Soxbadger

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 2, 2018 -> 03:03 PM) Hatch told him he could be the greatest president in history, obviously if he accomplished some things. Trump took it to be he was the greatest president in history with the most attended inauguration, and the most watched SOTU address. But Hatch could probably get whatever he wants now. The Hatch comment was a little sarcastic as I knew the story, but felt that it was a funny line to use.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 2, 2018 -> 02:57 PM) John McCain: “The latest attacks against the FBI and Department of Justice serve no American interests ― no party’s, no President’s, only Putin’s,” McCain added. “The American people deserve to know all the facts surrounding Russia’s ongoing efforts to subvert our democracy, which is why Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation must proceed unimpeded. Our nation’s elected officials, including the president, must stop looking at this investigation through the lens of politics and manufacturing political sideshows. If we continue to undermine our own rule of law, we are doing Putin’s job for him.” McCain's a corrupt Democrat, of course hed say this. Its reaching McCarthy levels at this point, if you dont blindly love Dear Leader Trump, youre a Democrat. Ironically, Trump was a Democrat, but I assume they will attempt to change history. I heard Hatch said Trump was the greatest Republican President of all time.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 2, 2018 -> 01:54 PM) I don't get how that response equates some sort of inconsistency. If you think the House Intel Committee releasing info on corruption within the FBI is "Republicans trying to silence transparency" I am not sure we're living in the same world. Did you read the memo? Because I missed the part where they said there was corruption. All it did was argue that in their opinion the basis wasnt good enough. The odd part about this is since when does the federal govt play the role of defense attorney? Do you think if it was a regular citizen the US govt would be playing the role of defense counsel? Do you think if it was a Democrat that they would be assisting in the defense? Just interesting that the House is now playing the role of defense attorney for private citizens. I hope they help other defendants try to beat warrants.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 2, 2018 -> 01:03 PM) Quote me where I said I didn't want it to be released. Didn't Ryan, you now, the speaker of the house majority, come out in support of releasing it? You're grasping at straws. You said "I dont care" if its released. But never said anything about how the Republican's are trying to silence transparency. If youre okay with that, its fine. Its not grasping at straws at all. This whole dog and pony show was nothing more than Republican's trying to prevent transparency. If youre okay with that, so be it. But the memo was nothing. It makes no sense. /shrugs

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 2, 2018 -> 12:50 PM) Again, if this judge opens a window to some sort of appeals process because of ego, that would be the absolutely worst possible thing that could happen. Not really much to appeal in this one, but yeah thats why you dont want a judge to seem biased when they are ruling and make made for tv statements.

I just read the memo. So their b**** is that the govt didnt provide exculpatory evidence when asking for a warrant? UH can you imagine if when prosecutors ask for a warrant they had to tell the judge all the reasons why maybe the judge shouldnt issue the warrant? And even worse, isnt this what Cater's lawyer should be doing? Is the White House going to help out every criminal that is being prosecuted and make sure that judges/prosecutors had probable cause to issue warrants? I wonder when they will start the investigation into ICE and whether they told the judge all of the "good things" about the person before they got the warrant. (edit) As I said yesterday, this isnt going to end the way they think it is. Its not going to help them, these type of letters never help you case.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 1, 2018 -> 08:08 PM) This counter memo is hardly a story. If they want to release it I don’t care. I’m not sure why I’m being held accountable for opinions I didn’t make. The Republican party trying to silence transparency is the story. Im holding you accountable for claiming you are all about transparency etc, but not speaking out against anti-transparent partisan actions. Its fine if you want to be party over country, its fine if you want to be hypocritical to serve your parties interests.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 1, 2018 -> 03:22 PM) The FBI and DOJ aren't just concerned about the propaganda aspect of this memo. They're also concerned that the memo itself exposes classified information, means and methods. Once sensitive information is out there, there's no putting that genie back in the bottle. They have instead asked that they discuss this in classified settings with the House as would be the normal procedure, but that wouldn't help the GOP political narrative. There's also going to be a limit in exactly how far anyone can go to respond given that the claims in the memo rely on information that will still be classified (and which, again, Nunes hasn't even read!). Democrats and FBI/DOJ won't be able to publicly lay out a logical counter-claim to Nunes' claims without exposing classified information. Then lets expose it all. If Republicans want to go down the rabbit hole, lets really go down. Because this isnt going to end like they think it will.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 1, 2018 -> 03:13 PM) Collusion is not a crime. This whole investigation is a witch hunt. If the memo gives us clarity one way or the on the Russia investigation I want it released. Collusion can be a crime. And why dont you want all the information released? I think that is the part I cant seem to understand with your argument. Why are you fighting to stop information from being released? (edit) And its arguments like these why people think you are a Republican team player. For as long as I can remember youve argued for things like Wikeleaks, govt transparency etc. Now when the Democrats are asking to be able to release information, you support shutting it down. Its picking your party over your views.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 1, 2018 -> 03:06 PM) 1.) I never said releasing through proper channels makes it non partisan. You should understand that just because something paints one side poorly doesn't necessarily mean it's partisan. 2.) The memo has not been released yet you know it's useless. Amazing foresight. 3.) If the evidence isn't damning, why are the democrats in a full court press to attack it's credibility. 4.) I don't have opponents. I check the state. If the FBI would like to respond after the released I wouldn't be in favor of stopping them. I'd read their retort. They're probably full of s***, given their track record, but I'll consider all the facts available. 1) The partisan aspect is that the Republican's are refusing to allow the Democrats to release their argument contemporaneously. This is by definition partisan. Non partisan would mean that both sides get a chance to argue equally, and then we get a chance to judge the facts. 2) You misread the bolded. That was in reference to when a client asks me to write a similar memorandum/letter. In over a decade of litigating, Ive never been asked by a single client, nor seen another lawyer, write a letter that was unfavorable to their client. IE I write my argument based on law/evidence that supports my argument. The opposing party writes their argument based on the law/evidence that supports their argument. The judge then looks at both positions. In contrast, the Republicans are trying to prevent the opposition from releasing evidence that is contradictory to the Republican conclusion. 3) I dont think that is what is being done at all. From what I have read, the FBI/Democrats are saying that the memorandum is factually inaccurate and is based on selective information. That by using selective information it creates a false narrative. Therefore they are asking that 1) The Republican's provide more information that would provide a better understanding of the conclusions or 2) be given an opportunity to release information that is contradictory to the Republican's conclusion. If the evidence was so favorable to the Republicans, why not let the FBI/Democrats/DOJ release their own memorandums? That is the only real problem with this whole thing. That the Republicans are trying to silence dissenters. 4) If you want to check the state, than you should be adamantly arguing that the Democrats/DOJ/FBI be allowed to write a response. Right now they are not able to because the Republican's arent allowing it. Its surprising that you are not more angry about the Republican's silencing opposition. Because how can you consider "the facts" when 1 side is controlling the facts and not letting certain facts be released.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 1, 2018 -> 03:00 PM) This is hilarious. The memo has not been released yet. You have no idea whether it's misleading or not because you haven't seen it. Your reaction shows youre afraid of it because you're running damage control before there has even been a release of the potentially damaging memo. Just for the record, im absolutely not afraid of the memo and I believe that the memo will hurt their cause more than it will help. What I do find appalling is that one party is trying to silence the other party. And if the Democrats were doing that, I would call them for the same bulls***.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 1, 2018 -> 02:39 PM) The republicans actually ran this through the proper channels to get released. Now Trump is waiting for the alterations to get cleared out. Seems like they didn't botch the handling this time. The left wouldve just leaked it. Just because something went through the proper channels doesnt mean that it isnt biased or partisan. That is the real issue here. The Republicans can control the flow of information, they can selectively declassify and release what the want. From my understanding they are blocking the Democrats from releasing a similar memo contemporaneously. This goes against every notion of fair play when it comes to criminal/judicial/legal proceedings. In trials etc, each side has the opportunity to present their evidence so that people can make an informed decision. They are required to share their information with the other side. The Republicans are unwilling to do this. Whenever something like that occurs, I believe people should be extremely skeptical, because letters/memos like this are always self serving. Its no different than when a client wants me to write a letter to an opposing party making a demand. The letter is self serving and its not real evidence. If the evidence is so damaging, why not let the Democrats write a rebuttal and let the people decide? Why selectively pick the information? And if you dont want people to find your posts hypocritical/disingenuous you may want to stop throwing in lines like "The left wouldve just leaked it." It has no relevance whatsoever to this discussion and its not even based on any supported fact, nor have you presented any evidence to suggest that the "left" (whoever they may be) leak more than the "right" (whoever they may be). /shrugs If you really want to put America first, you should demand your opponent be given an equal opportunity to present their case. When you support silencing opposition you arent putting America first, your putting party first. (edit) As for the whole article thing. I was going to make the argument for you, that you just "posted the title." But you could have easily posted a different article or title that wasnt conclusory based on hearsay evidence.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 1, 2018 -> 01:24 PM) Once in a while they work out, especially if it is some guy stashed in Europe for a few years, like Niko. But generally, I agree, blah. The problem with this trade is it helps NO get better not just with Niko but Monroe too. Looking at the West, it looks like they are just about a lock at a low playoff seed, even without Boogie. It's probably 50/50 at best the draft pick turns out to be a better player than Niko, but it helps the tank which really is probably the biggest asset the Bulls acquire. Think part of the reason NO made the trade is that it seems really inconceivable that they miss the playoffs.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 1, 2018 -> 01:18 PM) Or $3.5 million... Exactly haha. 3.5mil is nothing to a NBA team. Its too bad the Clippers sold, because it seems like Pelicans are a lock for the playoffs so no lottery.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 1, 2018 -> 01:01 PM) And then NO made the Bulls pay more for picking up the second year. At least 2nds in the NBA arent that valuable. If the Bulls want they can easily pick one up from another team for garbage.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 1, 2018 -> 12:53 PM) If the claims are true and the memo exposes corruption by the IC (more of the same from them), should the current administration just ignore that? If the claim are true, do you really find it "catastrophically moronic" for the government to reign in the unwieldy power of the corrupt intelligence agencies? I can't even believe I am reading this stuff. When did the left become the lap dogs of IC that blindly follows and defends everything they do? People are more interested in partisan team play than what is good for the country. That is the whole reason why this memo is even being discussed. If this was what was good about the country, then the DOJ would open a criminal investigation. Last I checked, Republicans control the DOJ, named the current FBI director and have the house and senate. Why are they bringing this to the "court of public opinion" instead of into real courtrooms? If people committed crimes, charge them and try to convict them. Otherwise this is just a partisan spectacle created as a distraction. It would be different if it was the minority party doing it, and saying the majority isnt enforcing the law, etc. But ironically, the rules make it so a minority party cant do what Nunes wants to do, because the majority would get to veto the release. I have no reason to trust any of the people involved (DOJ, IC, Congress, President), and I would love if the govt was actually trying to be more transparent. But I am extremely skeptical of any information that is released without context and that is not considered valuable enough to even warrant a criminal investigation.

Rabbit has a point. None of us have read it, so right now its all hearsay.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 04:53 PM) If the memo has damning info on the FBI and DOJ what are they going to do? Get out ahead and say that it's all accurate? They have no incentive to be honest and transparent. They also have no track record of exhibiting either of those traits. Why wouldnt the FBI say it was all accurate? The people who run those werent the people who ran them during the time period in question. Wouldnt the best way to put a cloud over the entire thing be for the FBI/DOJ to say "The people before us did all these bad things and the Nunes memo proves it." There is something extremely odd with Republican's cannibalizing the FBI. The FBI is leans Republican, just like most law enforcement. I dont even know how some of them can actually look at themselves in the mirror about what they are trying to do to Mueller. But at this point I just have to let it all play out. At the end of the day one of the core reasons that I am a liberal, is I believe in democracy and that means sometimes other people will disagree with and sometimes the votes dont go my way. But I really believe in the basic ideas of our system, and I have to believe that in something this important the facts will come out. Otherwise the system is nothing, So I just have to wait.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/31/politics/str...tter/index.html Allegedly the guy who Republican's are trying to paint as favorable to the Democrats, was one of the original drafters of the Hillary letter, and supported re-opening the investigation into Clinton. Maybe one day Republican's will go back to being team USA, instead of team GOP.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 02:55 PM) don't need SCOTUS to get involved if the President Pro Tem of the Penn. Senate just tells the court he'll ignore their ruling. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default...26.18-Order.pdf Well see how that goes, if I was the SC Id put him in contempt of court and issue a warrant, then subpoena the records myself.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 01:24 PM) Polls are often crap on those major policy questions. When you're asked a question on the phone - would you like to see every young person get an education for free? - it's generally THOUGHT OF as a good idea, but when people actual vote, and actually think about HOW we can achieve something like that, the position changes because the question then becomes, well wait, who is paying for it? It's coming out of my pocket? Oh, then never mind. Jenks, Not sure if you saw the whole argument, but what you just said is similar (maybe more specific) to what ive been trying to explain.

(IMO) The election was lost because the "polls" made them so confident that instead of focusing on the 4-5 states they needed to get to 270, they instead started trying to make states like NC and Texas competitive. Its not that Clinton didnt feel comfortable speaking to the midwest (shes from the midwest), its that she didnt even step foot in the midwest. I dont think she ever actually stepped foot into Wisconsin or Michigan (not 100% sure on Michigan). This is from Clinton herself: http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-cli...happened-2017-9

Weve completely gotten away from the original idea, so Ill bring it back. I think its great that grass roots organization and other groups are promoting more progressive policies in primaries etc. But when those candidates LOSE in the primary, the people who supported that more progressive candidate should consider voting for the person who is more aligned with their ideas, even if they arent as progressive thyed like. That is where this all came from. that certain progressives wouldnt vote for Clinton and so they sat out. Or that if the Democratic party doesnt get more progressive they will sit out. Again, I fully support running more progressive candidates. But when they lose at the primary level, it hurts the cause if their supporters sit out the general election. And I dont really see any good arguments for how sitting out, helps the progressive cause. (edit) Or vice versa. Had Sanders beaten Clinton, I would have supported Sanders because anything else would have helped Trump win.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 10:27 AM) Have you not seen what has happened to the Democratic Party in the past 10 years? At federal and state levels. Have Democrats lost 900 seats in state legislatures since Obama has been president? Is that the way you want to keep on going? Progressive or more left wing candidates may not have done well in the past, but the party is changing and it seems like the people at the top are the last ones to know. ... I dont know how to respond to this because I think many would argue that things like Obamacare (a progressive policy) lead to a lot of those problems. I guess here is the question: Do you think the Democratic party has become more or less progressive in the last 10 years? Because I dont think there is any way to legitimately argue that it has become less progressive. And if its gotten more progressive, those seat losses are further proof that your idea isnt supported by any evidence. Now again, thats not to say a great winning idea cant be new and thus have no historical evidence to support it. I just dont think going way outside the box is a great idea for this specific election, because historically speaking the party who has the house, senate and Presidency doesnt usually hold onto all 3 very long. So basically as long as they dont completely screw it up, they should see gains.

Do you have any evidence of what you suggest? Can you even point to 1 election where your ideas were successful? When you look at electoral maps, you see a lot of patterns. Its not about getting more votes, its about getting more votes in the right states. If Democratic party gets every vote in Oregon, its still the same amount of electoral votes as if the person won by 1 vote. So when you look at a map, what makes you think that a more progressive candidate would likely win Ohio, Florida etc. What in their history of voting, state or at the federal level, suggests that? I get your arguments. If people are more excited, more people will vote. But at the same token, it doesnt matter what YOU are excited about, it matters what the voters in a select few states are excited about. So the question is really about a handful of states and why by a very small margin they broke for Trump. Of those states, only 1 of them went for Sanders. What is interesting is that the argument for being more "progressive" actually hurts the argument that "If only Sanders had more money/establishment support" hed have beaten Clinton. If "excitement" about "progressive" policies is going to win the day, then why didnt Sanders win? Shouldnt have all of the excitement overcome the money? Even worse for the anti-Clinton argument, is that Clinton has 2 of the top 3 slots for most primary votes in history. She received more than Obama in 2008, and her 2016 candidacy she gained more votes than anyone outside of Obama in 2008. So if you look at the raw data, there is just no way to conclude that more progressive candidates are somehow going to get these magical votes that are not found in either the primary or the general election. The only evidence that supported Clinton may have had trouble was the fact that in 2016 she received less votes than in 2008. Another point that doesnt seem to be brought up, is that if being more progressive is truly the best way to win, why dont more progressive candidates do better in primaries, general elections etc? I dont believe the green party has ever won a seat at the federal level. And after Obama's implementation of Obamacare (less progressive than universal healthcare) it brought in a bunch of much more conservative congressmen. Youd think that it would be the opposite, if the theory of being more progressive will win is true. I ultimately think that there were a few failures in strategy that cost Clinton, but at the same time she had history going against her. Its rare for the same party to hold the Presidency 3 terms in a row. I expressed that worry multiple times on this board prior to the election. But those concerns were met with "The polls show". Who knows what will happen, but I personally think doubling down on ideas that have consistently rejected at the voting booth (the only poll that matters) isnt a good way to win.