Trump as tragicomedy

[Maddy]

I'm happy to let anyone who wants to stew in their juices over the fact that their side lost the election do so. But it'll be a cold day in Hell when I sit idly by while they take down our constitutional system of justice because of it.

Just curious: Do any of the left-leaning members of this forum have anything to say in defense of the secret tribunals known as "FISA courts?" Or about warrantless surveillance deemed justifiable because the evidence is kept under "mask" until needed?

[moda0306]

I'm happy to let anyone who wants to stew in their juices over the fact that their side lost the election do so. But it'll be a cold day in Hell when I sit idly by while they take down our constitutional system of justice because of it.

Just curious: Do any of the left-leaning members of this forum have anything to say in defense of the secret tribunals known as "FISA courts?" Or about warrantless surveillance deemed justifiable because the evidence is kept under "mask" until needed?

Maddy,

To your question about FISA courts, I'm pretty firmly in opposition to them. I leave a crack in the door for a national security statist that can actually produce a decent argument for them in full context of risks we face.

I'm probably "left-leaning." Although this forum brings out the lefty in me a lot more than when I debate my liberal friends.

[Maddy]

Could you please post or re-post a source that shows how this investigation is unjust in some material way?

How about we start with you stating exactly what crimes are the legitimate subject of this investigation, and exactly what evidence of those crimes has been adduced? Because the biggest injustice of all may be the fact that this was never anything more than a wild fishing expedition.

To your question about FISA courts, I'm pretty firmly in opposition to them. I leave a crack in the door for a national security statist that can actually produce a decent argument for them in full context of risks we face.

I appreciate your consistency on that point and respect you for it.

[moda0306]

Could you please post or re-post a source that shows how this investigation is unjust in some material way?

How about we start with you stating exactly what crimes are the legitimate subject of this investigation, and exactly what evidence of those crimes has been adduced? Because the biggest injustice of all may be the fact that this was never anything more than a wild fishing expedition.

To your question about FISA courts, I'm pretty firmly in opposition to them. I leave a crack in the door for a national security statist that can actually produce a decent argument for them in full context of risks we face.

I appreciate your consistency on that point and respect you for it.

My interpretation was that there were reports from intelligence agencies that "Russia" possibly tried to meddle in U.S. elections, and the investigation was of them doing this, with the possibility (or probability, if you're inclined to believe it) that it would lead to Trump campaign/admin officials. Even if it didn't even breach Trump, this wasn't the point. The point was that Russia possibly meddled in our elections. And though I'll be the first to say that the U.S. has done this for decades to other countries, I still think it's reasonable to expect an investigation when a country does this to us.

Am I way far off either in-fact or opinion here? This all (so-far) seems like pretty standard, agreeable stuff. I'm open to other interpretations, though, if you can either articulate them or provide the sources. But I think if there's anything an intelligence agency has the duty to investigate, it would be foreign countries trying to influence democratic processes within your country.

Where things get into the weeds is how this investigation should proceed into admin/campaign officials as it shows that they had ties to the Russian meddling. If THIS is where you think the investigation took a grossly inappropriate turn, then I'd imagine the Flynn indictment is key, and I'd be interested to hear your take on that particular piece. And Flynn just pled guilty to lying to the FBI... so how do you see that in the context of all this?

[moda0306]

Could you please post or re-post a source that shows how this investigation is unjust in some material way?

How about we start with you stating exactly what crimes are the legitimate subject of this investigation, and exactly what evidence of those crimes has been adduced? Because the biggest injustice of all may be the fact that this was never anything more than a wild fishing expedition.

To your question about FISA courts, I'm pretty firmly in opposition to them. I leave a crack in the door for a national security statist that can actually produce a decent argument for them in full context of risks we face.

I appreciate your consistency on that point and respect you for it.

I'd be surprised if any self-respecting civil-libertarian would be afraid to express extreme skepticism towards those courts' legitimacy.

But then again I've seen self-ascribed anarchists worship Trump, so my radar's a bit off.

[Maddy]

My interpretation was that there were reports from intelligence agencies that "Russia" possibly tried to meddle in U.S. elections, and the investigation was of them doing this, with the possibility (or probability, if you're inclined to believe it) that it would lead to Trump campaign/admin officials. Even if it didn't even breach Trump, this wasn't the point. The point was that Russia possibly meddled in our elections. And though I'll be the first to say that the U.S. has done this for decades to other countries, I still think it's reasonable to expect an investigation when a country does this to us.

Well, "meddling" isn't a crime. What, specifically, was believed to have occurred that amounted to a crime? But more to the point, what actual evidence did Mueller have of an actual crime being committed? And why, when the "evidence" he was relying upon repeatedly failed to pan out, did he simply launch a new and different investigation? Even Alan Dershowitz is scratching his head over this one.

[Libertarian666]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/24214/mue ... =position1 probably a to right wing source for some, but i don't see a lot of hyperbole in the article.

It is obviously a witch hunt with no actual crimes being investigated other than those caused by the investigation itself.

However, it is a good reminder (if one was needed) of the danger in talking to law enforcement, especially the FBI, without one's lawyer present to advise.

[Kriegsspiel]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/24214/mue ... =position1 probably a to right wing source for some, but i don't see a lot of hyperbole in the article.

It is obviously a witch hunt with no actual crimes being investigated other than those caused by the investigation itself.

From what I have seen, this seems to be the case.

However, it is a good reminder (if one was needed) of the danger in talking to law enforcement, especially the FBI, without one's lawyer present to advise.

Yup.

[Maddy]

It is obviously a witch hunt with no actual crimes being investigated other than those caused by the investigation itself.

Well said. If the FBI appeared on your doorstep, announced that you were under federal criminal investigation, and asked you when your last bowel movement was, I do believe most people would lie. I saw this over and over in the context of depositions. People get scared, they don't know where you're going with your questions, they think you're trying to trick them, so they reflexively lie about things that are completely inconsequential. Hell, half the time they lie even when the truth is more favorable to them.

[Kriegsspiel]

If the FBI appeared on your doorstep, announced that you were under federal criminal investigation, and asked you when your last bowel movement was, I do believe most people would lie.

Not me. I'd be so explicit, I'd make the FBI uncomfortable. I'd even throw a little tax law into it.

"Yes sir, lentils, and lot's of em. I call them LLCs, because they're a pass-through entity."

[Libertarian666]

It is obviously a witch hunt with no actual crimes being investigated other than those caused by the investigation itself.

Well said. If the FBI appeared on your doorstep, announced that you were under federal criminal investigation, and asked you when your last bowel movement was, I do believe most people would lie. I saw this over and over in the context of depositions. People get scared, they don't know where you're going with your questions, they think you're trying to trick them, so they reflexively lie about things that are completely inconsequential. Hell, half the time they lie even when the truth is more favorable to them.

The only thing I would say is "I'm calling my lawyer". And I have his phone number memorized, just in case.

[moda0306]

Maddy,

I meant meddling as a general term. So you don't think there should even be an investigation into Russia at all? It's ok to make clear points. But I don't know what you are saying when you just ask loaded questions.

Please post some sources. Ones you've found useful in digesting this. I'm not an expert on the Russia investigation. My disdain for Trump is based on much simpler inputs such as everything I've seen him say or do.

I've tried to do a small bit of diving into this Russia stuff, but the only reasonable positions I can make out are that of Glenn Greenwald, who still rightfully thinks Trump is one of the most contemptible people one could have in office, but won't accept without evidence Russia hyperbole.

To me there are huge reasons to dislike Trump without Russia so i really don't have much of a horse in this race.

[dualstow]

One thing I hate about Trump is his pardoning of Sheriff Arpaio.

(Libertarian666, to ochotona)
Now let's see your itemized list, based on facts rather than unbacked assertions, of why you hate Trump

[Maddy]

I meant meddling as a general term. So you don't think there should even be an investigation into Russia at all?

When it comes to Russia's supposed meddling in the election, I've never seen anything but wild, totally ungrounded speculation. Nor have I ever been able to discern exactly what the Russians were supposed to have done. It's been an continually evolving storyline.

So no, I see no reason for an investigation--much less an investigation pointed unilaterally at a political enemy.

[dualstow]

One thing I hate about Trump is his pardoning of Sheriff Arpaio.

(Libertarian666, to ochotona)
Now let's see your itemized list, based on facts rather than unbacked assertions, of why you hate Trump

I can come up with a much longer and more serious list than that for any previous President in my lifetime, and I'll bet you could too.

I’m not in a hurry. You asked ocho, not me. More importantly, I don’t need to try and convince a Trump supporter that Trump is no good for the U.S. That’d be a lost cause. It’s just one thing that immediately came to mind.

[moda0306]

I meant meddling as a general term. So you don't think there should even be an investigation into Russia at all?

When it comes to Russia's supposed meddling in the election, I've never seen anything but wild, totally ungrounded speculation. Nor have I ever been able to discern exactly what the Russians were supposed to have done. It's been an continually evolving storyline.

So no, I see no reason for an investigation--much less an investigation pointed unilaterally at a political enemy.

So do you have sources that have helped you look at this situation from multiple angles?

For most meaningful positions I have I can name people that have helped color it. Or at least an assembly of a few plus some glue of my own Wiley brain. Idk am I alone here?

[dualstow]

Ok, whatever you say.

ok, thank you for being patronizing.

[Libertarian666]

Ok, whatever you say.

ok, thank you for being patronizing.

You're quite welcome!

[Maddy]

So do you have sources that have helped you look at this situation from multiple angles?

I think you have your logic backwards. I'm saying that I've seen absolutely nothing in the way of credible evidence that would support a criminal investigation. What source could I possibly cite to establish the absence of evidence?

Moda, you seem to believe that there was sufficient evidence of a crime on the part of the Trump team to warrant an investigation--and for that matter, a "no scorched earth" investigation of such breadth that it no longer had any particular focus. Since that's the positive assertion we're talking about, please tell us: What is the evidence that warranted this investigation?

[moda0306]

Maddy,

The investigation wasn't sourced at Trump I thought (as I thought I made clear in my post). It was sourced at Russian "meddling" in the election. Not that the Trump admin was complicit. But I'll gather some sources. Most of my sources are podcasts so I'll have to go back and dig into THEIR sources.

But I want to be clear... I'm not very sure Russia or Trump did anything illegal or that there was evidence of it.

My only caveat that would be perhaps an investigation of a foreign nation trying to affect our elections is warranted regardless of legality. I'll get back to ya.

[moda0306]

But Maddy when you say "I haven't seen evidence," where do you look for evidence. Are we privy to the details of it? You must at least TRY to get information from places.

Are you telling me your opinion of this Russia investigation is colored by the fact that you "haven't seen evidence" and no other sources of analysis?

To give you an alternate that hopefully will illustrate my confusion... I haven't "seen evidence" that the NSA spied on americans. I've just heard lots of arguments and counter-arguments that have colored my understanding of the facts and opinion of the implications.

There have to be sources coloring your view on reality just as I have some.

[Kriegsspiel]

There are many connections and meetings between Trump's inner circle and Russia during the election, and it's a fact that Russia intervened in our election process on behalf of Trump. I expect Mueller to stay on this until the truth comes out.

Similar to Maddy, what exactly happened that was illegal (other than maybe.. the Logan Act??) Googling "Russia Election Interference" doesn't really lead to anything, except that it was (might have been?) a Russian who hacked/released the DNC emails. Personally, I'm for more transparency so I DGAF about that; it's not like the hacker MADE UP the content of the emails.

[Kriegsspiel]

To give you an alternate that hopefully will illustrate my confusion... I haven't "seen evidence" that the NSA spied on americans. I've just heard lots of arguments and counter-arguments that have colored my understanding of the facts and opinion of the implications.

Wikipedia isn't really 'evidence' but it's a starting point for some Google-Fu.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Inf ... _Awareness

[moda0306]

There are many connections and meetings between Trump's inner circle and Russia during the election, and it's a fact that Russia intervened in our election process on behalf of Trump. I expect Mueller to stay on this until the truth comes out.

Similar to Maddy, what exactly happened that was illegal (other than maybe.. the Logan Act??) Googling "Russia Election Interference" doesn't really lead to anything, except that it was (might have been?) a Russian who hacked/released the DNC emails. Personally, I'm for more transparency so I DGAF about that; it's not like the hacker MADE UP the content of the emails.

Well it should probably be stated/restated that Hillary is a corrupt, corporatist, imperialist tool.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I don't think one person on this board has given Hillary an ounce of praise or support.

[Maddy]

The investigation wasn't sourced at Trump I thought (as I thought I made clear in my post). It was sourced at Russian "meddling" in the election. Not that the Trump admin was complicit. . .

But I want to be clear... I'm not very sure Russia or Trump did anything illegal or that there was evidence of it.

But it sure as hell was Trump and his team who were the subjects of the investigation.

The bottom line is this: In this country--if the Constitution means anything--you can't launch an intrusive "no holds barred" criminal investigation against a class of persons, replete with searches and seizures, simply because you believe that if you dig long enough and hard enough you'll find something to prosecute. When I ask what the crime is, and what the evidence of that crime is, I'm demanding nothing more than the Constitution requires BEFORE homes are broken into and e-mails are seized.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I've read only articles that are entirely self-serving and therefore unreliable. So what about all the other folks on this forum? Why hasn't anyone--most notably those folks who are screaming about Trump's "crimes"--stepped forward and said what the crime is, who is suspected of committing it, and exactly what evidence warrants an investigation? The truth is that nobody--including Comey himself--has a fricking clue.

I shouldn't have to pour through 12 months of news stories in search of some possible, arguable justification for the investigation. The burden was upon the government to come forward with this information BEFORE the investigation was launched. And the real kicker is that there's been no effort at all to keep the information secret. Hell, Comey is right out there like some kind of Colonel Flagg, leaking shit to the press and crowing about having discovered somebody urinating on somebody else.

Moda, I'd suggest, with all kindness, that you find something better to do with your evening than search through podcasts for a plausible, defensible reason for this investigation. Concerned as you are about civil liberties (and I say that with all genuineness), you should be sharing my indignation that this information is not front and center. And the fact that it is not should cause you considerable concern.