[hrothgar]

rmnka447, on 2018-February-11, 13:39, said:

Michelle Obama said "We're different. We go high when they go low." She was wrong as hrothgar proves time and again.

You may be frustrated that the other side does accept your "wisdom" or buy into your fantasies, but that's no reason to demean or say derogatory things about those with whom you disagree or hate.

Clean your act up and be civil.

Actually, my comment was intended as a constructive part of the conversation.

Its fairly well known that Graham is a closeted homosexual.

The conservatives in his district are willing to keep electing him to congress so long as he is deep in the closet, but there's no way that he'd survive a primary challenge if this were brought out into the open.

There's a lot of speculation that the main subject of conversation during that golfing outing when Graham suddenly had his "come to Jesus" moment and completely reverse his positions regarding Trump was when Trump started actively blackmailing Graham.

I readily admit that my framing was rather crude. Wouldn't be the first time. Its also far from the first time that such a comment has been made
https://twitter.com/...258218910633984

(And for the record, I'm most certainly don't hold myself to Michelle Obama's standards. I'm much more of the "If a conservative is drowning, toss him an anvil school")

And, in case it isn't clear, I don't give a f*ck about you, your opinions, or your sanctimonious little instructions

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2018-February-11, 14:00, said:

Yep, it's the typical progressive conjecture. It's amazing how often claims of impending charges and indictments have been made by the left to no avail so far. But hey, you've got to keep the troops fired up about Russian collusion.

I'll just sit and await to see what the Special Counsel comes up in his findings at the end of the investigation.

The point is an acknowledgement that unless criminality can be proven, there is no way to impeach and convict in the Senate by politics alone; however, what you seemed to have missed is that the Russia part of the criminality investigation is about conspiracy with crimes that have already been proven to have been committed.

First, here are the crimes:

Quote

[It] started with Russians violating the federal computer crime statute, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, by hacking into the computers at the Democratic National Committee and stealing emails that were then distributed publicly by Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks—both linked to Russians— in ways that hurt Clinton. According to the Department of Homeland Security, Russia also tried to penetrate the voting systems of 21 states.

And here is an explanation of criminal conspiracy for juries:

Quote

Conspiracy is a much broader crime than is generally understood. The guidelines for judges who instruct juries say that the prosecution need only prove that there was “a mutual understanding, either spoken or unspoken, [Emphasis added] between two or more people to cooperate with each other to accomplish an unlawful act.”

It doesn’t matter whether the “mutual understanding” was before, during or after the crime was committed. “It is not necessary that a defendant be fully informed of all the details of the conspiracy, or all of its participants,” the model jury instructions continue. “You need not find that the alleged members of the conspiracy met together and entered into any express or formal agreement.”

Under the so-called “doctrine of willful blindness,” reinforced by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in a majority opinion in 2011, juries are instructed to “consider whether the defendant deliberately closed his eyes to what would otherwise be obvious to him.”

Although I agree that until the investigation is over we will not get the big picture, I also think it ludicrous to ignore the administration's attempts to sidetrack or kill the investigation or to ignore the public domain facts that demonstrate attempts to hide contacts or otherwise mislead the public.

When you understand that there already have been crimes committed by Russian hackers, and you see and understand the criminal conspiracy jury instructions, it gives a better understanding of why the president and this White House are so adamant about stopping the investigation into its behavior concerning Russia and Russians.

Only presidential parrots still chirp about campaign collusion with the Russians; no one else cares.
The genuine question is whether or not there was a conspiracy by the president or his advisers with a known crime or crimes, either before or after that crime or those crimes were committed.

Once you have that understanding, the meeting by McFredo Jr., Manafort, and Kushner with Russians to discuss "dirt" collected by the Russians whose government supported McFredo looks much more ominous.

[rmnka447]

cherdano, on 2018-February-11, 13:43, said:

Oh - hi rmnka! Nice to have you back! I was wondering - a lot of people made a case against your characterisations of the Nunes memo. Did you have any chance to read these posts, and perhaps make a substantive reply? Otherwise, some might get the impression that you are only hear to (re-)produce sound bites, not to actually engage in any of the issues.

I saw a couple, but the recent turn in the conversation here from debate to nasty demeaning/derogatory comments concerning conservatives and the President has been disturbing. They show a complete closed mindedness that makes one wonder if it's even worth the effort to try to have a dialogue.

BTW, this might be useful to read if you haven't already done so, it's the Grassley-Graham referral for investigation of Christopher Steele that sent back by the DOJ after much of the previous redactions were removed. That was drafted and sent to the DOJ several months ago long before the Nunes memo was being drafted. https://www.judiciar...eele%20Referral).pdf

In its own way, it sheds some light on some of the issues brought up by the Nunes memo.

I'd like to reply, but digging the plethora of repugnant posts to get at the relevant discussion is getting tiresome. At times, too, I have better things to do like play bridge and attend to other important
aspects of my life.

[rmnka447]

hrothgar, on 2018-February-11, 14:06, said:

Actually, my comment was intended as a constructive part of the conversation.

Its fairly well known that Graham is a closeted homosexual.

The conservatives in his district are willing to keep electing him to congress so long as he is deep in the closet, but there's no way that he'd survive a primary challenge if this were brought out into the open.

There's a lot of speculation that the main subject of conversation during that golfing outing when Graham suddenly had his "come to Jesus" moment and completely reverse his positions regarding Trump was when Trump started actively blackmailing Graham.

I readily admit that my framing was rather crude. Wouldn't be the first time. Its also far from the first time that such a comment has been made
https://twitter.com/...258218910633984

(And for the record, I'm most certainly don't hold myself to Michelle Obama's standards. I'm much more of the "If a conservative is drowning, toss him an anvil school")

And, in case it isn't clear, I don't give a f*ck about you, your opinions, or your sanctimonious little instructions

Well, these comments are very revealing and need no further comment.

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on 2018-February-11, 14:15, said:

The point is an acknowledgement that unless criminality can be proven, there is no way to impeach and convict in the Senate by politics alone; however, what you seemed to have missed is that the Russia part of the criminality investigation is about conspiracy with crimes that have already been proven to have been committed.

Not that I disagree with any of the statements that you're making, however, I expect that crux of Mueller's case will be related to money laundering (potentially involving the National Rifle Organization)

I also expect Trump's real estate dealings will start coming to the forefront...

[ggwhiz]

rmnka447, on 2018-February-11, 13:39, said:

You may be frustrated that the other side does accept your "wisdom" or buy into your fantasies, but that's no reason to demean or say derogatory things about those with whom you disagree or hate.

Clean your act up and be civil.

Oh that more Republicans would say that to Trump. That is who you were talking to, right?

It is Trump who has infected the discourse, on purpose and he's relentless. Surely we can agree on that. Politics is a blood sport and you don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

[hrothgar]

rmnka447, on 2018-February-11, 14:47, said:

Well, these comments are very revealing and need no further comment.

At last, I feel like we're communicating...

[andrei]

ggwhiz, on 2018-February-11, 15:01, said:

Oh that more Republicans would say that to Trump. That is who you were talking to, right?

It is Trump who has infected the discourse, on purpose and he's relentless. Surely we can agree on that. Politics is a blood sport and you don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

Do you mean to say that hrothgar started spewing vulgarities only after Trump came to the stage?
He is doing it since the beginning of mankind (err... peoplekind).

[jjbrr]

rmnka447, on 2018-February-11, 14:41, said:

I saw a couple, but the recent turn in the conversation here from debate to nasty demeaning/derogatory comments concerning conservatives and the President has been disturbing. They show a complete closed mindedness that makes one wonder if it's even worth the effort to try to have a dialogue.

BTW, this might be useful to read if you haven't already done so, it's the Grassley-Graham referral for investigation of Christopher Steele that sent back by the DOJ after much of the previous redactions were removed. That was drafted and sent to the DOJ several months ago long before the Nunes memo was being drafted. https://www.judiciar...eele%20Referral).pdf

In its own way, it sheds some light on some of the issues brought up by the Nunes memo.

I'd like to reply, but digging the plethora of repugnant posts to get at the relevant discussion is getting tiresome. At times, too, I have better things to do like play bridge and attend to other important
aspects of my life.

great, no one is going to miss you. in fact, we look forward to not seeing any more of your posts.

thanks and take care!

[PassedOut]

rmnka447, on 2018-February-11, 14:41, said:

I saw a couple, but the recent turn in the conversation here from debate to nasty demeaning/derogatory comments concerning conservatives and the President has been disturbing. They show a complete closed mindedness that makes one wonder if it's even worth the effort to try to have a dialogue.

It's interesting that Trump supporters -- of all people -- are so very, very sensitive to any slight that it impedes their ability to communicate. Seems that they run back to their "safe spaces" where they can bash Hillary and reporters without having to fear contradiction. It's interesting, yes, but not surprising.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2018-February-11, 14:51, said:

Not that I disagree with any of the statements that you're making, however, I expect that crux of Mueller's case will be related to money laundering (potentially involving the National Rifle Organization)

I also expect Trump's real estate dealings will start coming to the forefront...

I think it will be easier to find evidence of money laundering and other crimes than proving conspiracy because of the nature of the conspiracy if it occurred.

[ggwhiz]

andrei, on 2018-February-11, 17:07, said:

Do you mean to say that hrothgar started spewing vulgarities only after Trump came to the stage?
He is doing it since the beginning of mankind (err... peoplekind).

Reminds me of an old Bill Cosby routine where they held an historical coin flip.

In the war of independence, the settlers won and got to hide behind trees and shoot whenever and then run away. The
British had to wear bright red and march in a straight line.

[Winstonm]

And, for what it is worth, Carter Page had four FISA warrants approved, only the last one was approved by Rod Rosenstein.

Quote

According to a Wall Street Journal report, Carter Page was on the radar of the FBI since 2013 “when Russian spies made an attempt to recruit him.” However, for some undetermined reason the FBI waited until October 21st, 2016, to apply for Title I surveillance authority through the FISA court.

Additionally, according to their reporting, after FISC approval there were three more renewal applications for a total of four submissions to the FISA court. A source tells the Journal all four FBI requests were reviewed by four different judges:

[barmar]

rmnka447, on 2018-February-11, 14:41, said:

I saw a couple, but the recent turn in the conversation here from debate to nasty demeaning/derogatory comments concerning conservatives and the President has been disturbing. They show a complete closed mindedness that makes one wonder if it's even worth the effort to try to have a dialogue.

I've been thinking the same thing for a while, but enough posters seem to be posting meaningful, reasonable messages than I haven't shut down the thread. And even if I did, it would probably just migrate to another thread.

But I definitely think the hrothgar vs. ldrews stuff is totally unproductive, especially when Richard descends into calling Larry derogatory names. And IMHO, an annoying troll is more acceptable than a nasty a-hole.

[jjbrr]

barmar, on 2018-February-12, 09:51, said:

I've been thinking the same thing for a while, but enough posters seem to be posting meaningful, reasonable messages than I haven't shut down the thread. And even if I did, it would probably just migrate to another thread.

But I definitely think the hrothgar vs. ldrews stuff is totally unproductive, especially when Richard descends into calling Larry derogatory names. And IMHO, an annoying troll is more acceptable than a nasty a-hole.

you're wrong, obviously, and that's lazy moderation. if you take care of the trolls, the "unproductive" content goes away. shocking.

[barmar]

jjbrr, on 2018-February-12, 09:55, said:

you're wrong, obviously, and that's lazy moderation. if you take care of the trolls, the "unproductive" content goes away. shocking.

If I get rid of the trolls, will there be any discussion at all?

[cherdano]

barmar, on 2018-February-12, 10:00, said:

If I get rid of the trolls, will there be any discussion at all?

Yes.

[jjbrr]

barmar, on 2018-February-12, 10:00, said:

If I get rid of the trolls, will there be any discussion at all?

lol, jesus.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2018-February-12, 10:00, said:

If I get rid of the trolls, will there be any discussion at all?

If there is, great.

If there is not, then what kind of value are you actually providing?

[jjbrr]

jjbrr, on 2018-February-12, 10:05, said:

lol, jesus.

I'll qualify this comment with productive content. Barmar, if this were the climate change thread, it would be a different story. Nothing has really changed for some years and discussion is fairly monotone there. Some dissenting opinion is perhaps necessary to keep conversation going (if the goal is to keep conversation going; sometimes threads naturally run their course).

This is the Trump thread; there are multiple scandals literally every day. I understand your concern that this will become an echo chamber itself of people who all share a set of generally common beliefs, but to suggest that there won't be conversation is crazy. I don't think there's any question that conflicting opinions are welcome here, but trolls should not be. It doesn't improve conversation when ldrews parrots the same talking points he's posted here many times that he saw on the TV a year ago. We all know how it goes; jobs are great, economy is great, the immigration problem is solved, etc etc. Yeah, that's just what this thread needs. Inane, mindless nonsense.