I stated, “The Steele dossier was payed for by the Clinton campaign and sourced from Russian intelligence, leading to unwarranted spying, investigations and a misinformed western populace, all for the purpose of winning an election—Russian collusion.” — NOS4A2

Btw, from the site: https://www.fbi.gov/about/mission

"Our Priorities

Protect the United States from terrorist attack
Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage
Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes
Combat public corruption at all levels"

So how dare they do what they say their priorities are. It's a conspiracy! :grimace:

And as I pointed out, it wasn't the Steele dossier that lead to the investigation, as the investigation started before the FBI knew about it. — Michael

Well, NOS4A2 is playing a broken record when it's this subject.

And as I pointed out, it wasn't the Steele dossier that lead to the investigation, as the investigation started before the FBI knew about it.

It may be that the Steele dossier was the deciding factor in Page's FISA application, but there's far more to the investigation that just that.

The steele dossier was certainly a part of the investigation, directly leading to spying on American citizens, and Steele gave info to the FBI well into 2017. Not only that, but the Steele dossier was probably Russian disinfo and they knew it. In other words, it all worked out for the Russians thanks to the useful idiots doing their bidding.

So how dare the do what they say their priorities are. It's a conspiracy! :grimace:

It’s a shame they let reach and influence the highest echelons of American security, intelligence and media.

The steele dossier was certainly a part of the investigation, directly leading to spying on American citizens, and Steele gave info to the FBI well into 2017. Not only that, but the Steele dossier was probably Russian disinfo and they knew it. In other words, it all worked out for the Russians thanks to the useful idiots doing their bidding. — NOS4A2

It was used to spy on Page. I'm not aware of it being used to spy on anyone else.

We were talking about Roger Stone, remember? You were claiming that his prosecution was unjust because the Mueller investigation and Crossfire Hurricane were illegitimate, and then claimed that the Steele dossier was what lead to these investigations. I'm explaining to you that you're mistaken. Trump firing Comey is what lead to the Mueller investigation and Papadopoulos having advance knowledge of the stolen emails is what lead to Crossfire Hurricane. Both investigations were opened with good reason. And the search warrant for Stone had nothing to do with the Steele dossier.

So all in all, the claim that the investigation into Stone and his subsequent prosecution were unjust is bullshit.

What's the shame of the highest echelons of American security and intelligence (services) doing their job?

The fact is, that all people connected to the Russian active measures campaign were quickly sidelined in a few months during the Trump administration, now later have been put to jail (for Trump to commute them). Yet multiple people in the Trump administration genuinely had nothing to do with this, so this really was a limited case. Mattis, Kelly and other had nothing to do with this and weren't at all in the pro-Russia camp. Bannon had nothing to do with this. Even Rex Tillerson, who the Russians liked and had done business with them, truly wasn't some stooge of them as obviously the CEO understood who he was representing in the role of the secretary of state.

Trump firing Comey is what lead to the Mueller — Michael

Which is the tragicomic thing here.

I firmly believe that without Trump firing Comey the FBI simply would have gotten out a report that would have said "Yes, the Russians were active in the 2016 elections." Period. And nothing else. Comey wouldn't have said anything more of Trump (would have been as silent as Christopher Wray is now) until he would have retired.

The simple fact was that Trump could have just stated that, yes, apparently Russians tried to meddle in the elections, just as they did and supported JFK, for example. Case over. But Trump being Trump, of course, is so inept that he desperately wants to show his guilt.

That's what makes the corruption. Even if Stone's conviction had been some striking miscarriage of justice, it'd still be wrong and corrupt for Trump to commute that sentence. — Echarmion

It would be the opposite imo, if “striking miscarriage of justice“ occurred, then its moral and not corrupt to correct that injustice isnt it? Isnt a striking miscarriage of justice precisely the circumstance under which you would want an overriding executive decision?

Still besides the point, but I dont blame you for being guarded.

What's the shame of the highest echelons of American security and intelligence (services) doing their job?

They did their job poorly, as we now know. Not only that but the animus of the lead investigators are well documented.

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,”

It would be the opposite imo, if “striking miscarriage of justice“ occurred, then its moral and not corrupt to correct that injustice isnt it? Isnt a striking miscarriage of justice precisely the circumstance under which you would want an overriding executive decision? — DingoJones

Not in a political case. A single miscarriage of justice is tragic for those involved, but not a threat to the rule of law. Politically motivated executive intereference, on the other hand, is perhaps the biggest threat to the rule of law. Creating even the appearance of such corruption will weaken the judiciary as one of the forces of checks and balances.

The only way such an intervention could possibly be justified is if there was near unanimous consent in the judiciary that the result ought to be corrected. Needless to say, that is not the case.

We were talking about Roger Stone, remember? You were claiming that his prosecution was unjust because the Mueller investigation and Crossfire Hurricane were illegitimate, and then claimed that the Steele dossier was what lead to these investigations. I'm explaining to you that you're mistaken. Trump firing Comey is what lead to the Mueller investigation and Papadopoulos having advance knowledge of the stolen emails is what lead to Crossfire Hurricane. Both investigations were opened with good reason. And the search warrant for Stone had nothing to do with the Steele dossier.

So all in all, the claim that the investigation into Stone and his subsequent prosecution were unjust is bullshit.

I said his treatment was unjust because he was treated unfairly. As for crossfire and Mueller, both were opened with bad reason. Both were expensive farces. Both ruined the lives of innocent people, and I stand by that judgement.

I said his treatment was unjust because he was treated unfairly. As for crossfire and Mueller, both were opened with bad reason. Both were expensive farces. Both ruined the lives of innocent people, and I stand by that judgement. — NOS4A2

And it's the wrong judgement. The investigations were opened for legitimate reasons, the search warrants and prosecution of Stone were lawful, and no innocent lives were ruined; only guilty lives. But that's the price you pay for being a criminal.

Unless you're a friend/co-conspirator of Trump, I guess, and he let's you off.

And it's the wrong judgement. The investigations were opened for legitimate reasons, the search warrants and prosecution of Stone were lawful, and no innocent lives were ruined; only guilty lives. But that's the price you pay for being a criminal.

It’s the right judgement. As we now know, government investigators failed to include key sections of the Papadopoulos transcripts in the Page FISA warrants, including denials the campaign "was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like Wikileaks”. We know Papadopoulos was spied on. We know that zero evidence shows Papadopoulos was guilty of any such thing related to Russia. So what was legitimate about it? Not a damn thing.

Your criminals are innocent of everything you once accused them of, so all you can do is be gleeful they got busted for specious process crimes.

Why is it politically motivated? How did you determine that it was politically motivated rather than correcting an injustice? Im not buying this threat to rule of law bit, nor the appeal to consensus that follows. The fact it benefits any involved party doesnt mean it isnt the right thing to do, it can be both.
Anyone with the power to do so should always correct a miscarriage of justice.

As we now know, government investigators failed to include key sections of the Papadopoulos transcripts in the Page FISA warrants, including denials the campaign "was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like Wikileaks”. — NOS4A2

I'm not defending the Page FISA warrants. But their failings do not mean the entire Crossfire Hurricane investigation and subsequent Mueller investigation were illegitimate.

We know Papadopoulos was spied on. We know that zero evidence shows Papadopoulos was guilty of any such thing related to Russia. So what was legitimate about it? Not a damn thing. — NOS4A2

Investigations aren't retroactively made illegitimate by not finding sufficient evidence to prove guilt. Papadopoulos had advance knowledge that Russian intelligence would release stolen emails. That was sufficient justification for opening an investigation as Horowitz concluded in his report.

Your criminals are innocent of everything you once accused them of, so all you can do is be gleeful they got busted for specious process crimes.

The only people I accused of anything were Trump of obstructing justice and the people in the Trump Tower meeting of violating campaign finance laws. The Mueller report showed that my accusations were founded.

As for Manafort, Stone, Flynn, and the rest, whether a "process crime" or other, they're guilty. Being innocent of one thing (or rather, there not being sufficient evidence to prove guilt) doesn't mean you're not guilty of another. You don't just get to decide that lying to law enforcement, tampering with witnesses, etc. aren't "real" crimes and so ought not be prosecuted.

Why is it politically motivated? How did you determine that it was politically motivated rather than correcting an injustice? — DingoJones

Is that a serious question? I have eyes and a working brain, that's how I know. Anyways It's the threat of politically motivated interference that does the damage. With corruption, it doesn't so much matter whether it can be proven that there is corruption. It's sufficient that the trust in impartial justice is damaged.

Im not buying this threat to rule of law bit, nor the appeal to consensus that follows. — DingoJones

Not much I can do about you "not buying" the importance of the judiciary being and being perceived as impartial.

The fact it benefits any involved party doesnt mean it isnt the right thing to do, it can be both.
Anyone with the power to do so should always correct a miscarriage of justice. — DingoJones

I think the operation of the system of checks and balances is more important than individual corrections. There is a reason this system exists: The people making corrections might themselves be wrong or corrupt.

I see nothing wrong with the article save for the implication that speaking to Assange and Wikileaks and having interest in the emails (knowledge of which was already public) was somehow a bad thing. It’s not.

Stone maintains that he wasn’t prosecuted because he was covering for the president, but because he refused to lie about the president. — NOS4A2

The facts belie what Stone says. Here's some quotes from the article that you agree is factual:

Trump clearly knew about and encouraged Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks, the unredacted report shows. Yet in written answers the president provided to Mueller’s office in the course of the special counsel’s investigation, Trump insisted that he did not recall “the specifics of any call [he] had” with Stone during the campaign or any discussions with Stone of WikiLeaks. And shortly after he submitted those answers, the unredacted report states, Trump began tweeting publicly in support of Stone—calling him “brave” and congratulating his “guts” for refusing to testify.

...Stone did, indeed, refuse to provide testimony adverse to Trump. And while his precise relationship to WikiLeaks and Assange was never fully explained, he stood trial for lies to Congress denying his efforts to contact WikiLeaks, and for intimidating another witness who could have contradicted those lies. As the judge in Stone’s case put it: “He was prosecuted for covering up for the President."

It wasn't a refusal to tell lies that got Stone in trouble, it was a failure to admit truths that would make the President look bad, and conceivably could result in a case of perjury against Trump. Further, it appears Trump was dangling a pardon to encourage Stone to stay mum. This seems like pure corruption to me, but surely you must at least recognize how bad this looks.

180 Proof
1.4k
American decline.

We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
— A Real President (1962)
:fire:

Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away ... Don’t forget, we have more cases than anyone in the world, but why? Because we do more testing. When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn’t do any testing, we would have very few cases ... Maybe it is overrated ... Testing is a double-edged sword. … So I said to my people, slow the testing down please.
— A Reality TV President (2020) — 180 Proof

:up: :up: :up:

Is that a serious question? I have eyes and a working brain, that's how I know. Anyways It's the threat of politically motivated interference that does the damage. With corruption, it doesn't so much matter whether it can be proven that there is corruption. It's sufficient that the trust in impartial justice is damaged. — Echarmion

So if someone disagrees with your assessment, or doesnt place the same value as you do on appearances then they have no brain or eyes (or lack the ability to use them)?
Trust in the system is more important than the system actually working and it trumps ethical consideration of individual cases? Gosh, what could go wrong doing it that way?

Not much I can do about you "not buying" the importance of the judiciary being and being perceived as impartial. — Echarmion

Sure there is, you could have a stronger justification for writing off miscarriages of justice.
Do you not see how similar your argument is to the ones used by places like China and N Korea where the state reigns supreme and individuals dont matter?

I think the operation of the system of checks and balances is more important than individual corrections. There is a reason this system exists: The people making corrections might themselves be wrong or corrupt. — Echarmion

Well this is the fundamental disagreement we have. I understand the importance of impartiality, but its not more important than individual corrections. Ultimately the justice system is about justice being served, not the system itself.

So if someone disagrees with your assessment, or doesnt place the same value as you do on appearances then they have no brain or eyes (or lack the ability to use them)? — DingoJones

Totally not what I said.

Trust in the system is more important than the system actually working and it trumps ethical consideration of individual cases? Gosh, what could go wrong doing it that way? — DingoJones

Yes, actually. A lot of things can go wrong either way, but I trust the self-regulation of the judiciary more than I trust the ethical considerations of any one president.

I cannot think of any historical examples where the rot started in the judiciary and tore the house down. I can think of several (including current attempts) where the executive bend the judiciary to their will and used that freedom of movement to tear the house down.

Sure there is, you could have a stronger justification for writing off miscarriages of justice.
Do you not see how similar your argument is to the ones used by places like China and N Korea where the state reigns supreme and individuals dont matter? — DingoJones

It's difficult to explain the value of functioning institutions if you're used to thinking mostly in terms of individual merit. Essentially, liberal democracies depend on a lot of unwritten rules about what behaviour is and isn't acceptable to function. Fundamentally, a constitution is a piece of paper. What gives it force is a commitment to actually live the intended system. One of those unwritten rules is that political interference in the judiciary is taboo. By extension, any appearance of such interference is to be avoided.

Without such a taboo, all you have is the trust that every leader will use their powers wisely and not subvert the judiciary for personal gain. But once someone starts, their opponents will be under pressure to respond in kind, and then the democratic system collapses.

I have no idea why you think limiting the powers of the executive is "similar to arguments used by China and North Korea". Are China and North Korea arguing that the executive shouldn't have the right to intervene in the judiciary even with good intentions?

Well this is the fundamental disagreement we have. I understand the importance of impartiality, but its not more important than individual corrections. Ultimately the justice system is about justice being served, not the system itself. — DingoJones

But everyone knows that no justice system always serves justice. Yet it must still function in some way. Would you install some superintendent with absolute power just so you could overturn those decisions that did not ultimately come out just?

It's difficult to explain the value of functioning institutions if you're used to thinking mostly in terms of individual merit. — Echarmion

Well thats not the terms I think in, im not a “libertarian, freedom trumps everything individualist type”.
I just wanted to respond to that for clarities sake. If your inclined Ill just stick to the main disagreement at the end. (But we can go through the other stuff too if you think its important.)

But everyone knows that no justice system always serves justice. Yet it must still function in some way. Would you install some superintendent with absolute power just so you could overturn those decisions that did not ultimately come out just? — Echarmion

So this doesnt directly address my points, but lets start here cuz I think its our main point of disagreement.

The purpose of a justice system is to serve justice. The fact that a justice system is fallible doesn't mean we should ignore justice, we should still try to make sure justice is being served wherever we can. It doesnt mean we should ignore injustices, that cant be part of the justice system.
I wouldnt want to give absolute power to anyone of course, but ya I think someone making sure there are no miscarriages of justice as best they can would be a good thing. Youre saying that It wouldn't be good because of potential corruption but couldnt that be said about any part of the system at any level?

If you think Trump corrected a miscarriage of justice in pardoning Stone, that's going to need some support.

This article makes a pretty good case for corruption: Roger Stone's Commutation is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems

Washington Redskins News

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters during Monday's daily press briefing that President Trump "believes that the Native American community would be very angry" about Washington's NFL team changing its name source

Meanwhile, back in the world of sane people:, the Navajo Nation put out a statement on the retirement of the Redskins name:

“July 13, 2020 is now a historic day for all Indigenous peoples around the world as the NFL Washington-based team officially announced the retirement of the racist and disparaging “Redskins” team name and logo,” Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez wrote. “This change did not come about willingly by the team’s owners, but by the mounting pressure and advocacy of Indigenous peoples such as Amanda Blackhorse, and many other warriors who fought long and hard for this change.”
source

I had to double check the first article to see if it was real. It's the sort of thing I expect to see in The Onion.

The purpose of a justice system is to serve justice. The fact that a justice system is fallible doesn't mean we should ignore justice, we should still try to make sure justice is being served wherever we can. It doesnt mean we should ignore injustices, that cant be part of the justice system. — DingoJones

Yes, I think we're in agreement this far. The system should be set up as well as possible. Usually, the way this is done is to ensure first that everyone has a chance to make their case, and second that all decisions can be appealed at least once. Of course, there are practical and all too often monetary constraints on how much oversight you can establish. Eventually, someone needs to make a final decision that will stand.

I wouldnt want to give absolute power to anyone of course, but ya I think someone making sure there are no miscarriages of justice as best they can would be a good thing. Youre saying that It wouldn't be good because of potential corruption but couldnt that be said about any part of the system at any level? — DingoJones

I'd say my argument is about points of failure. A system with appeals and other forms of oversight can control and perhaps even weed out corruption. There is no single point of failure - no single corrupt judge can cause widespread injustice. Even the supreme court has a panel of judges.

On the other hand, there is no oversight over the presidential pardon. It's a single point of failure. A single corrupt president could neuter any conviction they disagreed with. Imagine a democratic president in favour of legalisation of marijuana pardoning every single person convicted for possession. The entire system would become a farce. Now you may agree with their specific goal, but once we establish that in effect voiding laws you dislike is something presidents do, what is keeping the next president from pardoning everyone who beats up members of the opposition?

There is actually recent precedent for this process in the US. Obama widened the application of executive orders to enable "Obamacare". Trump is now using that same precedent to defund and neuter not just healthcare, but any agency he (or his handlers) doesn't like.

Yes, I think we're in agreement this far. The system should be set up as well as possible. Usually, the way this is done is to ensure first that everyone has a chance to make their case, and second that all decisions can be appealed at least once. Of course, there are practical and all too often monetary constraints on how much oversight you can establish. Eventually, someone needs to make a final decision that will stand. — Echarmion

Yes, and I would also say having a someone in place to make a judgement call when the systems rules fail at the primary purpose fir which the system was made, in this case justice, would be a good thing as well.

On the other hand, there is no oversight over the presidential pardon. It's a single point of failure. A single corrupt president could neuter any conviction they disagreed with. Imagine a democratic president in favour of legalisation of marijuana pardoning every single person convicted for possession. The entire system would become a farce. Now you may agree with their specific goal, but once we establish that in effect voiding laws you dislike is something presidents do, what is keeping the next president from pardoning everyone who beats up members of the opposition? — Echarmion

Thats a good point, though thats less about Trump and more about the presidential pardon. I agree that oversight is needed. Thats the absolute power we mentioned...not a good thing for any system really.

It wasn't a refusal to tell lies that got Stone in trouble, it was a failure to admit truths that would make the President look bad, and conceivably could result in a case of perjury against Trump. Further, it appears Trump was dangling a pardon to encourage Stone to stay mum. This seems like pure corruption to me, but surely you must at least recognize how bad this looks.

Right, bad optics. I don’t care what people think when justice is on the line. That sort of politics is for the birds.

According to Stone they tried to force him to say things about the president, offering him deals if he had done so. He refused. He was gagged. The jury was stacked. The judge was biased. The perjury was not material. People, including congress itself, lie to congress all the time with no threat of punishment. I think we have different views of corruption.

According to Stone — NOS4A2

"According to Stone..."

That's a ludicrous preamble. The man is an incarnate lie.

Headline 14july20: "Trump administration drops restrictions on online-only instruction for foreign students."

This just days after they wanted to revoke the visas of students scheduled for online-only classes.

Merits aside, how many times has the administration of Donald J. Trump said it would do something only to reverse a short time later? This leaves not too-many options. Either they do not know WTF they're doing - or they do. If they do, what, then, are they doing? What they are doing is creating confusion, chaos, harm, and misery. With amazing consistency. Why would anyone do that? One answer only: the corrupt aiding and abetting an enemy who is driving them.

Anyone else got any explanation that makes sense given the facts?

Just to be clear, I join those who substantively claim, argue, and believe Trump and all of his are traitors, and I look for law and justice to catch up with them.

Anyone else got any explanation that makes sense given the facts? — tim wood

The fog makes it impossible for anyone inclined to believe Trump to hold him accountable for a mistake. If you give a true believer for his real politics (racist-nationalist populism + corporate handouts + repealing welfare programs), somewhere in the fog they will find a narrative that suits them. Even better, if anyone points out a flaw, there'll be a flipflop statement or reframing to substitute in! Avoid ever having to think about why you believe what you believe! Make America Great Again!

Anyone else got any explanation that makes sense given the facts? — tim wood

My conspiracy theory is that it's all part of Steve Bannons plan to destroy the institutions of the American political system in order to replace it with a right-wing populist regime.