“Spygate,” the false allegation that the FBI had a spy in the Trump campaign, explained

[DKW 86 7,431]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

One does not "watch" the Constitution "work".  The Constitution does nothing without the work of the citizens, acting through their governmental representatives.

People sitting back to "watch the Constitution work" is what causes the crisis.

2

You say there is a Constitutional Crisis because people are sitting back and doing nothing. 

Then what do we need to do?

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

You say there is a Constitutional Crisis because people are sitting back and doing nothing. 

Then what do we need to do?

What is it with you and simple language? 

I did not say that.  I said (paraphrased) Constitutional crises result when people sit back and expect the Constitution to enforce itself.  That was true yesterday and it will be true tomorrow.

Nor did I say we are actually in a constitutional crisis.  "The crisis" was metaphorical as was the entire post.

Again, I did not say people (are) sitting back and doing nothing (now),  which presumes I am trying to say they should be doing something now. Those unwritten, red words are the difference between a metaphorical statement into a specific call to action.   Big Difference.

You constantly extrapolate or interpolate literal statements to suit your purpose.  It's a weasely habit you have.  Just go by the ******* words.  Trust me, they were chosen deliberately.  Don't add stuff not actually there.

Now having said that, if you really want to know what I think are appropriate things for people to be doing now, I will tell you.  But that's a completely different point that the metaphorical point I was making.  So you will have to ask. Politely.

I refuse to support your willful lying about what I actually wrote.

 

[DKW 86 7,431]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

One does not "watch" the Constitution "work".  The Constitution does nothing without the the work of the citizens, acting through their governmental representatives.

People siting back to "watch the Constitution work" is what causes the crisis.

YOU say that some people will sit back and do nothing. You base this thinking on literally nothing. When Nixon resigned, it was his own party that went to him and removed him before the impeachment vote. His own party did that. Of course you do not know that and even though it is factual you could never admit it. I think you like manufacturing drama and wild over statements by the bucket full. Just like you did on this thread. You have thrown your own crazy opinion about like it even has a passing acquaintance with the real world. 

On 5/27/2018 at 11:09 AM, homersapien said:

This has the makings of a consitutional crisis - which is to say we are being tested by a would-be tyrant.

 

1

First of all, a consitutional crisis? Criticism is a Constitutional Crisis? Really??? Really??? Merely asking questions is a Constitutional Crisis? Does a reporter cause a Constitutional Crisis with an interview? I mean if asking questions and criticism cause a Constitutional Crisis, Hell, we create one of those in almost every thread.

I have to ask this board: Does anyone really think that what Trump says carries any weight anymore? He tweets craziness and outright fiction daily. His few followers that are still with him, what maybe 42% How many would stay with him during a trial? 15% maybe? Trump cant stop nor even slow down an investigation and it is just plain laughably stupid if you think he can. trump is such a basket case these days he cant even hire a lawyer and keep him.

When the time comes, there will be no shortage of people to do the right thing.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Despite all this time and effort, no collusion has been found. At this point, it's mostly about politically disrupting an outcome that quite a few folks in our government will not get over. All they've been able to charge Trump campaign people with are things not related to the election or having anything to do with Russian interference. It's been 'communication's'  that have been discriminately used as justification to look at people within the Trump campaign. 

There was more layers to this than just the cover of 'what were the Russian up to? as James Clapper has been trying to sell. This was not some stumbled upon investigation that just happened to ensnare Trump campaign people. This was a deliberate targeting of specific folks simply because of which campaign they worked for and were associating themselves with.

James Clapper is still bragging about the Trump dossier publicly and how much of it was accurate. All the while he and others deny that the dossier was ever used during the investigation or ever used to obtain a FISA warrant. ........... If there's someone with even less credibility than Trump, then it's got to be James Clapper. It takes a suspension of disbelief in order to take what Clapper says as the 'truth'.

Plain and simple the 'collusion' just isn't there. There's been no collusion..... If there was then we wouldn't be entertaining the Cohen-Stormy Daniels nonsense.

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

YOU say that some people will sit back and do nothing.

I "say" or I "said"?

Let's be precise.  Are you talking about what I actually said, or what you believe I think?

And if I say you're wrong, does that make me liar"?

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

When Nixon resigned, it was his own party that went to him and removed him before the impeachment vote. His own party did that. Of course you do not know that and even though it is factual you could never admit it.

 

I not only "know" it, I remember it.  It was Republicans who made the difference.  It wouldn't have happened without Republicans. (I was actually thinking of modern day Republicans when I made the statement regarding the Constitution enforcing itself.)

Are you going into crazy rant mode? 

Telling me what I know and don't know sure sounds irrational.  Irrationally hostile actually.

You just cannot have a discussion with someone else without a straw man premise to attack.  

 

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

 I think you like manufacturing drama and wild over statements by the bucket full. Just like you did on this thread. You have thrown your own crazy opinion about like it even has a passing acquaintance with the real world. 

The irony here is self-evident.

 

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

First of all, a consitutional crisis? Criticism is a Constitutional Crisis? Really??? Really??? Merely asking questions is a Constitutional Crisis? Does a reporter cause a Constitutional Crisis with an interview? I mean if asking questions and criticism cause a Constitutional Crisis, Hell, we create one of those in almost every thread.

Are you talking to me?

Did I say anything about being criticism being a constitutional crisis? 

Did I even say anything about being in a constitutional crisis?

But to answer your questions - to whomever they are addressed - No, a reporter's interview doesn't typically cause a Constitutional crisis, although I suppose it could, depending on what was said and who said it.
 

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I have to ask this board: Does anyone really think that what Trump says carries any weight anymore? He tweets craziness and outright fiction daily. His few followers that are still with him, what maybe 42% How many would stay with him during a trial? 15% maybe? Trump cant stop nor even slow down an investigation and it is just plain laughably stupid if you think he can. trump is such a basket case these days he cant even hire a lawyer and keep him.

Are you serious?  First you ask if anyone really thinks what Trump says carries any weight and then go on to admit as many as 42% are still with him.

That seems like a disconnect to me.  Hell we've got a good handful of people on this very forum that believe his BS. (You know who you are.)

And he's not trying to stop the investigation.  I think even he realizes that's not going to happen.  His objective is to discredit the investigation in the eyes of the American people so when the results come it they'll dismiss them as being biased or inconsequential.

And he's not failing.  That's exactly his ratings have improved, just as Clinton's improved when the Republicans were trying to impeach him.  People thought they were being excessive.  Trump is counting on the same thing.

He's a narcissistic sociopath, but he damn well knows how to manipulate the press and his loyal lemmings.  He knows how to run a Reality Show.

[homersapien 11,393]

27 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Despite all this time and effort, no collusion has been found. At this point, it's mostly about politically disrupting an outcome that quite a few folks in our government will not get over. All they've been able to charge Trump campaign people with are things not related to the election or having anything to do with Russian interference. It's been 'communication's'  that have been discriminately used as justification to look at people within the Trump campaign. 

There was more layers to this than just the cover of 'what were the Russian up to? as James Clapper has been trying to sell. This was not some stumbled upon investigation that just happened to ensnare Trump campaign people. This was a deliberate targeting of specific folks simply because of which campaign they worked for and were associating themselves with.

James Clapper is still bragging about the Trump dossier publicly and how much of it was accurate. All the while he and others deny that the dossier was ever used during the investigation or ever used to obtain a FISA warrant. ........... If there's someone with even less credibility than Trump, then it's got to be James Clapper. It takes a suspension of disbelief in order to take what Clapper says as the 'truth'.

Plain and simple the 'collusion' just isn't there. There's been no collusion..... If there was then we wouldn't be entertaining the Cohen-Stormy Daniels nonsense.

I present "Exhibit A".

 

[homersapien 11,393]

30 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Plain and simple the 'collusion' just isn't there. There's been no collusion..... If there was then we wouldn't be entertaining the Cohen-Stormy Daniels nonsense.

I can't help but ask what the theory is behind that statement. 

(This ought to be good.)

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I present "Exhibit A".

 

Yeah, being skeptical of non-transparent agencies who can't put together a consistent narrative on what caused the investigation in the first place is really just believing Trump 's BS right?

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I can't help but ask what the theory is behind that statement. 

(This ought to be good.)

What does Michael Cohen paying a porn star $130,000 have to do with 'collusion' or Russian interference into the election?

The 'Russian' angle that's been tied to the Cohen story(Cohen's company getting money from a Russian oligarch) is just a way for the media and Mueller to save face and distract from the fact that Cohen has absolutely nothing to do with any Russian meddling.

[homersapien 11,393]

6 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Yeah, being skeptical of non-transparent agencies who can't put together a consistent narrative on what caused the investigation in the first place is really just believing Trump 's BS right?

There is a very consistent narrative explained by the original post.  The FBI in this case did exactly what they are supposed to do on the basis of the information they had.

Mueller has either indicted or gotten guilty pleas from at least 19 people and three companies - that we know of - so far.  This idea that this investigation is illegitimate based on the reasons for starting it is an absurdly weak argument.  The only way you could argue that is if there were no findings.

There were  lot's of reasons - circumstantial and otherwise - to justify investigating Russian involvement in the election.  I mean, after all, the Russians  did interfere, didn't they?  Or do you dispute that? 

You are clearly buying into Trump's BS narrative. Wholesale. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

I did not say that.  I said (paraphrased) Constitutional crises result when people sit back and expect the Constitution to enforce itself.  That was true yesterday and it will be true tomorrow.

Nor did I say we are actually in a constitutional crisis.  "The crisis" was metaphorical as was the entire post.

Again, I did not say people (are) sitting back and doing nothing (now),  which presumes I am trying to say they should be doing something now. Those unwritten, red words are the difference between a metaphorical statement into a specific call to action.   Big Difference.

 

Here's what you "said" :

On 5/27/2018 at 11:09 AM, homersapien said:

No one gives a s*** about your nihilistic, political philosophising. 

At end, it's just a fancy way of avoiding the immediate issue - Trump is desparately trying to undermine the Mueller investigation by direct attacks on our intelligence and law enforcement institutions.  And he is using propaganda tactics to build popular support for his nonsense.

This has the makings of a consitutional crisis - which is to say we are being tested by a would-be tyrant.

You even included (are) in the last sentence. "which is to say we are being tested by a would-be-tyrant".

That sure reads like you were at least 'metaphorically' saying that criticism of the Mueller investigation and other government institutions were making turning this into a constitutional crisis. 

then you "said"

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

One does not "watch" the Constitution "work".  The Constitution does nothing without the the work of the citizens, acting through their governmental representatives.

People sitting back to "watch the Constitution work" is what causes the crisis.

So watching Trump criticize the Mueller investigation(which last I checked the President still has the right of free speech) and not getting our representatives in government to do something is why a constitutional crisis would occur?  

and then you "said"

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

Excuse you () but I think everyone who blindly supports Trump will sit back and ignore whatever findings emerge - i.e.: "do nothing".  This includes most Republicans and many on this very forum.  Thus the Constitutional crisis.  The Constitution doesn't enforce itself.

I didn't say there is anything to be DONE "at this moment", except for maybe acknowledging what Trump is trying to do by discrediting the investigation.  

So you weren't "actually" saying what I bolded in red did you? ...... You were just being metaphorical right? .... 

[homersapien 11,393]

9 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

What does Michael Cohen paying a porn star $130,000 have to do with 'collusion' or Russian interference into the election?

The 'Russian' angle that's been tied to the Cohen story(Cohen's company getting money from a Russian oligarch) is just a way for the media and Mueller to save face and distract from the fact that Cohen has absolutely nothing to do with any Russian meddling.

I don't know, possibly nothing. 

As far as I know, it was collateral damage.  But Mueller certainly has the responsibility of reporting whatever activity he uncovers.

But how does that prove - or even suggest - there was no "collusion" ?  And I prefer the term "conspiracy", which is actually covered by the law.

But why we're on the Stormy Daniels thing, why did Trump lie about it?

Finally, I seriously doubt Mueller is looking for a way to "save face".  He's too busy charging offenders. He has nothing to be embarrassed about.

 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Just now, homersapien said:

There is a very consistent narrative explained by the original post.  The FBI in this case did exactly what they are supposed to do on the basis of the information they had.

Mueller has either indicted or gotten guilty pleas from at least 19 people and three companies - that we know of - so far.  This idea that this investigation is illegitimate based on the reasons for starting it is an absurdly weak argument.  The only way you could argue that is if there were no findings.

There were  lot's of reasons - circumstantial and otherwise - to justify investigating Russian involvement in the election.  I mean, after all, the Russians  did interfere, didn't they?  Or do you dispute that? 

You are clearly buying into Trump's BS narrative. Wholesale. 

They weren't just investigating Russian involvement, they used counter intelligence to deliberately target people within the Trump campaign.  It wasn't just some random probe that swept up Trump campaign people. They targeted Carter Page, Pappadopolous, etc..... They even used an informant to do it.

Pappadopolous talking to an Australian diplomat is not what originated the Trump-Russia investigation like the NY Times article you linked to earlier stated.  They had already used the informant to target Page. So the NY Times article acting as if Pappadopolous triggered the investigation is a complete lie that the media and Justice Department put out to confuse people into how they came about the investigation.

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, Auburnfan91 said:

 

Here's what you "said" :

You even included (are) in the last sentence. "which is to say we are being tested by a would-be-tyrant".

That sure reads like you were at least 'metaphorically' saying that criticism of the Mueller investigation and other government institutions were making turning this into a constitutional crisis. 

then you "said"

So watching Trump criticize the Mueller investigation(which last I checked the President still has the right of free speech) and not getting our representatives in government to do something is why a constitutional crisis would occur?  

and then you "said"

So you weren't "actually" saying what I bolded in red did you? ...... You were just being metaphorical right? .... 

First you are confused.  Secondly, let DKW fight his own fights.

As is his habit, DKW misrepresented what I said in the post he quoted.  (The metaphorical one.) You are talking about a different post altogether.  So please don't mix up quotes thereby confusing my dispute with DKW.

We are being tested by a would-be tyrant.  I never suggested otherwise.  But it's not (yet) a constitutional crisis (which is why I said "had the makings of"). It will qualify as a constitutional crisis if/when:

a) Trump directly tries to halt the investigation, say by the equivalent of a "Saturday Night Massacre", or

b) Muller reveals "high crimes and/or  misdemeanors that clearly justify an impeachment proceeding, which doesn't happen because enough congressmen vote against it.

DKW seems confident those Congressmen will step up and do the right thing.  I am not so sure. At all.

Does that help?

 

 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

58 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I don't know, possibly nothing. 

As far as I know, it was collateral damage.  But Mueller certainly has the responsibility of reporting whatever activity he uncovers.

But how does that prove - or even suggest - there was no "collusion" ?  And I prefer the term "conspiracy", which is actually covered by the law.

But why we're on the Stormy Daniels thing, why did Trump lie about it?

Finally, I seriously doubt Mueller is looking for a way to "save face".  He's too busy charging offenders. He has nothing to be embarrassed about.

 

There was no "conspiracy" between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Why is lying about the Stormy Daniels thing so important to you?.................... Metaphorically speaking, Trump lying about the Stormy Daniels thing is not a 'constitutional crisis'.

Mueller is saving face by going after people who have nothing to do with the Russia investigation.............. Michael Cohen absolutely is collateral damage to this investigation and has nothing to do with any sort of conspiracy.

[homersapien 11,393]

1 minute ago, Auburnfan91 said:

 There was no "conspiracy" between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Why is the Stormy Daniels thing so important to you?.................... 

Metaphorically speaking, Trump lying about the Stormy Daniels thing is not a 'constitutional crisis'.

Mueller is saving face by going after people who have nothing to do with the Russia investigation..............

Michael Cohen absolutely is collateral damage to this investigation and has nothing to do with any sort of conspiracy.

In order:

How can you possibly know that?

I never said the Stormy Daniels thing was important to me or is even important at all for that matter. 

Nor did I ever suggest that lying about Stormy Daniels constituted a constitutional crisis.  (You are starting to remind me of DKW.  He also claims I never answer a question. )

Nonsense.  Mueller is pursuing the facts regarding the Russian investigation - including possible conspiracy by the Trump campaign.  The fact his investigation is discovering other crimes along the way -such as lying - which may or may not be a part of the Russian part of the investigation -  is hardly surprising. 

We will not know Cohen's involvement with the Russians or any associated conspiracy until the investigation is over or it is otherwise revealed.  But given Cohen's roll in the Trump administration and his history of trying to make easy money from his association with Trump, I wouldn't bet against it.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

In order:

How can you possibly know that?

I never said the Stormy Daniels thing was important to me or is even important at all for that matter. 

Nor did I ever suggest that lying about Stormy Daniels constituted a constitutional crisis.  (You are starting to remind me of DKW.  He also claims I never answer a question. )

Nonsense.  Mueller is pursuing the facts regarding the Russian investigation - including possible conspiracy by the Trump campaign.  The fact his investigation is discovering other crimes along the way -such as lying - which may or may not be a part of the Russian part of the investigation -  is hardly surprising. 

We will not know Cohen's involvement with the Russians or any associated conspiracy until the investigation is over or it is otherwise revealed.  But given Cohen's roll in the Trump administration and his history of trying to make easy money from his association with Trump, I wouldn't bet against it.

There's been no Russia 'conspiracy' charge against any of the former Trump campaign people who Mueller has charged so far. That's telling......... If there were a 'conspiracy' you'd think Mueller would have charged someone in the Trump campaign with it by now. 

Why do you care why Trump lied about the Stormy Daniels thing?.......... I don't know why Trump lied about the Stormy Daniels thing, do you?

[homersapien 11,393]

11 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

There's been no 'conspiracy' charge against any of the former Trump campaign people who Mueller has charged so far. 

That's telling......... If there were a 'conspiracy' you'd think Mueller would have charged someone in the Trump campaign with it by now. 

Why do you care why Trump lied about the Stormy Daniels thing?.......... I don't know why Trump lied about the Stormy Daniels thing, do you?

Again, in order:

So what?  Why do you think Mueller is compelled to make charges as soon as he can? It doesn't "tell" anything. 

Mueller is no dummy.  He is undoubtedly handling this in a strategic way.  Indictments are public.  Once facts have been made public, future witnesses have the advantage of tailoring their testimony to fit the facts.  There are obvious reasons to keep from making all of his findings public as he goes.

Beyond the confirmation that Trump lies about everything, I don't personally "care" that he lied about Stormy Daniels.  I can imagine lots of reasons he lied about Stormy Daniels (you can't??) but, like I said he lies about anything and everything.  He's a natural born bulls***ter. 

Anything to keep the reality show ratings high thus minimizing the attention to the damage he's doing.

 

[DKW 86 7,431]

Homey World: Anything I dont agree with is a Constitutional Crisis...

So far, 

11 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Despite all this time and effort, no collusion has been found. At this point, it's mostly about politically disrupting an outcome that quite a few folks in our government will not get over. All they've been able to charge Trump campaign people with are things not related to the election or having anything to do with Russian interference. It's been 'communication's'  that have been discriminately used as justification to look at people within the Trump campaign. 

There was more layers to this than just the cover of 'what were the Russian up to? as James Clapper has been trying to sell. This was not some stumbled upon investigation that just happened to ensnare Trump campaign people. This was a deliberate targeting of specific folks simply because of which campaign they worked for and were associating themselves with.

James Clapper is still bragging about the Trump dossier publicly and how much of it was accurate. All the while he and others deny that the dossier was ever used during the investigation or ever used to obtain a FISA warrant. ........... If there's someone with even less credibility than Trump, then it's got to be James Clapper. It takes a suspension of disbelief in order to take what Clapper says as the 'truth'.

Plain and simple the 'collusion' just isn't there. There's been no collusion..... If there was then we wouldn't be entertaining the Cohen-Stormy Daniels nonsense.

What the man said is still mostly technically correct. I do not agree with what he says 100%, BUT HE IS FAR MORE RATIONAL ABOUT THE TRUTH OF WHERE WE ARE THAN YOU ARE. Innuendo, Hearsay, and a Good Theory wont get you into a Courtroom. 

Yes, I fully believe that the "Never Trump" side of the Republican Party will certainly do the right thing. They are chomping at the bit. I bet Lil Mario already has that speech outlined in his head. But before any of that is going to happen we have to let the Constitution work itself out. 

I found homey's yearbook photo recently...

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Homey World: Anything I dont agree with is a Constitutional Crisis...

 

So typical.  (And he called me a liar. )

And this is the serious forum, if you cannot address substance without sophomoric little insults, take it back to the trash talk section where you can be yourself.