Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 40

Thread: The new Director of National Intelligence

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,644

    The new Director of National Intelligence

    The post is supposed to be apolitical. How will that be with a partisan in charge



    John Ratcliff believed the Russian collusion charges were partisan. A view i share as well. I just call it a false campaign.

    Trump puts him in charge because he thinks there are partisans out to get him.

    Is he supposed to carry water for Trump as well as keep an eye on affairs affecting the country. On the latter the opposition claim he is unqualified in comparison to previous holders of the post. Not that there is much history with this post to go with, it only came into being after 9/11.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 30 Jul 19, at 19:29.

  2. #2
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    John Ratcliff believed the Russian collusion charges were partisan. A view i share as well. I just call it a false campaign.
    So multiple documented incidents of Trump Family and Campaign members meeting with known Russian actors for the purpose of affecting the election never happened?
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  3. #3
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,459
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    So multiple documented incidents of Trump Family and Campaign members meeting with known Russian actors for the purpose of affecting the election never happened?
    That those meetings took place is without a doubt. That those Russians were involved in any actions affecting the election is in doubt. That those meetings were illegal is also in doubt or at least not actionable by Mueller.

  4. #4
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,715
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    That those meetings took place is without a doubt. That those Russians were involved in any actions affecting the election is in doubt. That those meetings were illegal is also in doubt or at least not actionable by Mueller.
    The email sent to one of the Trump spawn specifically said they had dirt on Clinton, to which the spawn eagerly agreed to meet and discuss....That's not in doubt.

    This is all a far cry from "No collusion" or "Charges of collusion are partisan". It's an irrefutable fact that the Trump Campaign wanted to meet with known Russians for the purpose of affecting the election.

    Or as the late Charles Krauthammer aptly put it "Bungled collusion is STILL collusion"
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  5. #5
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,459
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    The email sent to one of the Trump spawn specifically said they had dirt on Clinton, to which the spawn eagerly agreed to meet and discuss....That's not in doubt.
    Third party relay. The guy who sent the email knows a guy who had dirt on Clinton. At no time did the direct parties in contact knew exactly what that dirt was.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    This is all a far cry from "No collusion" or "Charges of collusion are partisan". It's an irrefutable fact that the Trump Campaign wanted to meet with known Russians for the purpose of affecting the election.

    Or as the late Charles Krauthammer aptly put it "Bungled collusion is STILL collusion"
    Most certainly but is it illegal? Again, nothing actionable by Mueller. I remind you that then Candiate Trump openly asked the Russians to show him any emails concerning Clinton on national TV. If that was not actionable, I honestly do not know at what level of proof do you actually require to be actionable.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 30 Jul 19, at 17:20.

  6. #6
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,715
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Third party relay. The guy who sent the email knows a guy who had dirt on Clinton. At no time did the direct parties in contact knew exactly what that dirt was.
    All of that is irrelevant to the fact that the Trump's thought they were getting dirt from Russians. They could've been FBI agents undercover and it wouldn't have changed that fact: The Trumps Wanted Help From Russia.

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Most certainly but is it illegal? Again, nothing actionable by Mueller.
    Apparently not but they had no problem doing it and Trump just said he'd do it again without a problem. Illegal or not, bungled or not, the collusion was real and NOT partisan.
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  7. #7
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,644
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    That those meetings took place is without a doubt. That those Russians were involved in any actions affecting the election is in doubt. That those meetings were illegal is also in doubt or at least not actionable by Mueller.
    Going by reports I'd make that very same argument for Flynn as well but they had to let him go. I guess there was more to it than we were told.

  8. #8
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post

    John Ratcliff believed the Russian collusion charges were partisan. A view i share as well. I just call it a false campaign.
    The complete report is made up of two sections. The first dealing with conspiracy and the second with obstruction. Notice I said conspiracy because that is what Mueller was looking at. Collusion isn't a word used by him as it had no definitive legal meaning or definition. Looking in the context of criminal conspiracy Mueller could find no smoking gun. Criminal conspiracy in that two principal parties decided to conspire to commit a crime. The two likely parties being Trump and Putin. Of course that never happened and the two would have been stupid to do so. Much like a hit being ordered but the guy performing the hit never gets an order from the Mafia Don.

    However, there was a considerable Russian involvement in the election. The Russians were feeding Assange information although he was supposedly unaware that the information was coming from Russians. More like looking the other way and saying I don't recall. Donny Jr. was baited with the possibility of obtaining dirt on HRC even though it was a pretense for another purpose. Nonetheless, he took the meeting rather than decline and report it to the FBI. Other lower level people in the campaign also tried to advance certain outside agendas. So they were looking, and were open to help in any manner, without involving the principals.

    One could call it simply a coincidence when Wikileaks came out with news dumps on HRC. Classic one was during the debate where he directly asked if there was more information out there concerning her emails as he would love them. Five hours later a massive dump by Wikileaks. Another, when the tape came out about his groping of women which didn't look good for him at the moment. Moment because not soon after another dump information about HRC on Wikileaks diverting the attention. This is if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it is mostly likely a duck even though you never saw the two main ducks together. This was a conspiracy by happenstance with two groups on the same wavelength but never actually conspiring together in a hand shake moment.

    Second section was all obstruction. Now there were four cases of obstruction where anyone with half a brain would have been able to recognize. Three more were I thought so but I am not a trained lawyer but a trained one, and colleague in my field, pointed them out to me. Apparently there were three more to make a total of ten but those other three I would have never caught on to. In the end Mueller concluded he could go no further as he expressly said that per the opinion of the OLC he could not indict a sitting President and that it was up to Congress.

    That last point is interesting in that it seems to imply that the only restriction, preventing Mueller from indictment, was that Trump was a sitting President. He never said he was clear. He never said he was not guilty. He never said he had no evidence or anything else that would imply he got zilch. Yet we have Congressional Republicans trying to get him to acknowledge that Trump was not guilty. Sorry, not said. Congressional Democrats trying to get him to say Trump was guilty of a crime. To which Mueller never said he even considered that point as it was not permissible based on the OLC opinion. Reading between the lines one could see that Mueller would indict if anybody else. He was definitely cagey in his report summary as he didn't want to be accused of calling someone guilty without having the opportunity to respond in defense so he avoid that. Yet, if you were Senator/Congressman you would get indicted for obstruction which is considerably more than some were for mail misuse, bribery, conspiracy, illegal use of funds in their campaigns. The list is long and up on Wikipedia.

    This report was 488 pages and after a while they tend to blur together which is why I only read 40 pages at a time and highlighted what attracted my attention. So far I know of only one other person to read the report and both of us have taken a dim view of those that make proclamations about it without having read it and counting on the average American to have not read it either creating a blank canvas to paint on.
    Last edited by tbm3fan; 31 Jul 19, at 16:37.

  9. #9
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,715
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    The complete report is made up of two sections. The first dealing with conspiracy and the second with obstruction. Notice I said conspiracy because that is what Mueller was looking at. Collusion isn't a word used by him as it had no definitive legal meaning or definition. Looking in the context of criminal conspiracy Mueller could find no smoking gun. Criminal conspiracy in that two principal parties decided to conspire to commit a crime. The two likely parties being Trump and Putin. Of course that never happened and the two would have been stupid to do so. Much like a hit being ordered but the guy performing the hit never gets an order from the Mafia Don.

    However, there was a considerable Russian involvement in the election. The Russians were feeding Assange information although he was supposedly unaware that the information was coming from Russians. More like looking the other way and saying I don't recall. Donny Jr. was baited with the possibility of obtaining dirt on HRC even though it was a pretense for another purpose. Nonetheless, he took the meeting rather than decline and report it to the FBI. Other lower level people in the campaign also tried to advance certain outside agendas. So they were looking, and were open to help in any manner, without involving the principals.

    One could call it simply a coincidence when Wikileaks came out with news dumps on HRC. Classic one was during the debate where he directly asked if there was more information out there concerning her emails as he would love them. Five hours later a massive dump by Wikileaks. Another, when the tape came out about his groping of women which didn't look good for him at the moment. Moment because not soon after another dump information about HRC on Wikileaks diverting the attention. This is if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it is mostly likely a duck even though you never saw the two main ducks together. This was a conspiracy by happenstance with two groups on the same wavelength but never actually conspiring together in a hand shake moment.

    Second section was all obstruction. Now there were four cases of obstruction where anyone with half a brain would have been able to recognize. Three more were I thought so but I am not a trained lawyer but a trained one, and colleague in my field, pointed them out to me. Apparently there were three more to make a total of ten but those other three I would have never caught on to. In the end Mueller concluded he could go no further as he expressly said that per the opinion of the OLC he could not indict a sitting President and that it was up to Congress.

    That last point is interesting in that it seems to imply that the only restriction, preventing Mueller from indictment, was that Trump was a sitting President. He never said he was clear. He never said he was not guilty. He never said he had no evidence or anything else that would imply he got zilch. Yet we have Congressional Republicans trying to get him to acknowledge that Trump was not guilty. Sorry, not said. Congressional Democrats trying to get him to say Trump was guilty of a crime. To which Mueller never said he even considered that point as it was not permissible based on the OLC opinion. Reading between the lines one could see that Mueller would indict if anybody else. He was definitely cagey in his report summary as he didn't want to be accused of calling someone guilty with having the opportunity to respond in defense so he avoid that. Yet, if you were Senator/Congressman you would get indicted for obstruction which is considerably more than some were for mail misuse, bribery, conspiracy, illegal use of funds in their campaigns. The list is long and up on Wikipedia.

    This report was 488 pages and after a while they tend to blur together which is why I only read 40 pages at a time and highlighted what attracted my attention. So far I know of only one other person to read the report and both of us have taken a dim view of those that make proclamations about it without having read it and counting on the average American to have not read it either creating a blank canvas to paint on.
    ^^ THIS.

    This is the absolute best summary I've seen so far of the Mueller Report and the Trump Campaign's conduct throughout the election and afterwards.

    I cannot fucking BELIEVE that people are dancing around the central issues of this whole sordid affair, ESPECIALLY after Trump proclaimed very clearly a few weeks ago "Yes I would accept foreign help in the next election".

    What more do you want??
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  10. #10
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    11,967
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    This is if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it is mostly likely a duck even though you never saw the two main ducks together. This was a conspiracy by happenstance with two groups on the same wavelength but never actually conspiring together in a hand shake moment.
    I'm not speaking on the the Mueller-Trump subject, but this statement perfectly also captures how corruption goes down in America.

    Corporations and individuals with certain interests make campaign contributions to politicians, or donate unlimited amounts of money to 501s, and get favorable legislation, favors, and treatment in return. The parties never meet, no overt agreements are made verbally or in writing, but the corruption occurs just the same.

    One of the reasons I'm very cynical about politics and choose not to participate, and don't vote. There's limitless corruption, and it's all perfectly legal.
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

  11. #11
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    I'm not speaking on the the Mueller-Trump subject, but this statement perfectly also captures how corruption goes down in America.

    Corporations and individuals with certain interests make campaign contributions to politicians, or donate unlimited amounts of money to 501s, and get favorable legislation, favors, and treatment in return. The parties never meet, no overt agreements are made verbally or in writing, but the corruption occurs just the same.

    One of the reasons I'm very cynical about politics and choose not to participate, and don't vote. There's limitless corruption, and it's all perfectly legal.
    Absolutely agree 100%. Especially the part I've bolded.

    Although, that might come to a screaming halt in 2020...assuming a few things don't occur before now and then.
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  12. #12
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,644
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    The complete report is made up of two sections. The first dealing with conspiracy and the second with obstruction. Notice I said conspiracy because that is what Mueller was looking at. Collusion isn't a word used by him as it had no definitive legal meaning or definition. Looking in the context of criminal conspiracy Mueller could find no smoking gun. Criminal conspiracy in that two principal parties decided to conspire to commit a crime. The two likely parties being Trump and Putin. Of course that never happened and the two would have been stupid to do so. Much like a hit being ordered but the guy performing the hit never gets an order from the Mafia Don.
    No conspiracy

    However, there was a considerable Russian involvement in the election. The Russians were feeding Assange information although he was supposedly unaware that the information was coming from Russians. More like looking the other way and saying I don't recall. Donny Jr. was baited with the possibility of obtaining dirt on HRC even though it was a pretense for another purpose. Nonetheless, he took the meeting rather than decline and report it to the FBI. Other lower level people in the campaign also tried to advance certain outside agendas. So they were looking, and were open to help in any manner, without involving the principals.

    One could call it simply a coincidence when Wikileaks came out with news dumps on HRC. Classic one was during the debate where he directly asked if there was more information out there concerning her emails as he would love them. Five hours later a massive dump by Wikileaks. Another, when the tape came out about his groping of women which didn't look good for him at the moment. Moment because not soon after another dump information about HRC on Wikileaks diverting the attention. This is if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it is mostly likely a duck even though you never saw the two main ducks together. This was a conspiracy by happenstance with two groups on the same wavelength but never actually conspiring together in a hand shake moment.
    Russians doing a hit on the Americans via wikileaks. Diplomatic Cables and then the democrat emails courtesy wikileaks. Hybrid warfare, call it what you want. Democracies under foreign attack.

    Second section was all obstruction. Now there were four cases of obstruction where anyone with half a brain would have been able to recognize. Three more were I thought so but I am not a trained lawyer but a trained one, and colleague in my field, pointed them out to me. Apparently there were three more to make a total of ten but those other three I would have never caught on to. In the end Mueller concluded he could go no further as he expressly said that per the opinion of the OLC he could not indict a sitting President and that it was up to Congress.

    That last point is interesting in that it seems to imply that the only restriction, preventing Mueller from indictment, was that Trump was a sitting President. He never said he was clear. He never said he was not guilty. He never said he had no evidence or anything else that would imply he got zilch. Yet we have Congressional Republicans trying to get him to acknowledge that Trump was not guilty. Sorry, not said. Congressional Democrats trying to get him to say Trump was guilty of a crime. To which Mueller never said he even considered that point as it was not permissible based on the OLC opinion. Reading between the lines one could see that Mueller would indict if anybody else. He was definitely cagey in his report summary as he didn't want to be accused of calling someone guilty with having the opportunity to respond in defense so he avoid that. Yet, if you were Senator/Congressman you would get indicted for obstruction which is considerably more than some were for mail misuse, bribery, conspiracy, illegal use of funds in their campaigns. The list is long and up on Wikipedia.

    This report was 488 pages and after a while they tend to blur together which is why I only read 40 pages at a time and highlighted what attracted my attention. So far I know of only one other person to read the report and both of us have taken a dim view of those that make proclamations about it without having read it and counting on the average American to have not read it either creating a blank canvas to paint on.
    Bolded bit, he has by implication said he is not guilty since he cannot bring charges. Put another way, whatever Mueller has is insufficient to bring charges on the basis of obstruction. Same thing.

    The report does not exonerate which implies he's in the clear.

    First bit matters, no charges brought means he's out of the woods.

    I've heard some of the questions in these inquires and they are 100% fishing where its almost impossible to not appear guilty.

    The bottom line is either side can spin this the way they want and claim a victory.

    I don't buy the reason Mueller could not bring charges against because Trump is president. If there is enough evidence then the best you hope to get is a resignation like happened with Nixon.

    Reason i said i thought it was partisan is because you've had two democrat terms. This means the networks have been oiled for eight years. People would like that to continue but these pesky elections come around and upset the apple cart. For some reason the charges of partisanship are more shrill this time. But think back to any administration that had two terms, you've had several. So this is the norm. I don't recall partisan charges being made previously though or not as loudly as this time.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 31 Jul 19, at 15:57.

  13. #13
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    The report does not exonerate which implies he's in the clear.

    First bit matters, no charges brought means he's out of the woods.

    I've heard some of the questions in these inquires and they are 100% fishing where its almost impossible to not appear guilty.

    The bottom line is either side can spin this the way they want and claim a victory.

    I don't buy the reason Mueller could not bring charges against because Trump is president. If there is enough evidence then the best you hope to get is a resignation like happened with Nixon.

    Reason i said i thought it was partisan is because you've had two democrat terms. This means the networks have been oiled for eight years. People would like that to continue but these pesky elections come around and upset the apple cart. For some reason the charges of partisanship are more shrill this time. But think back to any administration that had two terms, you've had several. So this is the norm. I don't recall partisan charges being made previously though or not as loudly as this time.
    Totally wrong on many fronts. So I will now ask you before you commit yourself further have you read the report personally in order to comment? A straight yes or no will suffice.

  14. #14
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,644
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    Totally wrong on many fronts. So I will now ask you before you commit yourself further have you read the report personally in order to comment? A straight yes or no will suffice.
    heh, where is it wrong ? nah, you just disagree

    Went on what you said. If that is wrong then what you said is wrong.

    No, I don't intend to read the report. What for.

    There is no basis to charge him and that is all that counts.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 31 Jul 19, at 18:16.

  15. #15
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    heh, where is it wrong ? nah, you just disagree

    Went on what you said. If that is wrong then what you said is wrong.

    No, I don't intend to read the report. What for.

    There is no basis to charge him and that is all that counts.
    I will not waste my time discussing the report with someone who can't be bothered to read it. Pointless.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Director Comey fired
    By Ironduke in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 454
    Last Post: 02 Sep 19,, 08:49
  2. Canadian Intelligence Director Repeats Claims of Foreign Influence
    By xinhui in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07 Jul 10,, 15:22
  3. A Chat With ISAF's Director Of Intelligence
    By S2 in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05 Nov 09,, 16:57

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •