(08-30-2023 04:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Your question on 'presumed v announced' was fairly shallow.

No **** Tanq... now try answering the question.

What the **** difference does it make if he is an announced candidate or not?

Quote:And that is why Trump screwed himself with his early announcement. He got a special prosecutor working way earlier than had he actually forebeared from a record early announcement.

So what? What difference does that make to the outcome?

Quote:And under the policy they would have be 'iced out' during that time for 'overt investigative steps'. That is until after the election season.

Which makes zero difference to the election.... which will be about 'allegations' and not facts. If they wanted it to be about facts, they would have moved quickly and gotten this done in its entirety before the election.

Look, you can argue that he would have been better off fighting the innuendo and allegations than fighting the facts, but there is ZERO doubt that The American People would be better off basing their 2024 election decision on facts and legal determinations and not allegations and innuendo... or worse, the auspices of a court (or Congress) determining that despite being DULY elected, that a President must step down/

ESPECIALLY when you consider that this entire thing is about people in the government seeking to overturn the will of the people.

Quote:Because Trump declared *really early* (a record early announcement), the special prosecutor finished the major investigative work prior or near an election. Nothing in the policy prohibits 'charging actions' (that is doing the 'put up' step) during an election season, but the policy seeks to tamp down the 'ghost' of investigations during the election season (that is investigations that seemingly 'crop up' during the season, then magically disappear once over).

You made an almost identical argument prior to the mid-terms regarding the documents scandal, and I said similar... and you dismissed the idea when I said it.

But as I said (echoing the article) none of that happens if they don't sit on this for 1+ years.

Quote:I think you might be conflating a lot of steps in the process above.

Don't think so... but feel free to enlighten me.

Quote:I dont think you have a good grasp that the DOJ investigation and actions are not Special Prosecutor actions, and want to mix all of them up into one bowl.

Sigh... so now you're going to 'wow' us with your 'inside' knowledge of the process, which makes ZERO difference to anything I've said.

Quote:The DOJ did wallow it for a good while.

Great. End of discussion.

Quote:Jack Smith went to the races. Again, he was only appointed *because* of Trumps abnormally early announcement. And that timeframe gave him the room to do the investigation, roll it out, and get down to brass tacks in 9 mos for two major cases. All before the policy would have set in to kibosh any investigation.

What part of this do you think isn't clear to me? What part of had they not 'wallow(ed) it for a good while' they would have been done even earlier haven't I made clear?

It would have been better for the American People/for the integrity of our elections if we had started earlier.

It would have been better for Smith and the DOJ had they started earlier.

It is debatable whether it is better for Trump to have it done before or after the election. A lot of that depends on how much confidence he has in victory. You think he screwed himself because you think he's drop dead guilty... but none of his voters do... and it remains to be seen what comes out of any trial. Not the guilt or innocence of Trump... but of any 'dirty tricks' that were pulled, even if they were legal.

It seems to me that the only people for whom it is clearly better is for Biden and company if there is a delay past the election... so that Trump is the likely nominee, but has a huge shadow over him.... or at the very least, splits the party... and even if he wins, you now get another shot to at least occupy him if not cancel him post-election with the trial.

Quote:

Quote:Smith really has no CHOICE but to move as quickly as you suggest, unless he wants to be smack dab in the middle of the 2024 election.... or wait until AFTER the election... which is hugely problematic unless we are assured that he won't win.

You mistake the verb 'investigate' with the verb 'charge and try'. The policy isnt to shut down an ongoing trial schedule for an existing indictment. The policy is directed to investigative work prior to indictment -- that is to ice the possibility of a 'ghost investigation' that might influence an election.

An example of you arguing against something I never said in this context.

Obviously if they don't sit on their hands for a year plus... we are a year plus further down the path than if they do. The investigation, whether complete or not, is all the democrats really need or want prior to the election.... because of course, an investigation is mostly one-sided. The PEOPLE though, and perhaps Trump should want a trial/a verdict before the election. As I suggested... if they appoint Smith in April 21 rather than November 22, the investigation is over 18 months or so earlier... and the trial could have been over before the election. Maybe Trump wanted to control when they started so that he could make some inferences about it during the process... as opposed to letting 'them' determine the timing?

You can argue that it is a poor choice, but as a voter who wants to know if he is even eligible to run or remain in office, I want them to move faster.... otherwise the lack of information will ABSOLUTELY impact the outcome of the election in a manner that is NOT in the best interests of 'the people'.

I suspect the authors here want similar.

Quote:Explained above. If the DOJ dawdled, there was the distinct possibility of the investigative effort being iced by the policy.

Trump announced really early, that announcement pretty much mandated the DOJ appoint a Special Prosecutor. That Special Prosecutor revved the **** out of the investigative process -- in fact it was his explicitly sole task.

I've said the same... but I'm asking you how this is 'bad' for Trump. The same thing happened with the documents case and the mid-terms... and they were 100% part of the conversation surrounding that election and no doubt had SOME impact.... despite Trump not being involved in any election.

Quote:

Quote:First, Why not appoint Smith in May of 2021, move just as fast and indict Trump in November 2021 (or even May 2022) and then have a trial (or at least be way down the line) by now so that voters in 2024 can make a VERY informed decision and potentially avoid any Constitutional question?

No basis to appoint a special prosecutor simply to appoint a special prosecutor.

Not at all what I suggested. You're investigating your primary political rival for actions taken while still President of the United States. I am merely suggesting that if you don't sit on your hands for a year, then 'whatever' is happening today could have happened a year ago. If there was a basis to appoint a special prosecutor in November 2022 after dawdling for a year, there should have been the same basis for doing so November 2021 if you don't dawdle.

Quote:

Quote:I truly don't see how his announcing himself as a candidate 'forced' the DOJ to do anything they wouldn't/shouldn't already be doing.

The DOJ Rules -- 28 CFR § 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

As opposed to your 'lets just appoint a special prosecutor just because' -- there are actual guidelines in place in the Federal Register for that action to happen.

I googled that exact phrase. Nothing I see there changes if he is not yet announced his candidacy.... which has been my question from the start.

I never said 'just because'.... an argument in the absurd. The only facts I'm assuming would change would be that they don't dawdle... which you've agreed with the article they did...

You say they somehow HAD to do this because he announced. If it is there, PLEASE show me precisely where... and stop suggesting that I simply 'find' whatever it is that you seem to want me to find.

I'll start... This is the link that came up:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1
§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.



I see nothing in there about things being different if the object is an announced candidate vs presumed. My entire point is that it IS in the public's interest to get these matters settled before the next election... regardless of whether or not Trump is a candidate. The INTEREST is in restoring confidence in the process... which if you will recall was the alleged purpose of the Russian investigation. People on Trump's side need to be assured that there are no shady games going on and people on Biden's side need to be assured that no such actions will take place either.

(08-31-2023 09:44 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 04:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Your question on 'presumed v announced' was fairly shallow.

No **** Tanq... now try answering the question.

What the **** difference does it make if he is an announced candidate or not?

Quote:And that is why Trump screwed himself with his early announcement. He got a special prosecutor working way earlier than had he actually forebeared from a record early announcement.

So what? What difference does that make to the outcome?

Quote:And under the policy they would have be 'iced out' during that time for 'overt investigative steps'. That is until after the election season.

Which makes zero difference to the election.... which will be about 'allegations' and not facts. If they wanted it to be about facts, they would have moved quickly and gotten this done in its entirety before the election.

Look, you can argue that he would have been better off fighting the innuendo and allegations than fighting the facts, but there is ZERO doubt that The American People would be better off basing their 2024 election decision on facts and legal determinations and not allegations and innuendo... or worse, the auspices of a court (or Congress) determining that despite being DULY elected, that a President must step down/

ESPECIALLY when you consider that this entire thing is about people in the government seeking to overturn the will of the people.

Quote:Because Trump declared *really early* (a record early announcement), the special prosecutor finished the major investigative work prior or near an election. Nothing in the policy prohibits 'charging actions' (that is doing the 'put up' step) during an election season, but the policy seeks to tamp down the 'ghost' of investigations during the election season (that is investigations that seemingly 'crop up' during the season, then magically disappear once over).

You made an almost identical argument prior to the mid-terms regarding the documents scandal, and I said similar... and you dismissed the idea when I said it.

But as I said (echoing the article) none of that happens if they don't sit on this for 1+ years.

Quote:I think you might be conflating a lot of steps in the process above.

Don't think so... but feel free to enlighten me.

Quote:I dont think you have a good grasp that the DOJ investigation and actions are not Special Prosecutor actions, and want to mix all of them up into one bowl.

Sigh... so now you're going to 'wow' us with your 'inside' knowledge of the process, which makes ZERO difference to anything I've said.

Quote:The DOJ did wallow it for a good while.

Great. End of discussion.

Quote:Jack Smith went to the races. Again, he was only appointed *because* of Trumps abnormally early announcement. And that timeframe gave him the room to do the investigation, roll it out, and get down to brass tacks in 9 mos for two major cases. All before the policy would have set in to kibosh any investigation.

What part of this do you think isn't clear to me? What part of had they not 'wallow(ed) it for a good while' they would have been done even earlier haven't I made clear?

It would have been better for the American People/for the integrity of our elections if we had started earlier.

It would have been better for Smith and the DOJ had they started earlier.

It is debatable whether it is better for Trump to have it done before or after the election. A lot of that depends on how much confidence he has in victory. You think he screwed himself because you think he's drop dead guilty... but none of his voters do... and it remains to be seen what comes out of any trial. Not the guilt or innocence of Trump... but of any 'dirty tricks' that were pulled, even if they were legal.

It seems to me that the only people for whom it is clearly better is for Biden and company if there is a delay past the election... so that Trump is the likely nominee, but has a huge shadow over him.... or at the very least, splits the party... and even if he wins, you now get another shot to at least occupy him if not cancel him post-election with the trial.

Quote:

Quote:Smith really has no CHOICE but to move as quickly as you suggest, unless he wants to be smack dab in the middle of the 2024 election.... or wait until AFTER the election... which is hugely problematic unless we are assured that he won't win.

You mistake the verb 'investigate' with the verb 'charge and try'. The policy isnt to shut down an ongoing trial schedule for an existing indictment. The policy is directed to investigative work prior to indictment -- that is to ice the possibility of a 'ghost investigation' that might influence an election.

An example of you arguing against something I never said in this context.

Obviously if they don't sit on their hands for a year plus... we are a year plus further down the path than if they do. The investigation, whether complete or not, is all the democrats really need or want prior to the election.... because of course, an investigation is mostly one-sided. The PEOPLE though, and perhaps Trump should want a trial/a verdict before the election. As I suggested... if they appoint Smith in April 21 rather than November 22, the investigation is over 18 months or so earlier... and the trial could have been over before the election. Maybe Trump wanted to control when they started so that he could make some inferences about it during the process... as opposed to letting 'them' determine the timing?

You can argue that it is a poor choice, but as a voter who wants to know if he is even eligible to run or remain in office, I want them to move faster.... otherwise the lack of information will ABSOLUTELY impact the outcome of the election in a manner that is NOT in the best interests of 'the people'.

I suspect the authors here want similar.

Quote:Explained above. If the DOJ dawdled, there was the distinct possibility of the investigative effort being iced by the policy.

Trump announced really early, that announcement pretty much mandated the DOJ appoint a Special Prosecutor. That Special Prosecutor revved the **** out of the investigative process -- in fact it was his explicitly sole task.

I've said the same... but I'm asking you how this is 'bad' for Trump. The same thing happened with the documents case and the mid-terms... and they were 100% part of the conversation surrounding that election and no doubt had SOME impact.... despite Trump not being involved in any election.

Quote:

Quote:First, Why not appoint Smith in May of 2021, move just as fast and indict Trump in November 2021 (or even May 2022) and then have a trial (or at least be way down the line) by now so that voters in 2024 can make a VERY informed decision and potentially avoid any Constitutional question?

No basis to appoint a special prosecutor simply to appoint a special prosecutor.

Not at all what I suggested. You're investigating your primary political rival for actions taken while still President of the United States. I am merely suggesting that if you don't sit on your hands for a year, then 'whatever' is happening today could have happened a year ago. If there was a basis to appoint a special prosecutor in November 2022 after dawdling for a year, there should have been the same basis for doing so November 2021 if you don't dawdle.

Quote:

Quote:I truly don't see how his announcing himself as a candidate 'forced' the DOJ to do anything they wouldn't/shouldn't already be doing.

The DOJ Rules -- 28 CFR § 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

As opposed to your 'lets just appoint a special prosecutor just because' -- there are actual guidelines in place in the Federal Register for that action to happen.

I googled that exact phrase. Nothing I see there changes if he is not yet announced his candidacy.... which has been my question from the start.

I never said 'just because'.... an argument in the absurd. The only facts I'm assuming would change would be that they don't dawdle... which you've agreed with the article they did...

You say they somehow HAD to do this because he announced. If it is there, PLEASE show me precisely where... and stop suggesting that I simply 'find' whatever it is that you seem to want me to find.

I'll start... This is the link that came up:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1
§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.



I see nothing in there about things being different if the object is an announced candidate vs presumed. My entire point is that it IS in the public's interest to get these matters settled before the next election... regardless of whether or not Trump is a candidate. The INTEREST is in restoring confidence in the process... which if you will recall was the alleged purpose of the Russian investigation. People on Trump's side need to be assured that there are no shady games going on and people on Biden's side need to be assured that no such actions will take place either.

If you cannot fathom the very stark and very tangible difference between 'might or maybe' (presumed) and 'has in fact' (announced), that isnt my fing problem Ham. The issue isnt 'well there *might* be a conflict, or maybe not, who knows, lets appoint one'. The issue is *does* one exist. Pretty easy distinction, and for good reason. See below and read, before a kneejerk response, please.

The majority of the rest of your above is pretty much verbal meandering. If you dont like the special counsel rules, or the DOJ 'kibosh an investigation' in an election, (and boy do you go to town with the comments about 'allegations' and all sorts of whatnot I cannot decipher), I suggest you contact your congress critter.

You dont appoint a special counsel until there is a clear, and tangible, conflict of interest. The special counsel rule is literally a last effort, and should be used incredibly sparingly. The reason is because many of the DOJ internal procedural oversights are lifted -- to give *that* prosecutor some independence from the DOJ proper. A real issue of the exercise of the full raw power of the DOJ without those guardrails, mind you. Something you *dont* want to do because of 'maybe'. And I hope one doesnt wish to happen because of 'maybe'. I dont think any sane person would want that raw, unshielded, and unguided efforts to be anywhere near normalized. Thus the rule on a firm basis for it being invoked. One based in a reality of 'is' vs a possibility of 'might'. Sparingly, even then. Thus my pithy answer of 'presumed vs actual' seems right on point. And a real answer, notwithstanding your reply.

DOJ forgoes investigations of people running during some time in front of an election. Not prosecutions, not indictments, but investigations. This forecloses the spectre of 'ghost investigations' impacting an election.

And for all your verbal exercising, indictments and prosecutions are a real deal. That means a group of citizens has found sufficient cause through evidence to indict, and thus charge. So no, not your wail of 'nothing but allegations' schtick above.

It is a lesser finding of fact than that of a conviction, but still a finding of fact at some level. That is why the distinction is drawn between the verb of 'investigate', and the verbs of 'indict' and 'prosecute'. The latter two have meat on them that the spectre of investigation doesnt.

That is the nub of that issue. Seems pretty solid to me. Gets rid of investigation activity in the election time fram.
Removes the 'will o wisp' investigation, at the expense of slowing down 'meaty ones'. In the interest of trying *not* to be a hand on the scales. Investigations do not equal indictments, and do not equal prosecutions. By definition the latter two are meatier, that reduces to almost a nothing burger the issue of a 'ghost investigation' that has no effect impacting an election.

If the issues (facts) raised during the investigation are meaty enough to obtain an indictment, then there is enough to proceed. I think that a very fair trade-off.

(08-31-2023 10:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If you cannot fathom the very stark and very tangible difference between 'might or maybe' (presumed) and 'has in fact' (announced), that isnt my fing problem Ham. The issue isnt 'well there *might* be a conflict, or maybe not, who knows, lets appoint one'. The issue is *does* one exist. Pretty easy distinction, and for good reason. See below and read, before a kneejerk response, please.

You're just being a dick here Tanq. Of course you know I know the difference, but rather than say that you see the specific 'conflict of interest' being his announcement, you go off on this tangent. Typical of you.

Personally, I think the 'conflict of interest' of his announcement makes no difference to the 'conflict of interest' that exists by virtue of his being the sitting President and trying to 'overturn' the election of the current President.... especially in that he is still quite obviously a 'player' in the party and especially among the electorate.

You can disagree as an opinion, but that doesn't make you correct. Why you decided to be a dick and didn't simply say that you didn't see any conflict UNTIL he announced and we could have talked about that is beyond me.

Quote:The majority of the rest of your above is pretty much verbal meandering. If you dont like the special counsel rules, or the DOJ 'kibosh an investigation' in an election, (and boy do you go to town with the comments about 'allegations' and all sorts of whatnot I cannot decipher), I suggest you contact your congress critter.

Lol... you call it verbal meandering and then go off on some wild goose chase that I never mentioned. I have no problem with the special counsel rules... and never once said I did.... nor did I say anything about the DOJ's 'kibosh'. My comments were directed at you for being 'of two minds'. They were (in your view) right to delay the previous investigation because of its proximity to the mid-term election which couldn't possibly have involved Trump directly- because of the election, but now, they have to wait until he is officially a candidate to even consider doing so... even though he can still be just as much an influence on 'others' in 2024 as he would have been in 2022.... but more, you recognize that THEY caused this to bump up against the election by waiting, and you just ignore that it wouldn't be an issue had they not done so.

Your gymnastics routine is truly mesmerizing.

Quote:You dont appoint a special counsel until there is a clear, and tangible, conflict of interest. The special counsel rule is literally a last effort, and should be used incredibly sparingly. The reason is because many of the DOJ internal procedural oversights are lifted -- to give *that* prosecutor some independence from the DOJ proper. A real issue of the exercise of the full raw power of the DOJ without those guardrails, mind you. Something you *dont* want to do because of 'maybe'. And I hope one doesnt wish to happen because of 'maybe'. I dont think any sane person would want that raw, unshielded, and unguided efforts to be anywhere near normalized. Thus the rule on a firm basis for it being invoked. One based in a reality of 'is' vs a possibility of 'might'. Sparingly, even then. Thus my pithy answer of 'presumed vs actual' seems right on point. And a real answer, notwithstanding your reply.

Dude... if there is no conflict then you STILL proceed in an investigation WITHOUT a special prosecutor.... and they apparently didn't.... at least not expeditiously. More though, I had to LOOK UP and then GUESS AT your point because it is apparently 'beneath' you to just say it.

Talk about verbal meandering.,

I literally said... serious question... what is the difference... and you could have said right then and there that the special counsel is only appointed when there is a clear conflict of interest, which in your opinion, his announcement created. I'd still disagree that it wasn't already a clear conflict since he was challenging the installation of this very 'regime' and is still very much a player in the 2024 election, even if he doesn't run (just as he would have been in the 2022 mid-terms with the documents)... but at LEAST we wouldn't have all your 'so constructive' pithy comments. 'conflict of interest' exists as soon as someone decides it exists. NOTHING says that 'when he declares, there IS a conflict, but until then, there is not'. That is said NOWHERE.

Quote:DOJ forgoes investigations of people running during some time in front of an election. Not prosecutions, not indictments, but investigations. This forecloses the spectre of 'ghost investigations' impacting an election.

You keep saying this, apparently arguing with someone not in this conversation, and not in the article... Everyone is aware of this.... but with an election of SOME sort every two years, the window for an investigation is pretty narrow... and 'dawdling for a year' obviously doesn't help that. Why you are so reticent to admit this is baffling.

Quote:And for all your verbal exercising, indictments and prosecutions are a real deal. That means a group of citizens has found sufficient cause through evidence to indict, and thus charge. So no, not your wail of 'nothing but allegations' schtick above.

Laughable that you seem not to recognize the difference between allegations, indictments, charges and 'findings of fact' which is what I was clearly speaking about... but yeah... keep up with the pedantic arguments. I even spoke to the point that the investigation that would lead to an indictment is a one-sided story... so while I don't speak like a lawyer at all, I DID address that very point. Try and keep up.

Quote:It is a lesser finding of fact than that of a conviction, but still a finding of fact at some level. That is why the distinction is drawn between the verb of 'investigate', and the verbs of 'indict' and 'prosecute'. The latter two have meat on them that the spectre of investigation doesnt.

lol... You've apparently not been watching politics for the past few years. I agree that an investigation has less meat than an indictment, but neither you admit are dispositive. I don't think the 'value' of him being indicted on a 4th issue as opposed to only 3 with a 4th pending is really meaningful.

but again, you're still ignoring that if they had proceeded (special counsel or not) at the same speed as the special counsel is doing and not waited 1+ years to do so, we might actually HAVE a dispositive finding before the election... and THAT should have been their goal and charge. Not a rush, but not a slow walk either.

The MAJOR point being that there are ALL SORTS of ways that Trump could be declared ineligible to hold the office to which he has been duly elected... and it should have been at least part of their job to do what they can to avoid that possibility.... under the law.

Quote:That is the nub of that issue. Seems pretty solid to me. Gets rid of investigation activity in the election time fram.
Removes the 'will o wisp' investigation, at the expense of slowing down 'meaty ones'. In the interest of trying *not* to be a hand on the scales. Investigations do not equal indictments, and do not equal prosecutions. By definition the latter two are meatier, that reduces to almost a nothing burger the issue of a 'ghost investigation' that has no effect impacting an election.

If the issues (facts) raised during the investigation are meaty enough to obtain an indictment, then there is enough to proceed. I think that a very fair trade-off.

Again, you ignore the point made by me and the article that had they not waited a year to get moving on this investigation, that 'the issue' you are concerned about would have been even LESS of an issue, not more of one.

You're arguing why they would move quickly after starting late, but you're not demonstrating why they aren't wrong to have started late.... which is the point of the article and me.... Clearly (imo) there was a conflict of interest with a sitting President challenging the election of the new regime... so IMO, they could have assigned a special prosecutor almost from the start. You can disagree and that's fine... but I don't see anything in the rules that 'defines' conflict of interest' meaning where he is a FORMAL challenge to a FUTURE election.

(08-31-2023 12:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-31-2023 10:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If you cannot fathom the very stark and very tangible difference between 'might or maybe' (presumed) and 'has in fact' (announced), that isnt my fing problem Ham. The issue isnt 'well there *might* be a conflict, or maybe not, who knows, lets appoint one'. The issue is *does* one exist. Pretty easy distinction, and for good reason. See below and read, before a kneejerk response, please.

You're just being a dick here Tanq. Of course you know I know the difference, but rather than say that you see the specific 'conflict of interest' being his announcement, you go off on this tangent. Typical of you.

"The special prosecutor was only an option once Trump announced,". Said yesterday. Learn to read.

*You* then went off the 'presumed' versus 'announced' tangent. Which is a meandering fit of verbal exercise, which I answered in a succinct fashion above.

Now you say the above --- got it. I suggest *you* read, Ham.

*Had* you read, you might have noticed various forms of the above.

When you harp on your 'presumed' vs 'announced' tangent in light of the already in place comment from yesterday, yes -- I assume you do not know the difference between presumed and announced. The words 'ONLY AN OPTION ONCE TRUMP ANNOUNCED' are pretty much straight on fing point. So when you meander into the realm of 'presumed' vs 'announced' and what the difference is, I presume you: a) did not bother to read the above; b) did not understand the above; or c) do not care to understand the above; and d) do not appreciate the very simple differences between the between 'announced' and 'presumed' based on your soliloquies, and on your defensive **** above that evidences you not ascertaining that simple sentence, and the other times I denoted that.

The tangent is yours Ham, a stupid tangent given what has been written. But forgive me for pointing out those differences that you harp about as pretty much meaningless.

Quote:Personally, I think the 'conflict of interest' of his announcement makes no difference to the 'conflict of interest' that exists by virtue of his being the sitting President and trying to 'overturn' the election of the current President.... especially in that he is still quite obviously a 'player' in the party and especially among the electorate.

You can disagree as an opinion, but that doesn't make you correct.

Actually, in the terms of the DOJ I am correct. And you are spouting pretty much sheer nonsense in those terms. But please tell us how that is not so.

Quote:Why you decided to be a dick and didn't simply say that you didn't see any conflict UNTIL he announced and we could have talked about that is beyond me.

Because I did. A few times, in fact. And its not that I didnt see a conflict, the exercise of that Rule by the DOJ has always been predicated on the verb "is". Not on the verb phrase "might be" as you preach.

And when you stop and think about the results of that exercise of that rule it makes sense. But I guess neither of those points stops you from bloviating about it.

Quote:My comments were directed at you for being 'of two minds'. They were (in your view) right to delay the previous investigation because of its proximity to the mid-term election which couldn't possibly have involved Trump directly- because of the election, but now, they have to wait until he is officially a candidate to even consider doing so... even though he can still be just as much an influence on 'others' in 2024 as he would have been in 2022.... but more, you recognize that THEY caused this to bump up against the election by waiting, and you just ignore that it wouldn't be an issue had they not done so.

I suggest you actually read again.

I am not surprised that the DOJ invoked the SP rule. I am not surprised that they hadnt before. Namely because of the 'actual' vs 'maybe' issue present, the one you are jumping up and down furiously about.

When they did, that radically sped up the process.

I am agnostic on the stopping the investigation in the midterm. But leave it to you to manufacture a view for me out of thin air on that. I dont think I opined on that at all.

Quote:Your gymnastics routine is truly mesmerizing.

Much like your making up my view on the stopping of the investigation in 2022. Imagine that.

Quote:You dont appoint a special counsel until there is a clear, and tangible, conflict of interest. The special counsel rule is literally a last effort, and should be used incredibly sparingly. The reason is because many of the DOJ internal procedural oversights are lifted -- to give *that* prosecutor some independence from the DOJ proper. A real issue of the exercise of the full raw power of the DOJ without those guardrails, mind you. Something you *dont* want to do because of 'maybe'. And I hope one doesnt wish to happen because of 'maybe'. I dont think any sane person would want that raw, unshielded, and unguided efforts to be anywhere near normalized. Thus the rule on a firm basis for it being invoked. One based in a reality of 'is' vs a possibility of 'might'. Sparingly, even then. Thus my pithy answer of 'presumed vs actual' seems right on point. And a real answer, notwithstanding your reply.

Dude... if there is no conflict then you STILL proceed in an investigation WITHOUT a special prosecutor.... and they apparently didn't.... at least not expeditiously. [/quote]

Im sorry, I really dont know what the point is of what you are trying to say above.

Quote:More though, I had to LOOK UP and then GUESS AT your point because it is apparently 'beneath' you to just say it.

Talk about verbal meandering.,

[/quote]

"The special prosecutor was only an option once Trump announced," I guess that is way too vague for you.....

Quote:I literally said... serious question... what is the difference... and you could have said right then and there that the special counsel is only appointed when there is a clear conflict of interest, which in your opinion, his announcement created.

"The special prosecutor was only an option once Trump announced," I can point to a number of other sentences that butttress that simple point I am sure.

Here it is again:

"The special prosecutor was only an option once Trump announced,"

Quote:I'd still disagree that it wasn't already a clear conflict since he was challenging the installation of this very 'regime' and is still very much a player in the 2024 election,

Im sure the DOJ is hanging on to every word you opine on the invocation of the Special Prosecutor rule. I think that they have a tad more experience than you on that -- and that opinion of the DOJ runs to 'actual tangible', not 'presumptive'.

Quote:even if he doesn't run (just as he would have been in the 2022 mid-terms with the documents)... but at LEAST we wouldn't have all your 'so constructive' pithy comments. 'conflict of interest' exists as soon as someone decides it exists. NOTHING says that 'when he declares, there IS a conflict, but until then, there is not'. That is said NOWHERE.

"The special prosecutor was only an option once Trump announced,"

Read.

Or just ***** how it is everyone else's issue, that seems to me your main forte.

Quote:

Quote:DOJ forgoes investigations of people running during some time in front of an election. Not prosecutions, not indictments, but investigations. This forecloses the spectre of 'ghost investigations' impacting an election.

You keep saying this, apparently arguing with someone not in this conversation, and not in the article... Everyone is aware of this.... but with an election of SOME sort every two years, the window for an investigation is pretty narrow... and 'dawdling for a year' obviously doesn't help that. Why you are so reticent to admit this is baffling.

I have actually admitted that the main DOJ investigation was plodding. Again -- read.

Quote:

Quote:And for all your verbal exercising, indictments and prosecutions are a real deal. That means a group of citizens has found sufficient cause through evidence to indict, and thus charge. So no, not your wail of 'nothing but allegations' schtick above.

Laughable that you seem not to recognize the difference between allegations, indictments, charges and 'findings of fact' which is what I was clearly speaking about... but yeah... keep up with the pedantic arguments.

I'll take it that you dont understand the rationale between kiboshing an investigation with zero end point, and not kiboshing an indictment or prosecution. You could just say that as you seemingly mix and match a whole world of **** into one stewpot.

I even spoke to the point that the investigation that would lead to an indictment is a one-sided story... so while I don't speak like a lawyer at all, I DID address that very point. Try and keep up.

Quote:

Quote:It is a lesser finding of fact than that of a conviction, but still a finding of fact at some level. That is why the distinction is drawn between the verb of 'investigate', and the verbs of 'indict' and 'prosecute'. The latter two have meat on them that the spectre of investigation doesnt.

lol... You've apparently not been watching politics for the past few years. I agree that an investigation has less meat than an indictment, but neither you admit are dispositive. I don't think the 'value' of him being indicted on a 4th issue as opposed to only 3 with a 4th pending is really meaningful.

An investigation and indictment are wholly different animals when you look at it in the prism of 'stopping action' -- which is the subject here.

Quote:The MAJOR point being that there are ALL SORTS of ways that Trump could be declared ineligible to hold the office to which he has been duly elected... and it should have been at least part of their job to do what they can to avoid that possibility.... under the law.

Please do tell us this vast universe of ways. And no, it is not their job to avoid any of those ways. (I can only think of two specific sold ways for trump to be declared ineligible, one of which is off the table completely at this juncture, the other being not in the cards.) But please regale us with this myriad of ways that you wax poetically about.

And I agree DOJ should have gone faster at the beginning.

The funny thing to me is that given that pace, Trump self -fked himself with his announcement. That is his announcement and DOJ policy. Actual DOJ policy. Not 'might be' policy.

I take it you dont find that irony of Trump and the Special Prosecutor very humorous. It is truly the king taker of self-screws.

(08-31-2023 01:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  "The special prosecutor was only an option once Trump announced,". Said yesterday. Learn to read.

And when you said this, I asked you where in the law it said this... and it doesn't, anywhere. Apparently you knew this because you danced around answering it... and STILL haven't done so.

Learn to read yourself.

Quote:*You* then went off the 'presumed' versus 'announced' tangent.

I'll address the rest of your tired litany in one fell swoop... because you're once again arguing with straw men that you have created and I'm not following you down that path.

I asked you to show me where him announcing that he is a candidate in 2024 creates the conflict of interest that I see present based on his actions against this very administration in 2021. Although you keep CLAIMING that this is the fact... that his actions in 2021 don't create a conflict, but instead that his announced intentions in 2024 does... you have provided no evidence of that claim... other than a haughty 'I'm right and you know nothing' hubris.

What you presented as your absolute proof speaks of a conflict of interest... which I believe exists whether or not he has announced his intentions to run again in 2024.

If you were a prosecutor and the accused used to date your daughter... or more on point, the accused is being charged with crimes related to his actions during the break-up with your daughter... the conflict of interest necessary to appoint a 'special prosecutor' is apparent, whether or not he intends to try and date her again.

I am MORE than willing to have you actually show me what I asked for... but I'm not going to accept your claim as fact without some actual evidence of it.

I mean seriously... you're arguing that if Biden's DOJ went after Trump over his actions in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election that there isn't a clear conflict of interest?? The conflict only arises if he's going to run again in 2024? Is that SERIOUSLY what you're arguing?

Maybe I should say that differently... You're arguing that it is the policy/practice of the DOJ to only recognize a conflict of interest if that conflict is related to a FUTURE political contest?

IMO, what changes is that without the appointment of the special prosecutor, the Biden DOJ continues to slow walk this thing past the election for political gain... controlling the narrative... but keeping Trump in the game... because Biden (and Democrats) obviously have more input and control over the DOJ than they do over a special prosecutor.... by design and purpose of a special prosecutor who is supposed to be 'not in conflict'.

The appointment of the special prosecutor doesn't make Trump any more or less guilty or change the facts or arguments of the case... it just adds some urgency to it... which had they done this from the start, might have ruled Trump out (or in) before the election... which would have been in the best interest of the nation.

As to which is better for Trump, as I said... that likely depends on what you think the outcome of a trial might be.

or maybe better... if you and another lawyer were up for an appointment to the bench... and he won and you committed acts to try and stop him and have been accused of crimes in that regard... to have that person now sit in judgement of you in that case seems an obvious conflict of interest... whether or not you are going to run for office in the future.

(08-31-2023 03:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-31-2023 01:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  "The special prosecutor was only an option once Trump announced,". Said yesterday. Learn to read.

And when you said this, I asked you where in the law it said this... and it doesn't, anywhere. Apparently you knew this because you danced around answering it... and STILL haven't done so.

Maybe the rule itself is a clue Ham. "Would present" vs "might present". You have a real problem with 'might' vs 'is'. You keep yammering about 'might' to end all creation, but the rule is absolutely clear.

Not *just* the actual verbiage, but *also* the way in which *that* specific rule has been exercised in the past.

Quote:Learn to read yourself.

Learn to distinguish 'might' vs 'would'. Not the first time I have said this.

Quote:

Quote:*You* then went off the 'presumed' versus 'announced' tangent.

I'll address the rest of your tired litany in one fell swoop... because you're once again arguing with straw men that you have created and I'm not following you down that path.

I asked you to show me where him announcing that he is a candidate in 2024 creates the conflict of interest

That is your point? Are you serious? You cannot see the *actual* conflict between an administration DOJ and an announced candidate that opposes the administration? Really?

Quote:that I see present based on his actions against this very administration in 2021.

Criticizing an administration <> being an announced opponent in an election.

Being a 'presumptive' candidate <> being an announced opponent in an election.

I cant believe I have to type this (these) rather stark distinctions out for you.

Quote:Although you keep CLAIMING that this is the fact... that his actions in 2021 don't create a conflict, but instead that his announced intentions in 2024 does... you have provided no evidence of that claim... other than a haughty 'I'm right and you know nothing' hubris.

Dude, you dont know fkshit about the rule, nor its implementation, nor apparently the requisites of anything about it. I'll be happy to direct you to some US Attorney friends who might provide you some background.

And yes, you obviously dont know squat about it. Bummer. Keep squawking. Makes it oh so much better.

Quote:If you were a prosecutor and the accused used to date your daughter... or more on point, the accused is being charged with crimes related to his actions during the break-up with your daughter... the conflict of interest necessary to appoint a 'special prosecutor' is apparent, whether or not he intends to try and date her again.

Thats idiotic and facile. The above presents a conflict of interest with *that* prosecutor. Not with the fing DOJ as a whole.

Use your thinking cap instead of simple reaction that is pretty much off point entirely.

Quote:you're arguing that if Biden's DOJ went after Trump over his actions in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election that there isn't a clear conflict of interest?? The conflict only arises if he's going to run again in 2024? Is that SERIOUSLY what you're arguing?

The conflict of interest is created by Trump's announced running. Period.

Short synopsis:

DOJ investigates Dude A, a nationally prominent politician. Keeps investigating him.

No problem, no special counsel needed.

Dude A announces he is running for the Presidency.

Special counsel is needed. Reason: the DOJ is part of the administration, Dude A is now explicitly running against the administration. That is an explicit opponent to the administration. The DOJ needs to create an independent prosecutor that is not beholden to the DOJ to investigate.

Its not rocket science. Think about *why* there is a Special prosecutor in the Joe documents case, *why* there was a sp in the Russiagate issue.

The reason take two paths: a) if the party opponent is the President, or ranking people in the administration --- conflict with the DOJ exists. b) if the named party opponent is an explicit candidate for the Presidency --- again, a conflict atually exists.

If the named party is 'maybe' a candidate, 'maybe' isnt good enough for the explicit words in the rule.

Quote:Maybe I should say that differently... You're arguing that it is the policy/practice of the DOJ to only recognize a conflict of interest if that conflict is related to a FUTURE political contest?

No. See above. It is not the only situation.

Quote:The appointment of the special prosecutor doesn't make Trump any more or less guilty or change the facts or arguments of the case...

No one ever said that Ham. Again.

It changes the rules in which the SP can act -- it gives him both a unitary purpose, and removes many layers of guardrails in the DOJ policy practice for the express purpose of promoting the independence of the SP.

No one ever said or implied '[it] make[s] Trump any more or any less guilty'. No one ever said it changes the facts of the case. It *could* change the arguments in the case -- absolutely.

Quote:it just adds some urgency to it... which had they done this from the start, might have ruled Trump out (or in) before the election... which would have been in the best interest of the nation.

And might as well add bringing Santa Claus in on the case. The could not have done this from the start. And honestly, given that the guardrails that are removed, they shouldnt have done until a clear, real, tangible conflict emerged.

Quote:As to which is better for Trump, as I said... that likely depends on what you think the outcome of a trial might be.

All I have said is that Trump fked himself time wise. He initiated the single action that guaranteed a SP. He made his announcement to run at a record early date.

In short, he put into play the DOJ appointing one person with the sole focus of investigating Trump, and the sole ability to bring charges as that prosecutor saw fit.

Trump pretty much initiated rocket charging the investigation with the SP, and speeding up the expected time to his being charged. Speeding it up enough where charges dropped before the DOJ policy might be a factor. Kind of real self-fk in light of a really slow DOJ investigation. That is my sole point Ham.

I find it ironic as hell.

(08-31-2023 03:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  or maybe better... if you and another lawyer were up for an appointment to the bench... and he won and you committed acts to try and stop him and have been accused of crimes in that regard... to have that person now sit in judgement of you in that case seems an obvious conflict of interest... whether or not you are going to run for office in the future.

Again, there would be a conflict with that judge. Not the judiciary as a whole. You are utterly missing the point as to the role of what is a conflict of interest under the SP rule.

(08-31-2023 04:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2023 03:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  or maybe better... if you and another lawyer were up for an appointment to the bench... and he won and you committed acts to try and stop him and have been accused of crimes in that regard... to have that person now sit in judgement of you in that case seems an obvious conflict of interest... whether or not you are going to run for office in the future.

Again, there would be a conflict with that judge. Not the judiciary as a whole. You are utterly missing the point as to the role of what is a conflict of interest under the SP rule.

So you still have no facts to present, just your commentary, presented as facts.

Thanks

I said nothing about the judiciary as a whole... I merely presented a situation where a conflict of interest was present based on actions related to the person/people representing the system. In my hypo, the rules of replacement are different, but not really... it still means that a third party not related to the events has to come in. This is just another straw man you've created.

As to your 'conflict with the judge', you answered that yourself... proving my hypothetical better than your argument against it here.

YOU said...

Quote:Special counsel is needed. Reason: the DOJ is part of the administration, Dude A is now explicitly running against the administration. That is an explicit opponent to the administration. The DOJ needs to create an independent prosecutor that is not beholden to the DOJ to investigate.

The DOJ is PART of the administration.... verbatim.... and in my hypo, the judge's daughter is PART of the judge... in terms of his ability to be impartial... Dude A EXPLICITLY took action AGAINST the judge's daughter, and he is part of the prosecution just like Trump took action against the Biden administration, of which the DOJ is a part... and those actions are the specific subject of the investigation. IMO, The DOJ should have appointed the special counsel from the start, by your own reasoning. Quit with the straw man where you claim I don't understand or have misrepresented the purpose of the special counsel. I'm embarrassed FOR you that you do this.

I suspect (purely a guess here) the reason it wasn't is because that kept the control of the investigation in the hands of the administration for as long as they wanted... until they decided it was in their best interests to pass it off... likely AFTER the election so that if he won, he could then be hamstrung just as he was in 2017 with Russiagate.... or for as long as they wanted/as long as it served their purposes. As I said, a conflict exists when someone in a position to do so decides that it does... in this case, that would be the administration.

Because the difference between an investigation and a trial is that there is little 'counter-point' to an investigation. It is mostly one sided.... and Democrats control the narrative and the media. Once it becomes a trial, people in the administration (to which I include the DNC, meaning Pelosi and many others) come under public scrutiny.

It is entirely possible that this was known... as in the administration resisted appointing smith precisely on the grounds that you are claiming... I never saw that and asked for additional information which you could have easily provided.. and if that were the case then absolutely it would seem that Trump did this intentionally... my suspicion (as I have heard from some right wing sources but had previously dismissed as 'conspiracy') that he wanted to be able to get at least some of 'his side' out.. not just stories, but actual investigations and allegations/deposition transcripts etc that would be used in court.... If what you say is true then it's not a conspiracy, but instead it is a strategy. One that you may not agree with, but I've heard some pretty learned people suggest that it is not without merit... again, depending on whether or not you think you have the goods.

(08-31-2023 04:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-31-2023 04:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2023 03:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  or maybe better... if you and another lawyer were up for an appointment to the bench... and he won and you committed acts to try and stop him and have been accused of crimes in that regard... to have that person now sit in judgement of you in that case seems an obvious conflict of interest... whether or not you are going to run for office in the future.

Again, there would be a conflict with that judge. Not the judiciary as a whole. You are utterly missing the point as to the role of what is a conflict of interest under the SP rule.

So you still have no facts to present, just your commentary, presented as facts.

Thanks

I said nothing about the judiciary as a whole... I merely presented a situation where a conflict of interest was present based on actions related to the person/people representing the system. In my hypo, the rules of replacement are different, but not really... it still means that a third party not related to the events has to come in. This is just another straw man you've created.

As to your 'conflict with the judge', you answered that yourself... proving my hypothetical better than your argument against it here.

YOU said...

Quote:Special counsel is needed. Reason: the DOJ is part of the administration, Dude A is now explicitly running against the administration. That is an explicit opponent to the administration. The DOJ needs to create an independent prosecutor that is not beholden to the DOJ to investigate.

The DOJ is PART of the administration.... verbatim.... and in my hypo, the judge's daughter is PART of the judge... in terms of his ability to be impartial... Dude A EXPLICITLY took action AGAINST the judge's daughter, and he is part of the prosecution just like Trump took action against the Biden administration, of which the DOJ is a part... and those actions are the specific subject of the investigation. IMO, The DOJ should have appointed the special counsel from the start, by your own reasoning.

Not at all.

To get back to the real issue --
a) There is no explicit conflict with a person who *might* run.
b) There is a conflict with a person who *is* running.

No matter how much you dance and wave your hands and try to redefine. It really is pretty easy. Maybe not here, though.

Quote:I suspect (purely a guess here) the reason it wasn't is because that kept the control of the investigation in the hands of the administration for as long as they wanted... until they decided it was in their best interests to pass it off... likely AFTER the election so that if he won, he could then be hamstrung just as he was in 2017 with Russiagate.... or for as long as they wanted/as long as it served their purposes. As I said, a conflict exists when someone in a position to do so decides that it does... in this case, that would be the administration.

Got it. Nothing but conspiracy. And completely ignoring the text of the special counsel rule. Sounds fun.

Quote:Because the difference between an investigation and a trial is that there is little 'counter-point' to an investigation. It is mostly one sided.... and Democrats control the narrative and the media. Once it becomes a trial, people in the administration (to which I include the DNC, meaning Pelosi and many others) come under public scrutiny.

The only issue in the issue between 'investigation' and 'trial' is the other rule. Which you now seemingly pivot to magically and add to the pot. Awesome.

Quote:It is entirely possible that this was known... as in the administration resisted appointing smith precisely on the grounds that you are claiming... I never saw that and asked for additional information which you could have easily provided.. and if that were the case then absolutely it would seem that Trump did this intentionally... my suspicion (as I have heard from some right wing sources but had previously dismissed as 'conspiracy') that he wanted to be able to get at least some of 'his side' out.. not just stories, but actual investigations and allegations/deposition transcripts etc that would be used in court.... If what you say is true then it's not a conspiracy, but instead it is a strategy. One that you may not agree with, but I've heard some pretty learned people suggest that it is not without merit... again, depending on whether or not you think you have the goods.

Nice dancing lesson.

Ill go with the simple explanation:

Step 1 -- Not a declared candidate -- no explicit conflict of interest, no special counsel

Even with contortions of language and weird-world views on attempts at redefining the concept of 'conflict of interest' as it pertains to the DOJ, and magic redefinitions of 'present state happening' to mean 'might be'.


Step 2 -- Once a declared candidate -- special counsel needed. I guess in that sense the 'conflict of interest' is forward looking. Simply because the past candidate/ opponent is not really an opponent -- until he/ she re-declares for a rematch since they won by hundreds of thousands of votes in every state and cannot understand why they are not currently President. But those fanciful extremes would never be realistic..... lolz.

Fairly easy in scope, easy to follow, easy to understand, no lexicographer level verbal contortions, no weird extra special hypos, no dancing about present action vs what might be.

There is an old adage, something about a grand jury and a ham sandwich.

I have been on a grand jury, and find this adage to be generally true.

That is why these indictments tell me one thing, and one thing only: The prosecutor wanted the indictments.

Well, two things: he wanted them NOW.

It doesn't tell me why. Or why now.

It tells me nothing about the strength or weakness of the evidence.

Just that the prosecutor wanted the indictments.

Maybe the SP is some sort of crusading do-gooder, here to ferret out evil wherever he may find it.

Or maybe not.

DOJ denies subpoenas in Hunter probe

Move on. Nothing to see here.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-ju...4783&ei=14

(08-31-2023 05:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  To get back to the real issue --
a) There is no explicit conflict with a person who *might* run.
b) There is a conflict with a person who *is* running.

No matter how much you dance and wave your hands and try to redefine. It really is pretty easy. Maybe not here, though.

Based on what law, Tanq? Because it isn't that way in any other situation I've ever heard of where 'coi' is an issue.

you keep saying this... again presenting your opinion as fact but you REFUSE to provide any evidence of it.

The best evidence I can give you is what I have done... and while you can nit pick the comparisons because this has never to my knowledge happened before... EVERYONE knows that this makes sense.

Trump is being accused of taking actions to stop the Biden administration from assuming office. Now the Biden administration, of which you have admitted, the DOJ is a part is investigating Trump.

I don't have to get to the part where he is now seeking office again for Stevie Wonder to see the conflict of interest, but apparently you require that.

As I said, and paraphrasing the conversation regarding SCOTUS judges and their recusals... a Conflict of interest exists when 'someone' recognizes it. There doesn't seem to be a formal, legal definition of that. I see it from the above... and if you see it differently, that's fine... opinions and all... but your insistence that you are FACTUALLY correct is just more of your unbridled hubris. I can see where someone behaving legally could make the claim you have. I never said the administration was acting illegally by hanging on to the investigation. I disagree with it, but I can see it. I think the Biden administration did just that. You've not allowed for that possibility that someone could make the claim I have without some 'fill in the blank' pithy comment suggesting you hold some 'special knowledge' that you simply cannot share with anyone and anyone who disagrees is just an idiot.

Quote:

Quote:I suspect (purely a guess here) the reason it wasn't is because that kept the control of the investigation in the hands of the administration for as long as they wanted... until they decided it was in their best interests to pass it off... likely AFTER the election so that if he won, he could then be hamstrung just as he was in 2017 with Russiagate.... or for as long as they wanted/as long as it served their purposes. As I said, a conflict exists when someone in a position to do so decides that it does... in this case, that would be the administration.

Got it. Nothing but conspiracy. And completely ignoring the text of the special counsel rule. Sounds fun.

See? A) I've specifically noted the special counsel rule numerous times. The fact that you have to continue to lie about that speaks volumes.
B) You label a guess that a political administration would want to 'control the narrative' against their political rival for as long as they can is a 'conspiracy'?? How cute.

Quote:

Quote:Because the difference between an investigation and a trial is that there is little 'counter-point' to an investigation. It is mostly one sided.... and Democrats control the narrative and the media. Once it becomes a trial, people in the administration (to which I include the DNC, meaning Pelosi and many others) come under public scrutiny.

The only issue in the issue between 'investigation' and 'trial' is the other rule. Which you now seemingly pivot to magically and add to the pot. Awesome.

Once again, you clearly take something out of context so that you can argue with the context that YOU created, not the one in which the comment was made.

Demonstrating precisely the sort of act you just labeled a 'conspiracy'.

I'm literally laughing at you

Quote:

Quote:It is entirely possible that this was known... as in the administration resisted appointing smith precisely on the grounds that you are claiming... I never saw that and asked for additional information which you could have easily provided.. and if that were the case then absolutely it would seem that Trump did this intentionally... my suspicion (as I have heard from some right wing sources but had previously dismissed as 'conspiracy') that he wanted to be able to get at least some of 'his side' out.. not just stories, but actual investigations and allegations/deposition transcripts etc that would be used in court.... If what you say is true then it's not a conspiracy, but instead it is a strategy. One that you may not agree with, but I've heard some pretty learned people suggest that it is not without merit... again, depending on whether or not you think you have the goods.

Nice dancing lesson.

Ill go with the simple explanation:

Step 1 -- Not a declared candidate -- no explicit conflict of interest, no special counsel

Even with contortions of language and weird-world views on attempts at redefining the concept of 'conflict of interest' as it pertains to the DOJ, and magic redefinitions of 'present state happening' to mean 'might be'.


Step 2 -- Once a declared candidate -- special counsel needed. I guess in that sense the 'conflict of interest' is forward looking. Simply because the past candidate/ opponent is not really an opponent -- until he/ she re-declares for a rematch since they won by hundreds of thousands of votes in every state and cannot understand why they are not currently President. But those fanciful extremes would never be realistic..... lolz.

Fairly easy in scope, easy to follow, easy to understand, no lexicographer level verbal contortions, no weird extra special hypos, no dancing about present action vs what might be.

Sigh.... more of your pedantic drivel


1) Show me where ANYBODY but you (preferably something 'official') says 'not a declared candidate, no conflict, no special counsel. I have asked for that from the start and you've presented absolutely NOTHING but your opinion. In EVERY OTHER instance of COI that I'm aware of, there is no such 'announced future conflict' REQUIREMENT, but it is instead most often a PAST relationship that creates the conflict. It CAN be what you say, but what I have said is just as common if not more so. To be clear since you have trouble mischaracterizing me... You have certainly described a conflict. I have suggested merely that a sufficient conflict already existed. You have presented ZERO evidence that the fact that Trump tired to have the Biden Administration who was then investigating him held out of office is not also a conflict.... and the very statute you presented is sufficiently vague to allow for almost ANY definition of conflict as opposed to the simple one you want to claim.

It is not reasonable for you to insist that no conflict with the Biden Administration and Trump existed prior to his announcing to run (against Biden) for the SECOND time without some statutory evidence. That simply fails the honesty test in my book.

2) Wow... Subject to continuing with the above, I find it truly perplexing that you can't recognize the inherent conflict of a sitting president and his opponent in the 2020 election, who engages in alleged unlawful acts to keep his opponent from replacing him in office that are the very subject of the investigation being taken by the intended 'victim' for those acts. Literally it is the alleged victim in charge of the investigation.... and you see no conflict UNTIL he becomes an announced candidate. I am truly baffled by that, but if that is your opinion then so be it. I guess that means that Dems should shut up about Clarence Thomas and his buddy until his buddy is announced as a formal candidate for SCOTUS justice, lol.

(09-01-2023 09:14 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-31-2023 05:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  To get back to the real issue --
a) There is no explicit conflict with a person who *might* run.
b) There is a conflict with a person who *is* running.

No matter how much you dance and wave your hands and try to redefine. It really is pretty easy. Maybe not here, though.

Based on what law, Tanq? Because it isn't that way in any other situation I've ever heard of where 'coi' is an issue.

you keep saying this... again presenting your opinion as fact but you REFUSE to provide any evidence of it.

The best evidence I can give you is what I have done... and while you can nit pick the comparisons because this has never to my knowledge happened before... EVERYONE knows that this makes sense.

Trump is being accused of taking actions to stop the Biden administration from assuming office. Now the Biden administration, of which you have admitted, the DOJ is a part is investigating Trump.

I don't have to get to the part where he is now seeking office again for Stevie Wonder to see the conflict of interest, but apparently you require that.

As I said, and paraphrasing the conversation regarding SCOTUS judges and their recusals... a Conflict of interest exists when 'someone' recognizes it. There doesn't seem to be a formal, legal definition of that. I see it from the above... and if you see it differently, that's fine... opinions and all... but your insistence that you are FACTUALLY correct is just more of your unbridled hubris. I can see where someone behaving legally could make the claim you have. I never said the administration was acting illegally by hanging on to the investigation. I disagree with it, but I can see it. I think the Biden administration did just that. You've not allowed for that possibility that someone could make the claim I have without some 'fill in the blank' pithy comment suggesting you hold some 'special knowledge' that you simply cannot share with anyone and anyone who disagrees is just an idiot.

Quote:

Quote:I suspect (purely a guess here) the reason it wasn't is because that kept the control of the investigation in the hands of the administration for as long as they wanted... until they decided it was in their best interests to pass it off... likely AFTER the election so that if he won, he could then be hamstrung just as he was in 2017 with Russiagate.... or for as long as they wanted/as long as it served their purposes. As I said, a conflict exists when someone in a position to do so decides that it does... in this case, that would be the administration.

Got it. Nothing but conspiracy. And completely ignoring the text of the special counsel rule. Sounds fun.

See? A) I've specifically noted the special counsel rule numerous times. The fact that you have to continue to lie about that speaks volumes.
B) You label a guess that a political administration would want to 'control the narrative' against their political rival for as long as they can is a 'conspiracy'?? How cute.

Quote:

Quote:Because the difference between an investigation and a trial is that there is little 'counter-point' to an investigation. It is mostly one sided.... and Democrats control the narrative and the media. Once it becomes a trial, people in the administration (to which I include the DNC, meaning Pelosi and many others) come under public scrutiny.

The only issue in the issue between 'investigation' and 'trial' is the other rule. Which you now seemingly pivot to magically and add to the pot. Awesome.

Once again, you clearly take something out of context so that you can argue with the context that YOU created, not the one in which the comment was made.

Im not the one invoking the investigation rule out of the blue, Ham. Funny that.

Quote:Demonstrating precisely the sort of act you just labeled a 'conspiracy'.

I'm literally laughing at you

For commenting on your non-seuqitor? Awesome, I guess.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:It is entirely possible that this was known... as in the administration resisted appointing smith precisely on the grounds that you are claiming... I never saw that and asked for additional information which you could have easily provided.. and if that were the case then absolutely it would seem that Trump did this intentionally... my suspicion (as I have heard from some right wing sources but had previously dismissed as 'conspiracy') that he wanted to be able to get at least some of 'his side' out.. not just stories, but actual investigations and allegations/deposition transcripts etc that would be used in court.... If what you say is true then it's not a conspiracy, but instead it is a strategy. One that you may not agree with, but I've heard some pretty learned people suggest that it is not without merit... again, depending on whether or not you think you have the goods.

Nice dancing lesson.

Ill go with the simple explanation:

Step 1 -- Not a declared candidate -- no explicit conflict of interest, no special counsel

Even with contortions of language and weird-world views on attempts at redefining the concept of 'conflict of interest' as it pertains to the DOJ, and magic redefinitions of 'present state happening' to mean 'might be'.


Step 2 -- Once a declared candidate -- special counsel needed. I guess in that sense the 'conflict of interest' is forward looking. Simply because the past candidate/ opponent is not really an opponent -- until he/ she re-declares for a rematch since they won by hundreds of thousands of votes in every state and cannot understand why they are not currently President. But those fanciful extremes would never be realistic..... lolz.

Fairly easy in scope, easy to follow, easy to understand, no lexicographer level verbal contortions, no weird extra special hypos, no dancing about present action vs what might be.

Sigh.... more of your pedantic drivel

Got it Mr War and Peace with massive run on sentences....

Quote:1) Show me where ANYBODY but you (preferably something 'official') says 'not a declared candidate, no conflict, no special counsel. I have asked for that from the start and you've presented absolutely NOTHING but your opinion.

You want 'statutory' evidence? Are you even fing aware that the SP isnt a creature of 'statute'? Apparently not. It is a creature of administrative rule. You are fing daft if you think there is an explicit rule that says 'You can only use SP when someone announces'. That is simply part and parcel of procedure in the DOJ.

And the opinion of everyone I know at DOJ, Mr Ham world knows everything about everything. Probably about 15 people or so. Ive offered to send you their way.

Maybe look up some of the writings by Neal Katyal, a former acting Solicitor General, and the author of the current Special Counsel rule. Maybe look at some of his statements in hiw they pertain to the current situation. Or just flap your lips.

Quote:In EVERY OTHER instance of COI that I'm aware of, there is no such 'announced future conflict' REQUIREMENT, but it is instead most often a PAST relationship that creates the conflict.

You are an idiot if you think that if an investigation of Bernie Sanders was undertaken, then that should be done by a Special Counsel because he was a past opponent of Biden and the administration. That goes beyond the spectre of stupid thinking, actually.

But please do regale us with that stunning insight.

Quote:It CAN be what you say, but what I have said is just as common if not more so. To be clear since you have trouble mischaracterizing me... You have certainly described a conflict. I have suggested merely that a sufficient conflict already existed. You have presented ZERO evidence that the fact that Trump tired to have the Biden Administration who was then investigating him held out of office is not also a conflict.... and the very statute you presented is sufficiently vague to allow for almost ANY definition of conflict as opposed to the simple one you want to claim.

What precise conflict is there between a past political opponent (by itself) and a current administration? This could be humorous. I really want to hear this stretch of reality....

Any conflict with a past political foe is inherently tied to them being an actual candidate *at the present time'. Not that they 'might be' a foe as you screech incessantly, but that they are an actual, right now political opponent.

Again, think an investigation into Bernie Sanders. Or, why a SC wasnt used to go after John Edwards. Or why Durham was made a SC. None of those was done on your vaunted 'past test' that you proudly regale of 'the ONLY instances EVAH of conflict of interest' for the purposes of the SC rule.

The problem is you blindly dont even bother with the purpose of the rule, and decide to regale us with your general knowledge of COI issues, which may or may not be applicable in light of the purpose of the Special Counsel rule.

But hey, you have NEVER seen or heard of anything that has anything to do with anything *but* past issues, so, you know what -- Saint Ham has spoken. Let it be law, I guess.

I guess in Ham World being a past investigation target fits the purpose of the SC rule, as much as a past real political opponent. It doesnt.

I guess in Ham World, there shouldnt be an issue if DOJ had an interest in investigating Asa Hutchinson, since he has *never* been a political opponent of Biden *before*. Yeah, that sounds good....

I will tell you dollars to donuts a Special Counsel would be used for Hutchison -- because he *is* a declared candidate and made the debate stage. Notwithstanding all your palaver about past relationships.

I will tell you dollars to donuts a Special Counsel would NOT be used for Sanders -- *even though* he *was* a declared candidate and major past political opponent of Biden. Notwithstanding all your palaver about past relationships.

Quote:It is not reasonable for you to insist that no conflict with the Biden Administration and Trump existed prior to his announcing to run (against Biden) for the SECOND time without some statutory evidence.

There was none that implicated the Conflict of Interest rule. There certainly was potential conflict -- an investigation (actually two major ones). Not one that calls into question the issue that the COI rule is meant to resolve. The problem is that you are apparently now conflating 'an administration having any past conflict of any sort' as invoking the COI issues. They dont. There is a serious difference between your attempt to redefine the SC 'conflict of interest' provision into 'any conflict that happens to be ongoing'. They are ot the same, even though they share a word in common.

Trumps past opposition to Biden in an election was a past actual conflict. Not one that starts off a COI at the onset. Trumps present conflict with Biden in litigation similarly does not start that off. Nor does his past opposition to Biden in a race in conjunction with that do so.

When there is a declared candidacy, that is the precise conflict the COI rule is meant to be used with. Not when you have a general investigation open against some person, nor when you have an investigation against a past, or even a potential political opponent.

Funny, there was no Special Counsel when the DOJ went against John Edwards. Using your lip flapping rationale there should have. Imagine that.

Yes it is an opinion. One made through consideration of friends in the DOJ viewpoints, one of whom actually worked in the Mueller probe. One made through more than just one or two law review articles. One made through a long CLE presentation by the former acting solicitor general f the United States, and who happens to be the author of the present rules.

Your basis? I cant wait to hear your basis.....

Quote:2) Wow... Subject to continuing with the above, I find it truly perplexing that you can't recognize the inherent conflict of a sitting president and his opponent in the 2020 election, who engages in alleged unlawful acts to keep his opponent from replacing him in office that are the very subject of the investigation being taken by the intended 'victim' for those acts. Literally it is the alleged victim in charge of the investigation.... and you see no conflict UNTIL he becomes an announced candidate. I am truly baffled by that, but if that is your opinion then so be it.

The issue is your magical combination of a) his opponent in 2020; and b) and is NOW a declared opponent into one big, giant conclusion.

The ONLY germane point, in the slightest, is the 'announced candidate' NOW for purposes of of a conflict of interest.

Quote: I guess that means that Dems should shut up about Clarence Thomas and his buddy until his buddy is announced as a formal candidate for SCOTUS justice, lol.

Awesome contortion there Ham.

If you put your thinking cap on --

A) there is no conflict of interest with Thomas because he 'might be' a business partner in the future.

B. The conflict arises *when* there is the relationship.

Instead you have to contort to some weird ass **** to make some sort of point up there. None of it realistically in line with anything I have said.

In that vein, in your surface level analysis, the DOJ made a mistake when they didnt appoint a Special Counsel for the John Edwards issue. Since the only issue is being a past opponent, and in ALL your experience the *only* COI issues are based in the past.

Your example above doesnt even come close to the issue of the COI and the interaction with the SC. And in no way reflects anything I have said. But please spout some more inanity garbage.

Quote: That simply fails the honesty test in my book.

Not my problem you are inherently ignorant in the subject. Not my problem you want to act like the expert in the world on the subject. Go jump in lake with all your blowhard generalizations and contortions that dont meet the surface reality test, then get piqued because there is no 'statute' that says something in particular.

I suggest boning up on the idea of 'might be' vs 'is'. Last time we went down that path you mixed and matched the idea of 'is' and 'should be', I guess this *is* more of the same.

edited to add:

as a first few steps prior to pulling more stuff out of thin air, try these:

1. Google.com "law review special counsel"

Read a couple of the more recent ones, since the Special Counsel statute lapsed in 1999 and was replaced by the Neal Katylal-authored rules that are in place.

2. Try looking up some of Mr Katyals comments on the now current situation.

3. Call (202) 514-2007. Tell the the DOJ Public Affairs person you are 'writing an article on the Special Counsel rules' and the guidelines in which they are used. Come back and give us a book report.

4. Call 202.662.9807. Tell Neal Katyal (thats his office no. at Georgetown Law School) the same as above. Come back and give us a book report.

Or just regale us on 'all of your issues of COI and their impact on the invocation of the SC Rule' to simply flop around and flap your wings and pull stuff out of the air. Regale us on 'everything you have heard on COI', whether or not it applies to the context of the SC rule.

Everything *I* have heard (listed above) says that there wasnt sufficient basis to use an SC until there was an absolutely, known fact that the object of the investigation was going to be a real, announced candidate. And considering the verbiage in the Rule of 'would', as opposed to 'might', that makes a lot of sense.

But please regale us on your stunning depth of background on COI and the application to the appointment of a Special Counsel and tell us why everyone else is incorrect. I guess we should be waiting on bated breath for the opinion of that a person here in this forum who vehemently disagrees with a former acting US Solicitor General, and the actual author of the rule in its application, on the current application of that rule. I

(09-01-2023 10:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Tanq

Your misrepresentations of my position and comments is not worth responding line by line to. You're lying, Tanq.... and I have no idea why you are so invested in being 'right' for something that makes no difference.

Bottom line is that an article was presented purporting to be an interview between a Washington Post reporter and PBS, indicting both Trump and the Administration/DOJ etc. You decided that they were wrong and that it was ALL on Trump... As they are potentially legally and financially responsible for spreading misinformation, especially these days... not to mention that their contention is consistent with what I know about COI (which I am certain is not as much as you, but it is WAY more than zero, having been on both sides of such cases and subject to disclosure for my entire adult life... plus simply having seen it in action)... I EARNESTLY asked you to show me why it made a difference.

You STILL have not done so... beginning with arrogance (were all just supposed to nod when you speak apparently) then insulting condescension (lying about my clear contention... because you even quote me) and now, I don't know what to call it... Hubris I guess. I'm not interested enough in proving OR disproving the contention of the article... nor you. I have NEVER said you were wrong... I just said that their explanation makes sense given my light knowledge, and yours does not. I just thought since you seemed so certain that they've followed the book, that you'd be able to easily show me the page that says 'this is how you do it'... because the page you DID show me doesn't. The statute you presented doesn't say one word about the definition of a conflict being anything other than the same definition as any other usage.... and you've not even once TRIED to address the very clear conflict that arises from the administration 'of which the DOJ is a part" being the very subject of the alleged wrongdoing by Trump. Instead of addressing this, you misrepresent me and act like I'm silly to even think that way. The only time I mentioned a 'future' conflict, a 'may be' or anything else was to paraphrase your contention. It was NEVER mine. My contention from the start has been that the conflict of interest stems from the actions by Trump, DIRECTLY towards the administration investigating those actions.

Just to humor you though.... I called the DOJ and left a message. Katyal was giving a speech somewhere and wasn't expected back soon. Since I didn't expect them to return my calls, I instead called Joe Biden's office, and while I wasn't able to speak to Joe, he DID send me a coupon for some ice cream, asked for a picture of my grand daughter and had KJP call me back. She said 'we have been very clear about this... that inflation is down and Joe has never been in business with Hunter... and that we have given full disclosure on all of these things'. The DOJ DID call me back and tell me that the 'slow walk' of the investigation WAS intentional, but without a warrant or subpoena, I had to keep it 'off the record'... so I can't tell you whom I spoke to. You can try and call the same number... 202-514-2000. Maybe they'll call you back and you can know what I know.

I hope the sarcasm there is obvious. Don't go misrepresenting my position again. I've never suggested a conspiracy theory at all, and in fact have rejected them. A politician using information against their chief rival for their own purposes rather than the best interests of the people is a documented event. It may or may not have happened here... and at this point, I don't care. I'll be voting against Biden because of what he does and whom I know him to be... and not some conspiracy theory.

(09-01-2023 04:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-01-2023 10:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Tanq

Your misrepresentations of my position and comments is not worth responding line by line to. You're lying, Tanq.... and I have no idea why you are so invested in being 'right' for something that makes no difference.

Bottom line is that an article was presented purporting to be an interview between a Washington Post reporter and PBS, indicting both Trump and the Administration/DOJ etc. You decided that they were wrong and that it was ALL on Trump... As they are potentially legally and financially responsible for spreading misinformation, especially these days... not to mention that their contention is consistent with what I know about COI (which I am certain is not as much as you, but it is WAY more than zero, having been on both sides of such cases and subject to disclosure for my entire adult life... plus simply having seen it in action)... I EARNESTLY asked you to show me why it made a difference.

You STILL have not done so... beginning with arrogance (were all just supposed to nod when you speak apparently) then insulting condescension (lying about my clear contention... because you even quote me) and now, I don't know what to call it... Hubris I guess. I'm not interested enough in proving OR disproving the contention of the article... not you. I just thought since you seemed so certain that they've followed the book, that you'd be able to easily show me the page that says 'this is how you do it'... because the page you DID show me doesn't. The statute you presented doesn't say one word about the definition of a conflict being anything other than the same definition as any other usage.... and you've not even once TRIED to address the very clear conflict that arises from the administration 'of which the DOJ is a part" being the very subject of the alleged wrongdoing by Trump. Instead of addressing this, you misrepresent me and act like I'm silly to even think that way. The only time I mentioned a 'future' conflict, a 'may be' or anything else was to paraphrase your contention. It was NEVER mine. My contention from the start has been that the conflict of interest stems from the actions by Trump, DIRECTLY towards the administration investigating those actions.

Just to humor you though.... I called the DOJ and left a message. Katyal was giving a speech somewhere and wasn't expected back soon. Since I didn't expect them to return my calls, I instead called Joe Biden's office, and while I wasn't able to speak to Joe, he DID send me a coupon for some ice cream, asked for a picture of my grand daughter and had KJP call me back. She said 'we have been very clear about this... that inflation is down and Joe has never been in business with Hunter... and that we have given full disclosure on all of these things'. The DOJ DID call me back and tell me that the 'slow walk' of the investigation WAS intentional, but without a warrant or subpoena, I had to keep it 'off the record'... so I can't tell you whom I spoke to. You can try and call the same number... 202-514-2000. Maybe they'll call you back and you can know what I know.

I hope the sarcasm there is obvious. Don't go misrepresenting my position again. I've never suggested a conspiracy theory at all, and in fact have rejected them. A politician using information against their chief rival for their own purposes rather than the best interests of the people is a documented event. It may or may not have happened here... and at this point, I don't care. I'll be voting against Biden because of what he does and whom I know him to be... and not some conspiracy theory.

I really suggest looking at some of Katyals comments on this. Pretty much dead on point.

Or dont, and arm flap and spout air comments'

The singular idea behind the SC Rule is an *actual* COI. Not a *maybe one*. That is the very real difference between Trump being an explicit announced candidate, and Trump *not* being an explicit announced candidate.

No matter how much *you* bray on the issue and try to twist any form of conflict into a COI for the SC rule.

In short -- you dont know what the fk you are talking about here. In the slightest. And you keep making stuff up that has no basis in how it is viewed. But please get maddy poo and get irate with anyone that disagrees with your really unique assessment.

I've given you the various bases for my opinion. Yours? Just you spouting off in the ether.

As for 'lying' == piss off Ham. You are blowing smoke out your ass on this topic. Not my problem. Cant wait to see your next missive on this.