constitutional crisis ?

[HisArpy]

ok.
dismiss manafort and his russian entanglements
dismiss trump tower moscow project
dismiss miss universe moscow
dismiss the shakey banking practices
dismiss roger stone, carter page, michael flynn

all part of the publicly available record as the campaign began...

plenty of ducks.

here is a chart

So, just because someone does business in Russia they're a Russian agent now? And, during the transition after an election, if they're doing their jobs as part of the transition team, they're Russian agents? And, hiring someone to manage a campaign, because they appear qualified on the basis of their past management record, makes the employer a Russian agent? The rest of your "chart" is just as specious.

(Here's where the whatabotism criers need to take a breath)

Let's look at the opposite side. Hillary had international ties to Russia. She had them personally through her foundation as well as professionally. Does that make her a "Russian agent"? According to the precepts in your "chart" it does.

Barr is looking at where he needs to be looking - the genesis of the "claims made". What he finds becomes important here because from what we know now, the original claim wasn't proven true. There might be suspicious other events which, HAD that original claim been true, might have risen to "conspiracy/collusion" level, but without the original claim being true, what you have is a house of cards masquerading as "evidence" of something which didn't happen.

So, your ducks aren't really ducks. They're illusions and fantasy fabrications.

 

[cleaver]

the denial is strong in that one

it is not my intent to go the personal.
it serves the issue on the table not one whit.

and if my exercise ultimately is proven to be
tilting at windmills then...

the windmills win what's left of the gb...

 

[Rightguide]

ummmmmmm?
what?

at moments like this,
i'll count to 10... slowly.

No collusion by any American, remember that?

 

[cleaver]

So, just because someone does business in Russia they're a Russian agent now? And, during the transition after an election, if they're doing their jobs as part of the transition team, they're Russian agents? And, hiring someone to manage a campaign, because they appear qualified on the basis of their past management record, makes the employer a Russian agent? The rest of your "chart" is just as specious.

(Here's where the whatabotism criers need to take a breath)

Let's look at the opposite side. Hillary had international ties to Russia. She had them personally through her foundation as well as professionally. Does that make her a "Russian agent"? According to the precepts in your "chart" it does.

Barr is looking at where he needs to be looking - the genesis of the "claims made". What he finds becomes important here because from what we know now, the original claim wasn't proven true. There might be suspicious other events which, HAD that original claim been true, might have risen to "conspiracy/collusion" level, but without the original claim being true, what you have is a house of cards masquerading as "evidence" of something which didn't happen.

So, your ducks aren't really ducks. They're illusions and fantasy fabrications.

no. they are ducks.
financially connected ducks.
subject to legitimate scrutiny.

the hillary did it too... defense
does not de-duck-t their viability as indicative ducks

remember too that the previous administration
and the bureaucracy involved
had credible intelligence that russia/putin
were attempting to co-opt the 2016 election...
(something - which it turns out - did occur)

trumps connections to putin were a legitimate avenue to investigate.

 

[dolf]

i tried to forestall the constipation
with a call for civility in the op...

it may just have been palliative care though...

How long have you been on this site?

Well, since it's "Constipational" it's probably safe to bring up without everyone donning hazmat protective gear.

au contraire! The treatment for severe constipation is usually lactulose, which nurses commonly refer to as "liquid dynamite". You've seen film of volcanoes blowing the the solid plug and spewing fountains of liquid magma?

 

[cleaver]

How long have you been on this site?

fuck......?

i think it was you
who took my cherry

 

[RobDownSouth]

Liar.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=90759210&postcount=72

Advocating appropriate legal consequence is "doing away with Constitutional rights"? Remind me again what planet you come from?

Put another way, remember when one of your ambulance chasing clients got a subpoena and you stood up proudly in court, stuck out your middle finger and said "Fuck YOU, Judge!"

...oh?
...it didn't happen that way?
....well why not?

I'll tell you why not, because you would have been hit with a contempt of court citation so fast your empty head would spin. You'd be dropping the soap in the shower for the next 30 days in county lockup.

See? There are limits to your bravery....legal limits.

That's what we need for contempt of Congress, when the Executive branch decides that, upon careful deliberation, "Laws" are "advisory in nature", abstract concepts that serve as guidelines and not really real rules.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Dolf mentions "constipation" and it takes NotVetteman almost 11 minutes to show up.

SAD.


Poor sonofabitch is getting old. Back in the day you could make a scat reference and he'd be on it in two minutes or less.

 

[Rightguide]

How long have you been on this site?

au contraire! The treatment for severe constipation is usually lactulose, which nurses commonly refer to as "liquid dynamite". You've seen film of volcanoes blowing the the solid plug and spewing fountains of liquid magma?

Excuse me while I get suited up.

 

[HisArpy]

no. they are ducks.
financially connected ducks.
subject to legitimate scrutiny.

the hillary did it too... defense
does not de-duck-t their viability as indicative ducks

remember too that the previous administration
and the bureaucracy involved
had credible intelligence that russia/putin
were attempting to co-opt the 2016 election...
(something - which it turns out - did occur)

trumps connections to putin were a legitimate avenue to investigate.

As I said, they are illusory ducks. They have the look and appearance, but aren't real.

The "Hillary defense" as you put it was merely an example to show that the "chart" precepts are flawed because it views/uses normal events in a way that makes them appear suspicious AFTER the fact.

Without the original genesis claim being true, all of the rest cannot be used to support the false claim and transform it into being real. Hence, there was no reason for the various intelligence agencies to go spying on the Trump campaign.

The "premier" intelligence agencies in the world were hoaxed and couldn't see it. Instead, they ramped up a full scale counter-intelligence operation which quickly morphed into a criminal investigation on the basis of those self same agencies MANUFACTURING THE EVIDENCE necessary to justify such an investigation.

What's funny is that if you look past the surface of the claims/witnesses/etc to the core agency responses and reactions, what you find are the exact same processes which were used after 9/11 to falsely "prove" that Iraq had WMD's. The US sent out information to outside sources, which then transmitted it back to the US, whereby it was then used as proof to go further and attack the intended target. The only difference here is that the outside sources weren't other nation's intelligence agencies, it was the news media and Congress.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Excuse me while I get suited up.

Lolwut.

 

[Rightguide]

Lolwut.

Unlike you, I had no desire to be crapped on for real so I donned a hazmat suit. That doesn't mean you can't hop in wearing your speed-o, however, in time for Dolf's shitty story.

 

[dolf]

fuck......?

i think it was you
who took my cherry

I believe I did. And did the knot trick with the stem.

Excuse me while I get suited up.

Nose plugs. Don't forget the nose plugs.
Fortunately, I carry a pot of solid perfume in my bag. We smeared it under our noses until everything stank of roses.

 

[icanhelp1]

Advocating appropriate legal consequence is "doing away with Constitutional rights"? Remind me again what planet you come from?

Put another way, remember when one of your ambulance chasing clients got a subpoena and you stood up proudly in court, stuck out your middle finger and said "Fuck YOU, Judge!"

...oh?
...it didn't happen that way?
....well why not?

I'll tell you why not, because you would have been hit with a contempt of court citation so fast your empty head would spin. You'd be dropping the soap in the shower for the next 30 days in county lockup.

See? There are limits to your bravery....legal limits.

That's what we need for contempt of Congress, when the Executive branch decides that, upon careful deliberation, "Laws" are "advisory in nature", abstract concepts that serve as guidelines and not really real rules.

I think you're confusing contempt of court and contempt of congress

1. contempt of court REAL

2. contempt of congress THEATRICS

An abstract concept is when the legislative arm of government want's to force the executive arm of government to break the law.

 

[cleaver]

As I said, they are illusory ducks. They have the look and appearance, but aren't real.

The "Hillary defense" as you put it was merely an example to show that the "chart" precepts are flawed because it views/uses normal events in a way that makes them appear suspicious AFTER the fact.

Without the original genesis claim being true, all of the rest cannot be used to support the false claim and transform it into being real. Hence, there was no reason for the various intelligence agencies to go spying on the Trump campaign.

The "premier" intelligence agencies in the world were hoaxed and couldn't see it. Instead, they ramped up a full scale counter-intelligence operation which quickly morphed into a criminal investigation on the basis of those self same agencies MANUFACTURING THE EVIDENCE necessary to justify such an investigation.

What's funny is that if you look past the surface of the claims/witnesses/etc to the core agency responses and reactions, what you find are the exact same processes which were used after 9/11 to falsely "prove" that Iraq had WMD's. The US sent out information to outside sources, which then transmitted it back to the US, whereby it was then used as proof to go further and attack the intended target. The only difference here is that the outside sources weren't other nation's intelligence agencies, it was the news media and Congress.

this is irrelevant posturing.
and...
if accepted as true - which i obviously do not -
is ex post facto analysis.

contemporaneously, candidate trump
had definite and multifaceted publicly discernible ties to russian business
and leadership.

the legitimate concern was to what extent these connections might have
on a potential presidency.

this is fact. the looks like a duck.
it took no deep state to construct a nascent string chart.

your hoax dicta is... conjecture at this point, at best.
if true, it still does not dismiss the above fact, for the actions following.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Excuse me while I get suited up.

"This looks like a job for...SHITMAN!"

 

[cleaver]

this is irrelevant posturing.
and...
if accepted as true - which i obviously do not -
is ex post facto analysis.

contemporaneously, candidate trump
had definite and multifaceted publicly discernible ties to russian business
and leadership.

the legitimate concern was to what extent these connections might have
on a potential presidency.

this is fact. the looks like a duck.
it took no deep state to construct a nascent string chart.

your hoax dicta is... conjecture at this point, at best.
if true, it still does not dismiss the above fact, for the actions following.

and this chases down the rabbit hole from the op
to debunk the narrative
that the mueller investigation was fundamentally illegitimate;
a rhetorical sideshow to sidetrack from the issue at hand
having to do with what that investigation may - or may not have found
and the potential constitutional crisis ensuing.

it is beyond the pale to suggest that candidate trumps prima facie ties to russia were beyond legitimate scrutiny...

red smoke.

 

[docoral]

and this chases down the rabbit hole from the op
to debunk the narrative
that the mueller investigation was fundamentally illegitimate;
a rhetorical sideshow to sidetrack from the issue at hand
having to do with what that investigation may - or may not have found
and the potential constitutional crisis ensuing.

it is beyond the pale to suggest that candidate trumps prima facie ties to russia were beyond legitimate scrutiny...

red smoke.

Prima facie ties are not illegal. I assume you are aware of the [exclusionary rule]. Falsifying evidence, evidence acquired illegally, FISA corruption, these are some of the things you're going to find down your rabbit hole.

 

[bellisarius]

Cleaver, if the entire investigation started with a false premise, a manufactured predicate, then we have the Soviet style of justice. An investigation in search of a crime. This was a perversion of our government at the very highest levels and I for one want to see heads rolling in great numbers.

 

[cleaver]

Prima facie ties are not illegal. I assume you are aware of the [exclusionary rule]. Falsifying evidence, evidence acquired illegally, FISA corruption, these are some of the things you're going to find down your rabbit hole.

you are correct. having such ties is not illegal.

prima facie ties are simply undeniable connections.
the nature of those ties - especially with regard to potential national leadership -
was certainly an iissue of national security.

are you suggesting that such ties cannot be scrutinized...?
that - in this instance - presidential candidate trump's ties to russia/putin were... beyond investigation?

again, this is an attempt to dismiss legitimate scrutiny
for the alleged bad actors that may have become part of it.

that allegation is a separate issue entirely.

the trump/russia connection is fact even the president does not try to deny.
it is the findings of that investigation into the nature of that fact at issue.

it is a non-starter - trying to obviate the current situation
by attempting to de-legitimize scrutiny of the trump/russia connections.

 

[cleaver]

Cleaver, if the entire investigation started with a false premise, a manufactured predicate, then we have the Soviet style of justice. An investigation in search of a crime. This was a perversion of our government at the very highest levels and I for one want to see heads rolling in great numbers.

heads may roll.
the streets may be ankles deep...
immaterial.

candidate trump -
prior to any alleged deep state conspiracy -
had connections to business and leadership
in russia; an adversary.

the prior administration was aware that the same russians were attempting to tamper with the election.

these connections were legitimately investigable by appropriate government agencies
as a matter of national security
as well as by a free press - as a matter of national interest.

the doj, under the current administration's stewardship
commissioned the mueller investigation : to report specifically on
"RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION".

you, of all posters, cannot deny the basics here.

 

[bellisarius]

The world is highly interconnected now, especially at the higher levels of business, government, NGO's, etc. Like the old question, "How many handshakes are you away from the president?" if you are interacting with the world at all you have connections to Russians, French, Chinese, and the list goes on. The mere fact that you have had contact with some one of foreign origin is not a predicate for a criminal investigation, an investigation of any sort in reality.

This gets even dicier when, as we now know, that the Steele dossier was bogus and known to be so prior to being affirmed as 'verified' to the FISA court.

And now we see a democrat controlled congress demanding information that they are not entitled to receive under laws passed by congress. Trump is not in contempt for not producing the goods, quite frankly from a different perspective it is congress itself engaged in criminal activity for making those demands.

 

[icanhelp1]

you are correct. having such ties is not illegal.

prima facie ties are simply undeniable connections.
the nature of those ties - especially with regard to potential national leadership -
was certainly an iissue of national security.

are you suggesting that such ties cannot be scrutinized...?
that - in this instance - presidential candidate trump's ties to russia/putin were... beyond investigation?

again, this is an attempt to dismiss legitimate scrutiny
for the alleged bad actors that may have become part of it.

that allegation is a separate issue entirely.

the trump/russia connection is fact even the president does not try to deny.
it is the findings of that investigation into the nature of that fact at issue.

it is a non-starter - trying to obviate the current situation
by attempting to de-legitimize scrutiny of the trump/russia connections.

Scrutiny in a non-criminal sense is nothing more than an evaluation process to base a decision on. The electorate scrutinized Trump and his business dealings along with prima facie ties to multiple countries before the election.

To create the allusion of evidence to sanction an investigation and using a government legal platform to disguise it's legality is a CRIME!!! That is falsifying evidence, [exclusionary rule] The predicate for any investigation is [probable cause] and without it all evidentiary and litigation procedures are inaddmissable. The case has no legal standing. Hence; was the Mueller investigation constitutional from the start, maybe, maybe not.

Findings are conclusions derived from a legal investigation or trial

Prima facie ties should be evenly scrutinized throughout all public servants. Once president; article II powers take precedence allowing a sitting president the latitude to interface with other governments

Your argument that since there are tabled issues found during the investigation should they be scrutinized? I believe yes, under the auspices of the DOJ and not the judiciary arm of the house. A special counsel is a criminal investigation completely under the supervision of the AG and scrutinized by the AG, i.e. SDNY and ED/V are currently investigating other muller report findings but nobody is aware of it because it's a criminal investigation and it's not for public viewing. None of the Mueller report should have been publicized. Now we have political banter and a house judiciary committee litigating rather than legislating. Oversight is not the authority to litigate. This is all political posturing.

 

[Luk]

The world is highly interconnected now, especially at the higher levels of business, government, NGO's, etc. Like the old question, "How many handshakes are you away from the president?" if you are interacting with the world at all you have connections to Russians, French, Chinese, and the list goes on. The mere fact that you have had contact with some one of foreign origin is not a predicate for a criminal investigation, an investigation of any sort in reality.

This gets even dicier when, as we now know, that the Steele dossier was bogus and known to be so prior to being affirmed as 'verified' to the FISA court.

And now we see a democrat controlled congress demanding information that they are not entitled to receive under laws passed by congress. Trump is not in contempt for not producing the goods, quite frankly from a different perspective it is congress itself engaged in criminal activity for making those demands.

You must be dizzy from all that spinning.

 

[cleaver]

thank you.
you offer a hand full
that does go to the issue on the table.

association is not - prima facie - evidence of collusion/complicity.
granted.

association with a foreign adversary is not evidence of collusion/complicity.

when person#1 and/or person#2 - in what essentially was a binary presidential election - has demonstrable association with said adversary,
my contention remains that the nature of that association
can and should be under scrutiny. yours is otherwise.

if that be the crux of this constitutional crisis - let it be hashed.

as a political position, i believe it is not as favorable to your ultimate political intention; retention of the powers of the office through trump, as other options...

as political smoke?
misdirection seems to have great legs these days.
we shall see.

the hyperbole that somehow the democrat(ic) house is criminal for being tenacious?

again... run with that.

the current constitutional conundrum is over what's not been made available.

if there is nothing there,
let an unfettered mueller testify so.

it was not only the republican leadership that paid for the investigation
that did - despite your misgivings as to the origins - transpire.

then, if the fallout is not favorable to the president, roll out the political apparatus
to undermine the special counsel's credibility.

there is an easy way to put end to this - get on to governance.

if though...
and i am certainly willing to appreciate the political expediency of it,
the play is to misdirect,
obfuscate...
stonewall...

carny show...

as the other hand is doing the things it is doing...

the barnum-esque bamboozle
ego based exercise of power is...

truly remarkable

and antithetical to...
the intent of republican government
or ethical governance.

perhaps just one ego-inflated head should roll.