway the election. Yup! Makes perfect sense to me.

[time4fun]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/russian-trolls-hilary-clinton-fake-news-election-democrat-mark-warner-intelligence-committee-a7657641.html



OMG! Looks like time4fun was right! Trump was colluding with Russia to steal the election.

Oh wait, no. No direct ties to Trump or his team. But...b b b but RUSSIA!

I especially love this part:



Now gee, why these three states in particular are they worried about? These three states sound so familiar...Oh right! They were the three states Democrats were positive the Russians literally hacked the votes to ensure Trump won. Democrats just can't let go.



Foreign adversary? Russia? The 1980's called, they want their foreign policy back!!

Over 1,000,000,000 dollars was spent to get Hillary elected, but an "army" of 1000 "trolls" from Russia managed to sway the election in favor of Trump. I love the narrative. Because I'm sure there were NO trolls in the US or in other countries who dedicated themselves to make sure Trump lost. No siree! Clearly these people from Russia were the only ones trying to sway the election. Yup! Makes perfect sense to me.

Do you ever research anything you say before you say it?

[Tgo01]

Do you ever research anything you say before you say it?

And here comes time4fun with the one liner void of any facts, reasoning, citations, and of course, LOGIC!

[time4fun]

And here comes time4fun with the one liner void of any facts, reasoning, citations, and of course, LOGIC!

So...no.

[Androidpk]

Do you ever research anything you say before you say it?


:lol2:

[Tgo01]

So...no.

Hey Donquix, remember when you were bitching at me for being so mean to time4fun, and I said all she does is spout a bunch of bullshit and never puts forth a real argument? Yeah, here's your proof.

If this keeps up long enough she'll make some sort of reference to the color of my skin or what I got between my legs to suggest why my argument is wrong.

She's a racist, sexist, pseudo intellectual nutbag. She's not some sort of victim here.

[Donquix]

Hey Donquix, remember when you were bitching at me for being so mean to time4fun, and I said all she does is spout a bunch of bullshit and never puts forth a real argument? Yeah, here's your proof.

If this keeps up long enough she'll make some sort of reference to the color of my skin or what I got between my legs to suggest why my argument is wrong.

She's a racist, sexist, pseudo intellectual nutbag. She's not some sort of victim here.

She is a bitch when talking politics, without question. That doesn't make her wrong. I see her cite shit WAY often then you. You just cry about how she's mean to you and something something LIBTARDSLOL. You have lost all ability to discuss politics logically. She has lost all ability to discuss them civilly.

I wasn't claiming she was the victim, i was pointing out you're just as fucking bad but hypocritical about it. She knows she's being a bitch. Also if you could go ONE FUCKING COMMENT without mentioning her when discussing politics, i might actually die of shock. It's reached Alastir / Haldrik levels of WTF.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/58308512.jpg

[Back]

I wasn't claiming she was the victim, i was pointing out you're just as fucking bad but hypocritical about it. She knows she's being a bitch. Also if you could go ONE FUCKING COMMENT without mentioning her when discussing politics, i might actually die of shock. It's reached Alastir / Haldrik levels of WTF.

True. I'd love to see some political discussions/arguments that did not mention Hillary, Obama, Bush, or just straight up attacks on any community member's character.

[Tgo01]

That doesn't make her wrong.

She can't be wrong if she doesn't make an argument.


I see her cite shit WAY often then you.

I can cite bullshit pundit opinions all day too, which is all she does.


She has lost all ability to discuss them civilly.

LOL. Whatever you say. Her posts to me were: "Do you ever research anything you say before you say it?", "So...no." Oh she's right! She's just not very civil! I think you have the complaints about us backwards. She posts stupid bullshit all day long and when challenged shouts racist and sexist. I don't give a shit about not being civil.


Also if you could go ONE FUCKING COMMENT without mentioning her when discussing politics, i might actually die of shock.

Hyperbole alert!


https://cdn.meme.am/instances/58308512.jpg

I'll "let it go" when she stops posting stupid shit. Don't act like she posted something stupid one time 5 years ago and I'm still dredging it up whenever I'm bored. It's a daily occurrence on here. Just like people mention me a lot in the political folder, because I'm active in it. I don't get all pouty and start insisting everyone is picking on me because I'm a man and I'm white.

[Tgo01]

True. I'd love to see some political discussions/arguments that did not mention Hillary, Obama, Bush, or just straight up attacks on any community member's character.

Didn't I destroy you the other day in the internet privacy thread without mentioning Hillary, Obama, Bush, nor insisting you're wrong because your face is ugly?? Why you acting like that never happened? I'm hurt, Back.

[Androidpk]

True. I'd love to see some political discussions/arguments that did not mention Hillary, Obama, Bush, or just straight up attacks on any community member's character.

It would be wonderful indeed but it's tremendously difficult to have conversations with people when they can't admit to simple truths and just resort to attacks. Meaningful discussion in regards to politics is a lost cause on the PC.

[Back]

Didn't I destroy you the other day in the internet privacy thread without mentioning Hillary, Obama, Bush, nor insisting you're wrong because your face is ugly?? Why you acting like that never happened? I'm hurt, Back.

As I recall you destroyed yourself by making a claim without proof. I asked you for proof of your claim, instead you asked me to disprove your claim, after which you later did yourself.

And dude, you never destroy anybody. Get over yourself.

[Androidpk]

As I recall you destroyed yourself by making a claim without proof. I asked you for proof of your claim, instead you asked me to disprove your claim, after which you later did yourself.

And dude, you never destroy anybody. Get over yourself.


Tgo lost, get over him already.

[Tgo01]

As I recall you destroyed yourself by making a claim without proof. I asked you for proof of your claim, instead you asked me to disprove your claim, after which you later did yourself.

I destroyed myself by explaining the way I understood things, then provided links showing why I understood things were the way they were? And you never came back and explained to me why I was wrong. You just hemmed and hawed a bunch about how Republicans were bad.


And dude, you never destroy anybody. Get over yourself.

I eat Democrats like you for lunch.

[Back]

Tgo lost, get over him already.

I got over him a long time ago. Get over me.


I eat Democrats like you for lunch.

You aren't going to like the milk. Wait, thats for breakfast... never mind. Enjoy your pickle.

[Androidpk]

I got over him a long time ago. Get over me.


Get over me not getting over you.

[SHAFT]

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x176/shaft4783/A56025EC-6FD2-485A-913E-58741535C797.png (http://s184.photobucket.com/user/shaft4783/media/A56025EC-6FD2-485A-913E-58741535C797.png.html)

[SHAFT]

PB and Tgo, you guys picked a winner. Trump 1st, Russia 2nd, rest of us 3rd. #winning

[Parkbandit]

PB and Tgo, you guys picked a winner. Trump 1st, Russia 2nd, rest of us 3rd. #winning

Hey now, don't blame me for you being a loser. You have been a loser your entire life.. that's not on me.

And seeing your tantrum continuing... #WINNING4SURE

[Back]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-offers-to-testify-in-exchange-for-immunity-1490912959?emailToken=JRrydv17Z3SThtAzZ8w51V4lK6cM GumPA1TZIn3QIQ3QsznJrPm9xqskwtqx5G6/TkZz4d8JqmA4X3jQhW93Ws6NivsmzQb8KiAH/8yV\


WASHINGTON—Mike Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, has told the Federal Bureau of Investigation and congressional officials investigating the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia that he is willing to be interviewed in exchange for a grant of immunity from prosecution, according to officials with knowledge of the matter.As an adviser to Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, and later one of Mr. Trump’s top aides in the White House, Mr. Flynn was privy to some of the most sensitive foreign-policy deliberations of the new administration and was directly involved in discussions about the possible lifting of sanctions on Russia imposed by the Obama administration.

He has made the offer to the FBI and the House and Senate intelligence committees though his lawyer but has so far found no takers, the officials said.

No takers? Ouch! Does this mean they are going to refuse him immunity?

[Parkbandit]

You aren't going to like the milk. Wait, thats for breakfast... never mind. Enjoy your pickle.

http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/639274/14331269/1316987642620/TinyCucumber1.jpg?token=1tUgtmtqaiQn1GILpTj4Yvqnk3 Y%3D

[Wrathbringer]

I don't get all pouty and start insisting everyone is picking on me because I'm a man and I'm white.

Might be stretching the man part, but yeah, definitely white.

[Tgo01]

PB and Tgo, you guys picked a winner. Trump 1st, Russia 2nd, rest of us 3rd. #winning

Didn't they grant immunity to like a dozen of Hillary staffers and she still walked away?

I think I'll wait until the investigation is done before drawing any conclusions, especially from someone who feels he might be in legal trouble of trumped up bullshit from the left so he's seeking to cover his own ass.

But hey, if it wasn't for blowing the tiniest of things out of proportion Democrats wouldn't have anything left, so I can see why this excites you.

[Tgo01]

Might be stretching the man part, but yeah, definitely white.

Transphobe.

[Wrathbringer]

PB and Tgo, you guys picked a winner. Trump 1st, Russia 2nd, rest of us 3rd. #winning

Trump is doing a bang up job so far. #americafirst You lost. Get over it.

[Androidpk]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-offers-to-testify-in-exchange-for-immunity-1490912959?emailToken=JRrydv17Z3SThtAzZ8w51V4lK6cM GumPA1TZIn3QIQ3QsznJrPm9xqskwtqx5G6/TkZz4d8JqmA4X3jQhW93Ws6NivsmzQb8KiAH/8yV\



No takers? Ouch! Does this mean they are going to refuse him immunity?

They aren't going to offer him immunity if he has nothing worthwhile to offer them in exchange.

[Wrathbringer]

Transphobe.

You're transitioning into a dog?

[Back]

Might be stretching the man part, but yeah, definitely white.

Mitt Romney white.

[SHAFT]

Didn't they grant immunity to like a dozen of Hillary staffers and she still walked away?

I think I'll wait until the investigation is done before drawing any conclusions, especially from someone who feels he might be in legal trouble of trumped up bullshit from the left so he's seeking to cover his own ass.

But hey, if it wasn't for blowing the tiniest of things out of proportion Democrats wouldn't have anything left, so I can see why this excites you.

Man you guys are delusional. Nice choice of words wth "trumped up", but you do realize there are multiple investigations happening right? Even if nothing comes from any of it, the fact Trump had this happen with his first 100 days, and also everything he's done has been a complete failure, history will show him as the WORST president of all time.

The 2 White House officials who helped Nunes have been named, Flynn is offering testimony for immunity, and there are multiple investigations going on regarding collusion/treason. We all know the wiretapping thing was said to deflect from the Russia thing. There's so much smoke that people in D.C. Are dying from inhalation.

I don't get how anyone can try to spin any of what really is happening?

[Androidpk]

Man you guys are delusional. Nice choice of words wth "trumped up", but you do realize there are multiple investigations happening right? Even if nothing comes from any of it, the fact Trump had this happen with his first 100 days, and also everything he's done has been a complete failure, history will show him as the WORST president of all time.

The 2 White House officials who helped Nunes have been named, Flynn is offering testimony for immunity, and there are multiple investigations going on regarding collusion/treason. We all know the wiretapping thing was said to deflect from the Russia thing. There's so much smoke that people in D.C. Are dying from inhalation.

I don't get how anyone can try to spin any of what really is happening?

Multiple criminal investigations means jack shit. Just ask Hillary and Bill Clinton.

[Wrathbringer]

Man you guys are delusional. Nice choice of words wth "trumped up", but you do realize there are multiple investigations happening right? Even if nothing comes from any of it, the fact Trump had this happen with his first 100 days, and also everything he's done has been a complete failure, history will show him as the WORST president of all time.

The 2 White House officials who helped Nunes have been named, Flynn is offering testimony for immunity, and there are multiple investigations going on regarding collusion/treason. We all know the wiretapping thing was said to deflect from the Russia thing. There's so much smoke that people in D.C. Are dying from inhalation.

I don't get how anyone can try to spin any of what really is happening?

He's got quite a ways yet before he overtakes obummer on the all time worst.

[SHAFT]

They aren't going to offer him immunity if he has nothing worthwhile to offer them in exchange.

Here's a guy who lied about Russian meetings. Everyone involved with trump is somehow tied to Russia, including trump himself (you guys basically elected a Russian), doesn't it seem plausible that Flynn has something he's worried about? If he's not worried why offer to testify in exchange for immunity? If you have nothing and you're not worried you continue hiding in your cave.

[SHAFT]

He's got quite a ways yet before he overtakes obummer on the all time worst.

Sorry man, you're a internet troll. I can't even take you seriously.

[SHAFT]

Multiple criminal investigations means jack shit. Just ask Hillary and Bill Clinton.

Hillary was never president and bill fucked his secretary and lied. But different than trump being owned by Russia.

[Trump]

Here's a guy who lied about Russian meetings. Everyone involved with trump is somehow tied to Russia, including trump himself (you guys basically elected a Russian), doesn't it seem plausible that Flynn has something he's worried about? If he's not worried why offer to testify in exchange for immunity? If you have nothing and you're not worried you continue hiding in your cave.

Don't make shit up, Flynn never said that. That would be tantamount to holding up a sign with "shady shit going on with the Prez" written on it.

[Androidpk]

Here's a guy who lied about Russian meetings. Everyone involved with trump is somehow tied to Russia, including trump himself (you guys basically elected a Russian), doesn't it seem plausible that Flynn has something he's worried about? If he's not worried why offer to testify in exchange for immunity? If you have nothing and you're not worried you continue hiding in your cave.

You guys? I didn't vote for Trump.

Also, asking for immunity doesn't necessarily mean you're guilty of something. After all, Hillary's staffers asked for (and got) immunity agreements.

So far this is all smoke and no actual substance.

[Androidpk]

Hillary was never president and bill fucked his secretary and lied. But different than trump being owned by Russia.

Criminal investigations are criminal investigations.

[SHAFT]

Don't make shit up, Flynn never said that. That would be tantamount to holding up a sign with "shady shit going on with the Prez" written on it.

You're behind in the times. News travels fast these days. This was reported days ago and is currently being reported as fact. Before you say it I know I know, fake news. This is actually a fake post on a fake site by a fake person. Even you are fake.

[SHAFT]

Criminal investigations are criminal investigations.

Sorry, your statements make it seem voted for trump. Which is cool, I guess. See, when trying to defend or justify The Orange One and someone slams bill and Hillary, usually shouts Trump voter/supporter.

[Trump]

For fucking POTUS to go down there needs to be a digital recording of some Russian dude going, " So you will help Motherland yes?" and Trump going, " OK, what you offering?" else it's #FAKE

[SHAFT]

For fucking POTUS to go down there needs to be a digital recording of some Russian dude going, " So you will help Motherland yes?" and Trump going, " OK, what you offering?"

Think so? Even if you don't have a video of someone committing murder, if enough people are there and witness the act, if they testify against the suspected murderer, that person is toast.

[Androidpk]

Sorry, your statements make it seem voted for trump. Which is cool, I guess. See, when trying to defend or justify The Orange One and someone slams bill and Hillary, usually shouts Trump voter/supporter.

I've said multiple times that I think Trump as POTUS is a fucking joke. I've never defended him or justified anything he's done. I've only said that in this regards (Russian collusion) I'll wait for the official investigation to complete before jumping to any conclusions.

Slamming Bill/Hillary has nothing to do with it. I slam any and all shitty/corrupt politicians.

[Tgo01]

If he's not worried why offer to testify in exchange for immunity? If you have nothing and you're not worried you continue hiding in your cave.

If I had to guess as to why one would offer to talk in exchange for immunity, even if they aren't in the wrong, is because they want to put the whole thing behind them with as little effort as possible.

It's why a lot of companies opt to just settle out of court rather than taking the case to trial even if they believe they are in the right. They want to make the whole thing go away and the easiest way to do that is to offer a lump sum to someone and have them sign a non disclosure agreement over how much the settlement was for and the company usually makes it clear that they are not agreeing to any wrong doing as well.

Is that the case here? Not necessarily, maybe Flynn really is in deep shit. But so far all we have is him fishing for immunity. Which I find funny that Democrats are somehow viewing this as a win when just a few days ago they were certain Flynn had already flipped and was cooperating with the FBI. What happened to that narrative?

[Tgo01]

Sorry, your statements make it seem voted for trump. Which is cool, I guess. See, when trying to defend or justify The Orange One and someone slams bill and Hillary, usually shouts Trump voter/supporter.

pk has been bashing Hillary before she or Trump even announced they were running for office, but the writing was on the wall that she was going to run.

[Trump]

Not when said murderer is the President of the United States with party control over both chambers. It's just a tad bit different than your run of the mill street thug shooting.

[SHAFT]

I guess I don't understand how people defend a guy who has not done a single thing for America. In fact he's been quite anti-American with the slamming of the American media and the simple fact the guy won't come out against the Russian meddling. He even goes so far to lie and claim the former president wiretapped him, which everyone knew was complete shit when said. Obvious distraction.

Trump has slammed the US intelligence agencies, he's trying to cause civil unrest in the Republican Party with his recent tweets, he's calling any MSM outlet "fake news" that disagrees with him or goes against him, everything he's doing is anti-American and people eat it up. It's crazy.

Trump, and most likely Putin along with him, recognized there are A LOT of gullible and impressionable people in the US and he went after them. He got their vote, with the help of Russia.

Just wait until Russia turns on Trump. That'll be fun.

[SHAFT]

I've said multiple times that I think Trump as POTUS is a fucking joke. I've never defended him or justified anything he's done. I've only said that in this regards (Russian collusion) I'll wait for the official investigation to complete before jumping to any conclusions.

Slamming Bill/Hillary has nothing to do with it. I slam any and all shitty/corrupt politicians.

Sorry PK, I'm new to the PC political folders. Poking PB has been fun though. He's obviously going to his death bed with his trump vote. Which could be any day now given his advanced age. Slow down, buddy.

[Androidpk]

I guess I don't understand how people defend a guy who has not done a single thing for America.

Sooo he's like 99% of all other politicians.

[Androidpk]

Sorry PK, I'm new to the PC political folders.

Turn back now before it's too late!

[Trump]

I guess I don't understand how people defend a guy who has not done a single thing for America. In fact he's been quite anti-American with the slamming of the American media and the simple fact the guy won't come out against the Russian meddling. He even goes so far to lie and claim the former president wiretapped him, which everyone knew was complete shit when said. Obvious distraction.

Trump has slammed the US intelligence agencies, he's trying to cause civil unrest in the Republican Party with his recent tweets, he's calling any MSM outlet "fake news" that disagrees with him or goes against him, everything he's doing is anti-American and people eat it up. It's crazy.

Trump, and most likely Putin along with him, recognized there are A LOT of gullible and impressionable people in the US and he went after them. He got their vote, with the help of Russia.

Just wait until Russia turns on Trump. That'll be fun.

holy shit dude, the guys been in office for just 71 days. give.him.a.fucking.chance.OK?

[SHAFT]

I've said multiple times that I think Trump as POTUS is a fucking joke. I've never defended him or justified anything he's done. I've only said that in this regards (Russian collusion) I'll wait for the official investigation to complete before jumping to any conclusions.

Slamming Bill/Hillary has nothing to do with it. I slam any and all shitty/corrupt politicians.

They're all corrupt. This is the 1st time we've had a corrupt president with a side of Russian and a slice of ineptitude.

[Androidpk]

holy shit dude, the guys been in office for just 71 days. give.him.a.fucking.chance.OK?

A chance to do what exactly? Screw up even more?

[Androidpk]

They're all corrupt. This is the 1st time we've had a corrupt president with a side of Russian and a slice of ineptitude.

False. If you think this is the first time Russia has meddled in our domestic affairs then I have a bridge to sell you. And ineptitude? Were you asleep during the GWB years?

[Tgo01]

In fact he's been quite anti-American with the slamming of the American media

And Obama said Fox News was "destructive" to the country and they distort the information they are giving to people. Before you say "Don't mention Obama!!11" my point is; did you call Obama "anti-American" when he slammed the media? If not, why not? What is different here? Other than the fact that Trump is going after more news organizations because Trump doesn't have the luxury of 90% of the media giving him a constant reach around.


he's calling any MSM outlet "fake news" that disagrees with him or goes against him

Again, Obama did the same thing, he just didn't use the exact words "fake news."


He got their vote, with the help of Russia.

Poor Hillary's one billion plus dollars couldn't stop some internet trolls from Russia? SAD!

[drauz]

I eat Democrats like you for lunch.

https://media.giphy.com/media/12oCVLYtuxFKZW/giphy.gif

[SHAFT]

holy shit dude, the guys been in office for just 71 days. give.him.a.fucking.chance.OK?

You know, I wanted to. I really did. My wife has been saying he won't last a year for a long time and I kept telling her to give trump a chance. He lost me, and struck me as mentally challenged, when he started with the obama wiretapping thing.

Have you seen what he's put Jared Kushner in charge of? It's startling. We have veterans here on the PC, do you know Kushner is in charge of the VA now? Kushner, who's 36 and never accomplished a thing in his life. You should look it up. It's amazing what he's being asked to do.

Also, back to the Flynn thing, no one in the government is talking prosecution. Why is flynn asking for immunity? That means he has something to say and he's afraid of consequences. They'll only give immunity if what flynn has to say will be damaging for someone above him. Who's above the national security adviser? He has an interesting story to tell.