Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

What do you call FISA approved warrants and wiretaps? Does the word "surveiled" make you happier?

It is a vastly better and more accurate word.

Legal surveillance and illegal surveillance are different problems, one being a problem you can address by changing the law (and perhaps the constitution) and the other being a problem you need to address by enforcing the law.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Well, two corrupt middle eastern strongmen deposed so far this April, one reelected.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You don't know what the FISA courts did, what was requested, who requested it, and whether it was justified. (I know you're thinking of trying to get around this.

We know a FISA warrant was issued and renewed more than once, don't we? We can certainly be skeptical of the FISA process, but that a warrant was issued seems like a prima facie showing that nothing untoward happened.

We also know some of the underlying evidence presented in the FISA application, which is also consistent with having had real national security concerns for the application.

Nobody here commented on the Times article I cited stating that most Democrats are moderates and don't give a shit about the stuff we often argue about on this board. I didn't expect many comments because it's kind of cold shower.

I mean, it's not really. Wins and losses in politics come on the margin.

to find conspiracies within the DOJ

I mean, weren't you just saying we needed to entertain a conspiracy until we have facts to disprove it?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

We know a FISA warrant was issued and renewed more than once, don't we? We can certainly be skeptical of the FISA process, but that a warrant was issued seems like a prima facie showing that nothing untoward happened.

The question is, what was the warrant based on?

We also know some of the underlying evidence presented in the FISA application, which is also consistent with having had real national security concerns for the application.

I'm sure there was some valid evidence for the warrant. The question there is, was there also evidence which was not credible? Was the valid evidence insufficient alone? You've done some crim work. No one trusts the basis for a warrant. Digging into that stuff is where you find all sorts of puffery and bs "evidence" to support the warrant. I found one once where the informant's own statements about other targets were used as the basis for a warrant against him.

Am I suggesting there's malfeasance here? No. But the question is open. I can't say if there is or there isn't something bad there.

Ty thinks there most certainly is nothing afoul in the investigation of Trump, but everything afoul in the rollout of the Mueller findings. Is the AG acting politically? That's an open question. Again, I don't know. But Ty's not addressing that question. He has stated that there is something criminal going on, and that there should be prosecutions when Trump is out of office. I'd like to visit the Star Chamber in his head and see how that verdict was reached.

I mean, it's not really. Wins and losses in politics come on the margin.

That's a pragmatic way of looking at it. But what the "movement" types in the party, the truly ardent progressives who push for change, are peddling is that society is radically changing. Apparently, they're hearing a lot of echos in a pretty tight silo. Looks like most of society is interested in mundane things like jobs and the economy.

Meet the new boss. He's Joe Biden.

I mean, weren't you just saying we needed to entertain a conspiracy until we have facts to disprove it?

Ty's already convicted them. His statement was that Democrats are going to have to find a way to punish those responsible for protecting Donald Trump unlike Obama, who allowed Bush era torturers to skate. This assumes two things:

1. One may not protect Trump because Trump is guilty of something that deserves criminal, or at least political, punishment, which is a statement of opinion, as we do not know if that's true (and it were true, it would mean the AG materially lied about a report he's going to make public next week, which makes this accusation a bit unhinged);
2. These Trump protectors have committed crimes (like the Bush era torturers Obama let skate, these protectors will be out of govt when Trump is out of govt, so the only way to punish them is criminally).

I'm fine with anyone saying he has suspicions Barr is covering for Trump. There's smoke there. Declaring there is a conspiracy, however, goes beyond opinion. That's finding a fact you just don't know. And saying a group of undefined "Trump protectors" deserve to be criminally prosecuted when Trump is out of office based on what we know now about this alleged conspiracy is, as I said, livin' in Crazytown.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Nothing is more irritating than knowing exactly where and why a person will react to an issue or a politician and then listen to this person make up nonsense to convince you his blind dislike, or hatred, is actually exclusively grounded in cool, rational thinking.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

You never talk about your cooking anymore, what's your take on the white tuna controversy?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

What do I hate? Who am I railing against?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You've done some crim work. No one trusts the basis for a warrant. Digging into that stuff is where you find all sorts of puffery and bs "evidence" to support the warrant.

This isn't criminal, though, it's national security. Which probably is even greater reason for skepticism, but I don't really know. On the one hand, I suspect FISA judges are pretty open to letting them investigate. On the other, I rather doubt the judges in this particular case would be anything but extremely cautious.

Is the AG acting politically? That's an open question.

It's really not. He obviously put out his summary in an attempt to frame the debate before he was willing to release any of the evidence. He could have waited and just released the redacted report (or, reportedly, just released the unclassified summaries the Mueller team drafted). Literally the only reason to do what he did is to anchor things toward Trump's innocence.

Meet the new boss. He's Joe Biden.

Honestly, I worry that Joe will leave the needed marginal voters at home. Again, those marginal voters are movement types, not whatever "silent majority" is out there.

Heck, the fact that the latter group disagrees with party positions on lots of issues and yet still identifies with the party is a pretty solid indication that they aren't the path for growth.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You never talk about your cooking anymore, what's your take on the white tuna controversy?

Overblown. I mean, I agree in principle that fish should be labeled correctly. But most fish labeled white tuna is actually escolar, which is delicious if you are willing to ignore the possible side effects of eating it, including anal leakage. Speaking of anal leakage, I'm trying to catch up on old Sebastian posts. More later.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Overblown. I mean, I agree in principle that fish should be labeled correctly. But most fish labeled white tuna is actually escolar, which is delicious if you are willing to ignore the possible side effects of eating it, including anal leakage. Speaking of anal leakage, I'm trying to catch up on old Sebastian posts. More later.

Escolar is indeed delicious, but it's oily and so should get a different preparation than albacore. In particular, it shouldn't be canned with additional oils or served in a preparation that doesn't include something acidic to counteract the oil, like a bit of lemon or lime or some nice vinegary little capers. Also, put more salt in escolar dishes than albacore dishes. This should also counteract the "Sebby-effect" of which you complain.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Escolar is indeed delicious, but it's oily and so should get a different preparation than albacore. In particular, it shouldn't be canned with additional oils or served in a preparation that doesn't include something acidic to counteract the oil, like a bit of lemon or lime or some nice vinegary little capers. Also, put more salt in escolar dishes than albacore dishes. This should also counteract the "Sebby-effect" of which you complain.

I forget, where was your itamae training?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I forget, where was your itamae training?

Cambridge and Kyoto.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

What do you call FISA approved warrants and wiretaps? Does the word "surveiled" make you happier?

Yes, there's a big difference, which is why Barr used a word to suggest that law enforcement was acting illegitimately rather than following the proper procedures.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Wasn't it you who assailed Barr for summarizing a report he'd actually seen before releasing all of its contents? And here you are opining that there was no improper surveillance when you have 0000.00 facts on which to base that conclusion. Don't say otherwise. You don't have facts. You have at best your conjecture. You don't know what the FISA courts did, what was requested, who requested it, and whether it was justified. (I know you're thinking of trying to get around this. Stop. You can't. Find another line of response.)

Your need to put intellectual scaffolding behind your "team" instincts is getting old. You don't like Trump. You didn't like Bush. Got it. Fair enough. I don't like them, either. But I also don't feel the need to attack everything they do. (Not that I'm saying you attacked everything Bush did. I probably attacked him more than you.)

Nobody here commented on the Times article I cited stating that most Democrats are moderates and don't give a shit about the stuff we often argue about on this board. I didn't expect many comments because it's kind of cold shower. Kind of underscores the silliness of the arguments we have here, and the idiotic political carping one sees on Twitter or FB. It also makes a lot of the media look foolish for following extremists.

To attack everything Trump does all the time, to attack everything any President does all the time, to find conspiracies within the DOJ, and to preposterously call for prosecution without even knowing the facts, puts you in Crazytown.

Leave Crazytown. Crazytown is bad. Crazytown is the people on Twitter that the Times article advised us The Silent Majority of the Country Ignores.

If you've adopted the notion that all that Trump does must be resisted and everything assiduously criticized, you care too much. It's cuckoo pants thinking. It's why the country ignores you. And the country does ignore you.

Russiagate? Voters don't care.
Stormy and a campaign finance violations? Voters don't care.
Trump's latest dipshit Tweet? Voters don't care.

Voters don't even care about obstruction. In the court of public opinion, if there's no predicate crime, it's a nothing burger. If you don't like that, write an OpEd. (No one will read it.)

Voters care about their economic health. And they - we - are exhausted not only by the endless criticism of Presidents since Clinton, but also by the bullshit intellectual arguments offered to support the near hormonal reactions to these people. We who are cynical about politicians, rightly, don't believe you. We see you have picked a side and dug in, and you reach conclusions first and assemble facts later to support your conclusions. "Whitewater and Vincent Foster!!!" "Bush is going to Iraq for his daddy and oil!" "Obama is playing the race card!" "Trump is evil incarnate."

Enough already. If you've reached the point where you hate every single thing a politician does, even if it's neutral, you need to put away the keyboard. If you've reached the point that you seethe at someone for even suggesting your opposition to a politician is partly unwarranted or a bit unhinged, it's time to turn off your news feed. If you reach the point that you're opining that the head of DOJ is in a conspiracy with the President and that people should be prosecuted, without any evidence to support this, you need help. If you do that while out of the other side of your mouth saying, again without evidence, that there is no credibility to any allegation of improper surveillance, you need a straight jacket.

Ask yourself, if in 2021, after Trump is gone, we discover that a FISA court allowed the FBI to engage in surveillance on a Democratic candidate, whether you'd be so quick to brush it off. You wouldn't be. You'd howl for justice. Why? Because you've picked a side, and you'll build whatever intellectual scaffolding you need to give your side a pass and deny all passes to the other side.

I only use "you" out of convenience. The behavior I see here is engaged in by almost everyone with a hard-on for politics. Which is why so many of the people in that Times article, Ds, Rs, and Independents, ignore you. Nothing is more irritating than knowing exactly where and why a person will react to an issue or a politician and then listen to this person make up nonsense to convince you his blind dislike, or hatred, is actually exclusively grounded in cool, rational thinking. Sure, some of it is. But if you're in the "resistance" camp, or near it, in regard to any politician, it isn't. It's the lizard brain hijacking the higher functions.

This is the worst kind of mindless ad hominem bullshit. The facts here have been reported at great length. If you haven't been paying attention, that's your choice.

eta:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Nobody here commented on the Times article I cited stating that most Democrats are moderates and don't give a shit about the stuff we often argue about on this board. I didn't expect many comments because it's kind of cold shower.

It's only a cold shower if it's really important to you to have the same opinions as everyone else. Not sure why that's so important to you, but it's not to me.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Adder

This isn't criminal, though, it's national security. Which probably is even greater reason for skepticism, but I don't really know. On the one hand, I suspect FISA judges are pretty open to letting them investigate. On the other, I rather doubt the judges in this particular case would be anything but extremely cautious.

I thought I had read once that the FISA court had only denied 3 warrant applications, but I appear to be wrong - https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...arrants-2017-/