The Trump Card...

[RLENT]

... My response was I thought it was hillarous your definitive response that they don't leak.

Why would that be hilarious ?

Does it being "hilarious" imply anything ?

My question is a simple one. Did Mueller have a leaker on his team? It's a yes or no question.

Do you have any evidence that there were any leaks from Mueller's and his team ? It's a yes or no question.

If yes, please provide the evidence.




Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[muttly]

... My response was I thought it was hillarous your definitive response that they don't leak.

Why would that be hilarious ?

Does it being "hilarious" imply anything ?

My question is a simple one. Did Mueller have a leaker on his team? It's a yes or no question.

Do you have any evidence that there were any leaks from Mueller's and his team ? It's a yes or no question.

If yes, please provide the evidence.




Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

Hilarious that you are definitive that they don't leak. But answer my question first. Thanks

 

[RLENT]

I gave my example already. Attending an after party for the opposing candidate. Also donating money or actively helping in the campaign, or blatant bias towards the other candidate. (See Love bird's texts)

Well, I certainly understand your desire to come up with, and operate off of, things based on "what seems right to me" or "what best suits my political agenda" ... which may have been obtained from a warm, moist, and dark place ... but that ain't the way it works.

Unfortunately (for you) ... or fortunately for those that believe in freedom and equality under the law, Federal employees are allowed to exercise their rights and are not deprived of either political expression or the right to support candidates. It is allowed under Federal laws and DOJ regs.

Specifically, they - meaning even the most restricted employees - are allowed to:

Register and vote as they choose

Contribute money to political campaigns, political parties or partisan political groups

Attend political fundraising functions

Attend political rallies and meetings

Join political clubs or parties (but not hold office)

Furthermore, they're also allowed to do a whole bunch of other stuff as well ... depending on what classification they fall into (less restricted, further restricted) ... and are specifically prohibited from doing certain things on the same basis.

You can read all about that here:

Political Activities | JMD | Department of Justice

... and actually become educated on the matter ... or you can continue on waving your arms and flapping your gums in complete ignorance.

Beyond that, it is also true that they are prohibited from acting on matters where they have specific conflicts of interest ... and would be required to - minimally- seek guidance from those assigned the task of determining whether they actually have a conflict and then recuse themselves if it was found that such conflicts do in fact exist.

All of the above is very HIGHLY REGULATED and there is a PROCESS to be followed, which provides checks and balances ... including, ultimately, oversight by the Office of Inspector General where there are credible allegations raised that violations of the regulations and the process have occurred ... as well as oversight by Congress.

So ... long story short:

While Muttly is certainly allowed his opinion and is allowed to whine incessantly about "BIAS !!!" and "CONFLICTS !!!" that really don't mean jack in the big scheme of things ... unless and until there is an actual violation of the law/regs and the process.

Now that we've cleared all that up ... would you like some more cheese ... and perhaps a wee little cracker to go with it ?




Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[RLENT]

Plausible, plausible, plausible. That's the bread and butter of conspiracy theorists.

Oh I dunno ... I'd say that:

"DEEP STATE !!!"

"SWAMP CREATURE !!!"

"SWAMP THINGS !!!"

"CORRUPT MSM MEDIA = ARM OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY !!!"

"BIAS !!!"

"CONFLICTS OF INTEREST !!!"

... are some pretty good bread and butter ... with accompanying sides of peaNUT butter, jelly, milk ... and a cookie !








Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[RLENT]

Hilarious that you are definitive that they don't leak.

What's hilarious about it ?

Can you explain WHY it would be ?

But answer my question first. Thanks

Ain't. Gonna. Happen.





Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[RLENT]

Dave,

To address your points a little more (since it doesn't appear that you are an "active shooter" at this point"" )

As far as the special council or any others investigating Trump, I'm not aware of any that were a Trump supporter during the election.

It's relevant only insofar as that it could indicate that the investigation isn't going to be gamed in his favor.

Even that isn't a sure bet ... why wouldn't an FBI/DOJ employee act in a manner designed to curry favor with the guy who is their ultimate boss ?

Maybe they could bury some evidence and get a high-ranking political appointment out of it ?

Amirite or what ?

I believe they were all Hillary supporters.

You're certainly welcome to believe that.

But what evidence is there to actually support that belief?

And what about Mueller ... who is a Republican ... and any on the team that have made political donations to BOTH parties ?




Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[RLENT]

Nope. Think you need both. With only one party looking or supporters of one candidate. that's how Hillary and the Clintons dodged a bullet. Really should have balance in that type of investigation. That keeps things a little more honest.

I really don't have a disagreement with that ... in theory.

Unfortunately, after what we have seen occur on the HPSCI - which has had a history of mostly being above partisanship - it's clear that that approach has its own set of problems as well ... and can be less honest ... particularly when things become politicized and are handled on partisan basis.


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[RLENT]

Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[muttly]

Hilarious that you are definitive that they don't leak.

What's hilarious about it ?

Can you explain WHY it would be ?

But answer my question first. Thanks

Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

Just search FBI lovebirds leaked. To help you out. Bwhahaha

 

[Turtle]

First, considering the abundance of reporting, particularly from the NYT and WaPo, that cite sources close to or familiar with the Mueller investigation, it is not at all unreasonable to infer someone or multiple someones from the Mueller team is leaking.

Second, the last several pages of this thread make it abundantly clear what kind of thoughtful and intelligent discussion can result in replies centered around "you" replies that respond to the poster instead of the post.

I'm just sayin'.

 

[RLENT]

First, considering the abundance of reporting, particularly from the NYT and WaPo, that cite sources close to or familiar with the Mueller investigation, it is not at all unreasonable to infer someone or multiple someones from the Mueller team is leaking.

IOW:

It's p-l-a-u-s-i-b-l-e ... at least in someone's mind ...



A while back there was a really good article about source attributions ... and what they may indicate. Might have been on Lawfare or Just Security. Pretty detailed.

A kind of seckret decoder ring if you will.

Basically the way that the source/reporter arrangement works is that the source gets to dictate the terms of how they are quoted or referred to.

Don't agree with what they want, you might not get the info.

Violate the agreement and crap on your source by specifically identifying them - or even just not keeping the terms of the agreement, one might find that sources tend to avoid one like the plague.

An indication of how important reporters consider this to be is shown by that fact that some are willing to go to jail over it.

As to "sources close to or familiar with the Mueller investigation" specifically ... there are a number of possibilities for that, including:

A witness who testified.

A lawyer for the above.

A lawyer for a possible target of the investigation.

A friend of any of the above.

Probably other possibilities as well.

Ain't none of the above that are necessarily on the FBI or on Bobby's Team.








Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[RLENT]

It was Lawfare:

How to Read a News Story About an Investigation: Eight Tips on Who Is Saying What


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[RLENT]

Whoa ...

Mueller just made a move indicating Rick Gates has something of significant value to offer him


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[muttly]

Narrows it down considerably as to the source of the leak.

From article I linked to.
CNN itself reported Friday that typically the subjects of grand jury charges are notified immediately, but in this case neither any subjects, nor their attorneys, have been notified.

Mueller Probe's First Act: Leak to CNN

 

[Turtle]

IOW:

It's p-l-a-u-s-i-b-l-e ... at least in someone's mind ...

No need to recharacterize my words. People don't infer the plausible, they infer the most likely or the most probable. They theorize the plausible.

An indication of how important reporters consider this to be is shown by that fact that some are willing to go to jail over it.

Some are even willing to fabricate sources, so we shouldn't dismiss that possibility.

Ain't none of the above that are necessarily on the FBI or on Bobby's Team.

And ain't none of the above any proof that someone on Mueller's team isn't doing some leaking, either directly or indirectly.

I find it interesting that when considering all of the various and sundry possible plausibilities, the Occam's Razor mostly likely possibility is, somehow, not one of them.

 

[davekc]

Nope. Think you need both. With only one party looking or supporters of one candidate. that's how Hillary and the Clintons dodged a bullet. Really should have balance in that type of investigation. That keeps things a little more honest.

I really don't have a disagreement with that ... in theory.

Unfortunately, after what we have seen occur on the HPSCI - which has had a history of mostly being above partisanship - it's clear that that approach has its own set of problems as well ... and can be less honest ... particularly when things become politicized and are handled on partisan basis.


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

Wouldn't that be guaranteed to happen if one party is investigating the other? Matter of odds?

 

[RLENT]

Narrows it down considerably as to the source of the leak.

Leaving aside the fact that CNN's word on something is now suddenly gold - because it's convenient and suits the agenda - rather than "fake news", no it really doesn't.

But nice try ...







Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[RLENT]

No need to recharacterize my words.

Survey sez:

I found great synonyms for "reasonable" on the new Thesaurus.com!

People don't infer the plausible, they infer the most likely or the most probable. They theorize the plausible.

LOL ... ok ... if you say so ...

Of course, what people consider is the "most likely" or the "most probable" is probably a highly individualistic thing ... and majorly dependent on how they view things.

Some are even willing to fabricate sources, so we shouldn't dismiss that possibility.

Yup ... it's entirely possible ... and it does happen.

(see Sen. Ron Johnson's secret "whistleblower" Jon Rohnson ... )

And ain't none of the above any proof that someone on Mueller's team isn't doing some leaking, either directly or indirectly.

That is correct ... it isn't proof.

But if someone is going to claim that they are leaking, then it is incumbent on them to provide proof ... or at least some evidence that supports the claim.

My evidence - which is not 100% conclusive - is:

1. Pippydippy

2. The Russian indictments

No hints either were coming, complete bolts from the blue ... no leaks.

And there are certain aspects that they both lack/share, that seem to point to where "leaks" are likely coming from.

I find it interesting that when considering all of the various and sundry possible plausibilities, the Occam's Razor mostly likely possibility is, somehow, not one of them.

While you may well find it interesting, Occam's Razor is not an irrefutable principle of logic.



Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[RLENT]

Wouldn't that be guaranteed to happen if one party is investigating the other? Matter of odds?

It's only guaranteed when loyalty/duty to party exceeds loyalty/duty to country.

In such an environment, extreme hyper partisanship does pretty much guarantee it.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams

In what universe is it moral to place the interests of, and duty to, party above the interests of the country and one's duty to it ?

The continued fomenting of the political divide will be the death of this country.

And it don't look all that far off from where I sit.




Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[RLENT]

Deep backgrounder:

The Hidden History of Trump’s First Trip to Moscow


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums