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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No, you aren't. Here they are. It only took me about five seconds to go back and find that post. You can do it too.

The words which you wrote (as opposed to those of another which you’d previously cited), and to which I responded, are in bold in my recent reply to you. Go back and lookup those. They’re even easier to locate as they’re more recent.

Assuming you observe linear conversation progression. If you require me in all responses to reply to what another wrote while chiding me for not replying to what you wrote, and you wish me to reply to the initial post as well as all following posts in each reply, we may require a slightly different board.

And substantively, I unintentionally did reply to that quote. The quote, like you, frames a political power struggle as a battle between warriors for the “rule of law” and an awful president subverting it. It’s either wildly deluded or incredibly cynical. I can’t tell which, but we needn’t reach that issue as it can be dismissed on the basis of what it unquestionably is: Political.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You have to be kidding. You do not see the difference between an experienced prosecutor and member of the opposition party concluding that no prosecutor would charge and Barr, having auditioned for the job by calling the investigation invalid, doing what he was hired to do, arguably in direct conflict with the report itself? (Oh, which he did without reviewing any of the underlying evidence too.) Man.



Yes, if she did a thing that nobody ever claimed she did, she should have been prosecuted. Great.



Like, what kind of leeway? And what did she so to obstruct the investigation? And which investigation, because wasn't the deletion before the investigation into the deletion?

And she didn't need leeway. She didn't do anything meaningfully wrong.

No, technical non-compliance with government records processes when government systems weren't up to the task doesn't count.

Under the rules of this political/legal game, a pass is a pass. Trump’s from Barr and Rosenstein works as well as Hillary’s from Comey. The measure is effectiveness. Neither is going to be indicted. What you or I think is immaterial.

I didn’t say she needed leeway. But the argument against her was that she purposefully erased in violation of compliance rules because it’s better to deal with that hard to prove allegation than deal with a release of all those emails. Regarding advance notice, a politician at that level, running for President no less, is aware of even the hint of an investigation way ahead of it reaching her. They have loads of people placed in positions to know about and address this stuff in an effective manner while still being able to assert plausible deniability.

I suspect her people also knew the server was an issue from the start. So they did the smart thing and Frank Quattroned it. I’ll bet Trump did the same thing with a Trump server after he was elected.

But I don’t know if she did that and it’s immaterial because even if she did, the investigations - all of them - were tainted by politics. So it’d fall under leeway granted a politician in an invalid investigation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The words which you wrote (as opposed to those of another which you’d previously cited), and to which I responded, are in bold in my recent reply to you. Go back and lookup those. They’re even easier to locate as they’re more recent.

Assuming you observe linear conversation progression. If you require me in all responses to reply to what another wrote while chiding me for not replying to what you wrote, and you wish me to reply to the initial post as well as all following posts in each reply, we may require a slightly different board.

And substantively, I unintentionally did reply to that quote. The quote, like you, frames a political power struggle as a battle between warriors for the “rule of law” and an awful president subverting it. It’s either wildly deluded or incredibly cynical. I can’t tell which, but we needn’t reach that issue as it can be dismissed on the basis of what it unquestionably is: Political.

OK, whatever. Good talking to you.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No, you aren't. Here they are. It only took me about five seconds to go back and find that post. You can do it too.

Why? His argument is as follows: 'Dems are using the concept of "the rule of law" to cover for the fact that they are just trying to use whatever tools they have to attack a man who they lost to politically. Besides the rule of law really just exists as a tool for whoever is currently in power. And even if it didn't, you code use the code to take down anyone if you really wanted to. So, forget the substance of anything that's happened before during or after the election because my head is up my ass and I can craft an argument I think is clever in an effort to prove that I care about nothing even though I consistently parrot the lunatic right's objectively ridiculous talking points.'

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Why? His argument is as follows: 'Dems are using the concept of "the rule of law" to cover for the fact that they are just trying to use whatever tools they have to attack a man who they lost to politically. Besides the rule of law really just exists as a tool for whoever is currently in power. And even if it didn't, you code use the code to take down anyone if you really wanted to. So, forget the substance of anything that's happened before during or after the election because my head is up my ass and I can craft an argument I think is clever in an effort to prove that I care about nothing even though I consistently parrot the lunatic right's objectively ridiculous talking points.

TM

This is rich. You’re basically a walking collection of left wing talking points. If this were a conservative or even moderate board, that last criticism would be used on you daily.

Your head is so polluted with left wing talking points anything that disagrees with them is a right wing talking point. Even when the alleged right wing talking point I offered today regarding Sztrock and McCabe actually came from an Anderson Cooper interview with James Comey.

You’re comical.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Why? His argument is as follows: 'Dems are using the concept of "the rule of law" to cover for the fact that they are just trying to use whatever tools they have to attack a man who they lost to politically. Besides the rule of law really just exists as a tool for whoever is currently in power. And even if it didn't, you code use the code to take down anyone if you really wanted to. So, forget the substance of anything that's happened before during or after the election because my head is up my ass and I can craft an argument I think is clever in an effort to prove that I care about nothing even though I consistently parrot the lunatic right's objectively ridiculous talking points.'

TM

The thing Josh pointed out, which has been sitting out there in plain sight, is the way Trump and his allies have gone after and exacted a personal toll from people who were doing their jobs.

[Ty@50]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

OK, whatever. Good talking to you.

What I (we?) came to realize is that no one else had to keep quoting what they said to let people know what they meant. Once I realized that I bought a vineyard- I (we?) realized we really cannot articulate thoughts well enough for this lawyer stuff.

I have to run. The vines on my south 40 have rot that I find really bothersome. I'm going to my virtual vintner page and hit "delete" on all plants that I feel threatening.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This is rich. You’re basically a walking collection of left wing talking points. If this were a conservative or even moderate board, that last criticism would be used on you daily.

Your head is so polluted with left wing talking points anything that disagrees with them is a right wing talking point. Even when the alleged right wing talking point I offered today regarding Sztrock and McCabe actually came from an Anderson Cooper interview with James Comey.

You’re comical.

The idea that Pete Strzok's texts discredit the investigation as politically motivated is conservative junk that you apparently buy. Comey is right that Strzok shouldn't have texted what he texted, but Comey did not say that Strzok's views delegitimize the work of the investigation, which is what you have suggested.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The idea that Pete Strzok's texts discredit the investigation as politically motivated is conservative junk that you apparently buy. Comey is right that Strzok shouldn't have texted what he texted, but Comey did not say that Strzok's views delegitimize the work of the investigation, which is what you have suggested.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But the argument against her was that she purposefully erased in violation of compliance rules because it’s better to deal with that hard to prove allegation than deal with a release of all those emails.

Except that no one with knowledge of the facts actually alleged that, so okay.

I suspect her people also knew the server was an issue from the start. So they did the smart thing and Frank Quattroned it.

Deleting all of the personal/irrelevant emails is a really strange way to conduct a cover-up.

But I don’t know if she did that and it’s immaterial because even if she did, the investigations - all of them - were tainted by politics.

You're confusing "motivated by politics only" and "having political implications." Neither is grounds for leeway. Pretty much exactly the opposite for anyone who is less amoral than you.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This is rich. You’re basically a walking collection of left wing talking points.

He doesn't pose as objective and above it all.

Even when the alleged right wing talking point I offered today regarding Sztrock and McCabe actually came from an Anderson Cooper interview with James Comey.

Which did not say that Sztrock "used the investigation for political ends...."

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This is rich. You’re basically a walking collection of left wing talking points. If this were a conservative or even moderate board, that last criticism would be used on you daily.

Yep. You nailed it.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Your head is so polluted with left wing talking points anything that disagrees with them is a right wing talking point.

Incorrect. The shit you've posted over the last few weeks is so monumentally stupid that I'd love to attribute it to you. But it's not possible. "Barr would never risk his integrity." "Mueller found no evidence of collusion." "Maybe there was obstruction but you could charge anyone with that." "What about the improper surveillance into Trump?" You're a fucking clown dupe. And you repeat stupid shit.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You’re comical.

You're a moron.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The idea that Pete Strzok's texts discredit the investigation as politically motivated is conservative junk that you apparently buy. Comey is right that Strzok shouldn't have texted what he texted, but Comey did not say that Strzok's views delegitimize the work of the investigation, which is what you have suggested.

Are you serious? If the shoe were on the other foot here and Strzok's texts were exchanged in regard to Hillary's campaign, you and everyone here would be claiming the investigation was tainted. I'm not even touching what McCabe did. You'd consider that a hanging offense.

Yes, Strzok's texts tainted the investigation. Comey said as much when he stated that it's a grievous offense for an agent to allow his personal views to infect his work. And god only knows what Sztrok said and thought, which we'll never know as we've only a limited insight based on his texts (which are already bad enough). Additionally, Sztrok has terrible judgment. To put that stuff in a text - to another agent - is insanely stupid. A person doing something so dumb has either: (1) Serious hatred for the target which is clouding his judgment; or, (2) Is not terribly intelligent. If it's 1, he should have recused himself from the investigation and acted unethically in not doing so. If 2, he's the sort of unwise person who'd think he could get away with documenting his bias during an investigation of a presidential candidate and not have it come out later. It's 1 or 2 or both, and that scenario is a tainted investigation.

And note, I'm not saying the investigation was initiated on tainted bases. We don't know that, and since it was a reasonable counterintelligence project at the start, we have to assume for now that it was legitimate, as we've no proof to the contrary. All we do know, and this is not open to debate, is that at the point in which Sztrok and Page were exchanging those texts, the investigation was tainted. By logical extension, assuming Sztrok and Page did not only hold animus toward Trump during the period those texts were exchanged, we can assume that at all times they were involved, the investigation was tainted.

And finally, and most importantly, to suggest that Sztrok's and Page's animus was not a factor, and did not dispose them toward trying to nail Trump where they might otherwise have a neutral and detached approach strains credulity. They're humans with very strong biases (based on their own words). And the ways in which an agent can shade an investigation's findings (where they're smart enough not to document animus toward the target in texts on agency phones) are endless and impossible to tease out by by post hoc audit. Defense of them on the basis they each observed internal Chinese walls strains credulity.

TM asserted I have a horse in this race. He's right. But it isn't Trump. It's proving this:

1. You have a horse in the race, and it's toppling Trump;
2. You are not merely looking at investigations here and making reasonable conclusions;
3. You are prejudging outcomes (either what you think they are, or what you think they should be -- in all cases finding Trump and his people culpable) and then fitting the facts (even the ones that don't fit) to your conclusions (granted, Trump gives you more than enough to do this).

1-3 are what people do when they've picked a side politically. When you think politically, you don't think factually. (There's a meta point in there about why our adversarial two party system delivers such shit candidates and so much dysfunction, but that's for a later date.)

I see almost no difference between the thinking of those who attacked Bill Clinton in 1997 and the people here attacking Trump. Hank really drove it home for me when he said "the stakes are too high this time." I heard that exact line used by the people who bought into Scaife's crusade against Clinton in 1997. "The stakes are too high... He's debasing the Presidency, and we'll never recover from it." It's the political mind, the ideological mind, overtaking the rational mind. Scaife is dead, Clinton survived, and the only thing we haven't recovered from is the rotten tribal politics Scaife and Gingrich loosed on the Republic.

Kill Trump at the ballot box. This stuff is all bullshit. My horse is reminding you of that.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

"Barr would never risk his integrity."

I was wrong there, but that was my prediction. That's not borrowed.

"Mueller found no evidence of collusion."

He found no evidence of criminal conspiracy. That is a fact. Collusion has no meaning, except to people parroting left wing talking points, like you, to whom it means "quasi-crime" or some other bullshit thing Adam Schiff invented, and you swallow.

"Maybe there was obstruction but you could charge anyone with that."

This is true. Ever dealt with a fed criminal prosecution?

"What about the improper surveillance into Trump?"

What about it? I don't know about it. All I know is they're looking into it. What do you know that I don't know? Are you clerking for the FISA court? Having drinks with Sztrok?

You hate Trump and you prejudge things based on that bias.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You're a fucking clown dupe.

I think this is unfair to clowns. Don't get me wrong, I am as guilty as you are. I too have called Sebastian a "clown," a "demented clown," "Bozo the Sad Clown Sean Hannity caricature," the "delusional leader of a broken down right wing clown show," an "emasculated rodeo clown narcissist," and various other clown slurs.

But the truth is, almost every clown I have ever encountered is just some person in make up and a red nose, trying to make children laugh with slapstick antics. I have never known a clown to lie to me. I've never heard a clown proudly announce that he does not have a duty to show empathy to other human beings. No actual clown I know has ever made up facts out of thin air in order to support a dubious argument, or erect an army of straw men to gleefully knock down, or thoroughly misrepresent what he and others said previously in order to farcically claim victory in an online debate. No clown I have encountered would ever say he cannot find the motivation to be concerned about the plight of historically oppressed groups so long as his tax burden is going down. Sebastian does all of these things pretty much every week.

Anyway, you can do what you want of course, but I am going to refrain from calling Sebastian a clown in the future. Because I think I owe that to the clowns.