IG Horowitz report thread.

[The Great Zaganza]

No, TGZ, I'm not.

Now, do you think Papadopolous's contacts were illegal in and of themselves? If so, why?

Why do you think you or I have all the facts to make that decision?
What I'm saying is that the FBI didn't set out to criminally indict Papadopolous: they interviewed him to find out what was going on, and he lied, making the whole thing suddenly look a lot more serious.


do you think the FBI would have run such a big operation if they thought the problem started and ended with Papadopolous?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why do you think you or I have all the facts to make that decision?

Presumably Mueller had the facts to make that decision. He didn't charge Papadopolous with any crime of meeting with Russians. The presumption of innocence should hold, even if you think you can't personally evaluate his innocence or guilt.

What I'm saying is that the FBI didn't set out to criminally indict Papadopolous: they interviewed him to find out what was going on, and he lied, making the whole thing suddenly look a lot more serious.

No kidding. They didn't set out to criminally indict Papadopolous because prior to his interview, he hadn't committed any crime.

do you think the FBI would have run such a big operation if they thought the problem started and ended with Papadopolous?

The claim under debate here is specifically about whether or not Papadopolous committed a crime by meeting with Russians. The overall scope of the investigation isn't really relevant to that question.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The claim under debate here is specifically about whether or not Papadopolous committed a crime by meeting with Russians. The overall scope of the investigation isn't really relevant to that question.

That depends on what was actually said, doesn't it? It might be a Conspiracy, it might be Bribery.
You and I don't know, so don't claim it can't be.

RE:Mueller
Mueller made the decision to sticking to Lying to the FBI, just like with Flynn. This was a tactical decision that in no way suggests that other indicts couldn't have been brought, given time and resources.

 

[Ziggurat]

That depends on what was actually said, doesn't it? It might be a Conspiracy, it might be Bribery.
You and I don't know, so don't claim it can't be.

This is stupid. It's possible that anyone you could ever name has committed a crime that we don't know about. By this standard, nobody can ever be considered innocent. That's a crap standard.

There remains no evidence in the public that Papadopolous committed a crime by meeting with any Russians. There is no evidence that there is any secret evidence he committed a crime by meeting any Russians. There are no allegations by anyone in a position to know that Papadopolous committed a crime by meeting with any Russians.

Therefore we can say with reasonable confidence that he did not commit a crime by meeting with any Russians. As with everything, yes, that's a provisional conclusion subject to revision if new evidence emerges. Want to bet no new evidence will emerge to indicate his meetings were criminal?

Lastly, even if you insist on remaining agnostic about his activities for the sake of epistemological purity, that still doesn't square with ChristianProgressive's claim that he definitely did commit a crime. He has no evidence of that.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I don't ask the question of guilt, only you do. I don't care if Papadopolous goes to jail or not.
The only thing I care about is whether his behavior was reason enough to open an investigation into the connections between Russia and the Trump campaign.
And it absolutely did, with or without a crime underlying that assessment.

I utterly hate this "fruit from the poisonous tree" ********. This was and still is a matter of National Security.
If only Republicans were so interested in Due Process when it comes people not themselves. But so FISA was something that happened to other people, so it was ok.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't ask the question of guilt, only you do.

Only me? Are you paying any attention whatsoever? ChristianProgressive made a positive claim about Papadopoulos being guilty of a crime for meeting with Russians. That claim is completely unsupported. And I'm not the one who made it.

I don't care if Papadopolous goes to jail or not.

Neither do I.

If only Republicans were so interested in Due Process when it comes people not themselves. But so FISA was something that happened to other people, so it was ok.

What makes you think I'm not interested in FISA abuses for non-Republicans? Now you're just making **** up.

Because of the sensitivity of the investigation into a presidential campaign, we know a lot more about what happened with these FISA cases than we do most FISA cases. It's possible that such abuses are routine. But the fact that I'm mostly talking about the abuses we do know about doesn't mean I'm indifferent to other abuses that might have occurred. I'm not. I suspect the rot is pretty systematic, and I think the FBI probably needs to be purged because of it.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

There is a right to speech.

There is no "right" to commit a criminal act under 52USC30121.

You can talk to people. And that's all Papadopolous did. Beyond that, you're just making **** up.

He asked agents of a foreign government to interfere in a US election by providing dirt on one of our candidates. That is not just "talking to people".

 

[ChristianProgressive]

The law is talking about things of monetary value. Otherwise foreign nationals could donate (say) jewelry or bonds that could easily be turned into money by the politician. By your reading, Joe Biden and Neil Kinnock should be on trial because Biden lifted a few lines from a Kinnock speech.

Information is a "thing of value" and that value does not need to be directly money value.

(a) ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value,

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Where does it mention merely talking to people in the law?

(a) ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

Note the highlighted word.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

If you follow the thread back, you will find that the current sub-discussion started here:



ChristianProgressive is alleging that Papadopolous's contacts with Russians were illegal. I'm saying they were not illegal, that he only got in trouble for lying to the FBI about them, not the contacts themselves. The whole "thing of value" debate is about Papadopolous's contacts. I assume that you were referring to Trump's recent contacts with Ukraine, but that's off topic in this thread.

Trump should have drawn at least 3 articles of impeachment on those grounds directly: one each for Russian, Ukraine, and China. All requests made on open microphones and in public.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Presumably Mueller had the facts to make that decision.

Not with all the obstruction of justice Trump was throwing his way.

 

[Brainster]

Note the highlighted word.

So if I've got this straight, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Steele should be charged as well. Steele is a foreign national who provided something of value to the Clinton campaign (the Steele Dossier).

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

So if I've got this straight, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Steele should be charged as well. Steele is a foreign national who provided something of value to the Clinton campaign (the Steele Dossier).

Citation please?

ETA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier#What_the_DNC,_Clinton_campaign,_and_Steele_knew

Where would the illegality be assuming there is any?

 

[thaiboxerken]

You're falling into their trap. They don't actually believe the "arguments" that they are making. They just want to "win".

They know damn well that the investigation into Papadoufus was justified and that favors are things of value. They just want a semantical victory in order to pretend it's a syntax victory.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

So if I've got this straight, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Steele should be charged as well. Steele is a foreign national who provided something of value to the Clinton campaign (the Steele Dossier).

No. Steele provided a commercial service that was PAID FOR, first by a right-wing organization, then by the Clinton campaign. It was not done under the color of one nation involving itself in another nation's elections, and it was not a donation.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

You're falling into their trap. They don't actually believe the "arguments" that they are making. They just want to "win".

They know damn well that the investigation into Papadoufus was justified and that favors are things of value. They just want a semantical victory in order to pretend it's a syntax victory.

The real problem is that this crap resonates with the ignorant masses who do not understand how the law works or what it requires.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's not like Trump hasn't told Sessions and Barr to investigate Steele and HRC.
If there was any chance to charge them with anything, it would have happened already.