It's Mueller Time!

[TankTop5]

You guys make it too easy

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TankTop5]

Anyway, Trump declassified ALL the evidence in origination of Russia probe. Judicial Watch is filing FOIA requests as fast as possible and the DOJ is investigating as well, it’s telling that the Left leaning media is almost completely ignoring it. Evidence is flooding out now, they won’t be able to ignore it much more.

I’m not even going to bother looking back but whoever said the Mueller investigation wasn’t about Trump collusion is being willfully dishonest at the very least!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Trell]

Do you really think 'other goods and services' isn't used to cover just about anything they need? Look, real estate is an investment- some rent, others buy but either way, if it's for the job, it comes with write-offs.

It depends on the moral character of the member what he/she uses 'other goods and services' for, which history has shown to be quite flexible/non-existent for some of them. As for members of Congress ability for write-off real-estate because it's their job, I don't know, to be honest.

The quote is from the document Congressional Salaries and Allowances: In Brief and reading (skimming, I must admit) it there are restricts on what you can use the allowance for: essentially not for personal expenses. There are some differences between allowance for House and Senate, though, but the MRA ([House] Members’ Representational Allowance ) is quite explicit (page 4)

"The MRA is also subject to a number of restrictions. For example, the MRA may not be used to defray any personal or campaign-related expenses."​

​

Here's a little something that they get which isn't well-known-

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html

I wonder how that would be paid if they had a per diem.

I've read about this before and find it totally obnoxious, both the sexual harassments and the settlements, along with the apparant cover-ups.

Financially vulnerable? The original members of Congress were ONLY reimbursed for their expenses- they didn't receive a salary and most owned farms, plantations and other businesses.

So what? Once upon a time the buggy whip industry was thriving and slave owners where members of Congress. Hardly relevant for the modern USA.

If you think she's reasonable, informed and polite, I can't help you.

Thank you for your kind offer, but I think I'll manage

 

[TankTop5]

Just think about this for a moment, there is real evidence that top officials with the US intelligence community committed perjury and illegally used foreign intelligence to obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against a US President. We have Strok and Page emails, Bruce Ohr emails and perjury. Comey swore under oath to a FISA judge that there was corroborating evidence, Trump declassified the investigation and no corroborating evidence exists. FBI skipped the department responsible for investigating evidence before referring it to a FISA court and ignored emails that the evidence was completely without merit.

People are going to prison


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Trell]

Anyway, Trump declassified ALL the evidence in origination of Russia probe. Judicial Watch is filing FOIA requests as fast as possible and the DOJ is investigating as well, it’s telling that the Left leaning media is almost completely ignoring it. Evidence is flooding out now, they won’t be able to ignore it much more.

You mean that Trump gave Barr that authority? Old news, unless Barr actually has done so now. Here is a couple of links which you probably find "left-leaning".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-gives-barr-power-to-declassify-intelligence-related-to-russia-probe/2019/05/23/06950e90-7dbc-11e9-8ede-f4abf521ef17_story.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/us/politics/russia-investigation-origins.html

I’m not even going to bother looking back but whoever said the Mueller investigation wasn’t about Trump collusion is being willfully dishonest at the very least!

The investigation was about Russia attacking the US 2016 elections (Volume I) and Trump obstructing that investigation (Volume II). It's quite simple, really.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Do you really think 'other goods and services' isn't used to cover just about anything they need? Look, real estate is an investment- some rent, others buy but either way, if it's for the job, it comes with write-offs.

Here's a little something that they get which isn't well-known-

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html

I wonder how that would be paid if they had a per diem.

Financially vulnerable? The original members of Congress were ONLY reimbursed for their expenses- they didn't receive a salary and most owned farms, plantations and other businesses.

If you think she's reasonable, informed and polite, I can't help you.

Well, when your employees are slaves, you can afford to forgo a salary.

On a more serious note, real Congressional salaries appear to have been steadily dropping over the last couple of decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress
https://www.thoughtco.com/salaries-and-benefits-of-congress-members-3322282

Unless you would like to be governed by a plutocracy, salaries for our elected officials should be commensurate with their duties and responsibilities. We often dump on politicians, but it can be a truly thankless and demoralizing job.

As for AOC, I may not agree with everything she says, but "reasonable, informed and polite" are apt descriptors, IMO. And, no, I don't need any help...

 

[RedCharles]

Why does the lightswitch make my sink growl? It terrifies me! I need help from the internet!

NOT INFORMED OR REASONABLE

If they took their own plans seriously, they would know the math.

NOT INFORMED OR REASONABLE

There are easily dozens of examples showing that she is a pretty and well dressed fool. Defending her makes YOU look like a minstrel in the moron brigade. There are intelligent people on the left, and she is not one of them.

 

[TankTop5]

You mean that Trump gave Barr that authority? Old news, unless Barr actually has done so now. Here is a couple of links which you probably find "left-leaning".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-gives-barr-power-to-declassify-intelligence-related-to-russia-probe/2019/05/23/06950e90-7dbc-11e9-8ede-f4abf521ef17_story.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/us/politics/russia-investigation-origins.html





The investigation was about Russia attacking the US 2016 elections (Volume I) and Trump obstructing that investigation (Volume II). It's quite simple, really.

Thank you and I truly appreciate reading opposing points of view, it helps we have a balanced opinion. Would you also please read links that I post so that you may also have a balanced opinion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lovinthehd]

No thanks, it’s all there for you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You just pointed at an article and an archive. Draw up your conclusion and explain how the dots are connected.

You guys make it too easy

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one can come up with more stupid quotes than the drumpf....his lead is insurmountable as are his stack of lies so far. Just shows your nature.

 

[Trell]

Thank you and I truly appreciate reading opposing points of view, it helps we have a balanced opinion. Would you also please read links that I post so that you may also have a balanced opinion?

For a moment there I thought you where referencing a new judicialwatch article, my bad.

I'm with @lovinthehd that wrote: "You just pointed at an article and an archive. Draw up your conclusion and explain how the dots are connected. " Also, the article (undated, btw) and the archive are on two different sites that appears to be unrelated, so it's not clear that the article has used what is found in the archive.

 

[Trell]

You just pointed at an article and an archive. Draw up your conclusion and explain how the dots are connected.

I concur, and think that @TankTop5 demand we do this is unreasonable.

He asks us to take a six month old article based upon anonymous sources referencing classified material and find documents in an continuously updated archive to support the article. Apparently to make the article credible, I guess.

When we've done that we should use the article to support his claim "Completely separate, the DNC and Hillary campaign made it look like Trump was colluding with the Russians. " As it is, the article does not support that claim, heck, even the anonymous sources does not claim that.

For reference the links @TankTop5 posted are:

1. https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/419901-fbi-email-chain-may-provide-most-damning-evidence-of-fisa-abuses-yet
2. https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/

The TheHill article is a piece published 5th of December 2018 (https://thehill.com/author/john-solomon) that uses anonymous sources referencing classified material. It's a bit unfortunate that the site does not date each article in the article itself, which wold make it easier to put it in context.

In the the archive by JudicialWatch there are a number of documents appearing to be from FOIA request, and documents are continuously added (the last as of yesterday as I write this). The names of the documents are of the type "JW DCNF v DOJ Steele Orbis 00968 pg 11-12", "JW v. DOJ Strzok Page Emails Prod 6 00154 pg 116-128".

These two sites appears to be unrelated.

 

[TankTop5]

I concur, and think that @TankTop5 demand we do this is unreasonable.

He asks us to take a six month old article based upon anonymous sources referencing classified material and find documents in an continuously updated archive to support the article. Apparently to make the article credible, I guess.

When we've done that we should use the article to support his claim "Completely separate, the DNC and Hillary campaign made it look like Trump was colluding with the Russians. " As it is, the article does not support that claim, heck, even the anonymous sources does not claim that.

For reference the links @TankTop5 posted are:

1. https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/419901-fbi-email-chain-may-provide-most-damning-evidence-of-fisa-abuses-yet
2. https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/

The TheHill article is a piece published 5th of December 2018 (https://thehill.com/author/john-solomon) that uses anonymous sources referencing classified material. It's a bit unfortunate that the site does not date each article in the article itself, which wold make it easier to put it in context.

In the the archive by JudicialWatch there are a number of documents appearing to be from FOIA request, and documents are continuously added (the last as of yesterday as I write this). The names of the documents are of the type "JW DCNF v DOJ Steele Orbis 00968 pg 11-12", "JW v. DOJ Strzok Page Emails Prod 6 00154 pg 116-128".

These two sites appears to be unrelated.

Hmmm.... didn’t realize when I post a link to a specific document on JW it takes you back to the main document page and not what I was referencing. The Hill article references uncorroborated information that the JW lists the actual source of. Let’s give it a couple days as lots of new information is coming out quickly and the DOJ should be done with their report very soon.

Hey, I could be totally wrong


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GO-NAD!]

You guys make it too easy

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why does the lightswitch make my sink growl? It terrifies me! I need help from the internet!

NOT INFORMED OR REASONABLE

If they took their own plans seriously, they would know the math.

NOT INFORMED OR REASONABLE

There are easily dozens of examples showing that she is a pretty and well dressed fool. Defending her makes YOU look like a minstrel in the moron brigade. There are intelligent people on the left, and she is not one of them.

Like every politician ever born, she has made errors, but her performance during committee hearings- especially her questioning of Cohen - shows that she's far from stupid. Like I said, I don't agree with everything she says, but I won't question her smarts. The right underestimates her at their peril.

 

[Trell]

Hmmm.... didn’t realize when I post a link to a specific document on JW it takes you back to the main document page and not what I was referencing. The Hill article references uncorroborated information that the JW lists the actual source of. Let’s give it a couple days as lots of new information is coming out quickly and the DOJ should be done with their report very soon.

Hey, I could be totally wrong

Always a good thing to check the link before posting

As for Judicial Watch, it has serious credibility issues. I remember JW as a climate change denier organization using FOIA to harass scientists, so even if they get documents via FOIA I'll be very suspect of any claim of theirs.

Wikipedia bears this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch:

"The organization has described climate science as "fraud science" and has filed lawsuits against government client scientists. JW has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims that have been picked up by right-wing news outlets. [My bold] Courts have dismissed the vast majority of its lawsuits."​

 

[TankTop5]

Always a good thing to check the link before posting

As for Judicial Watch, it has serious credibility issues. I remember JW as a climate change denier organization using FOIA to harass scientists, so even if they get documents via FOIA I'll be very suspect of any claim of theirs.

Wikipedia bears this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch:

"The organization has described climate science as "fraud science" and has filed lawsuits against government client scientists. JW has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims that have been picked up by right-wing news outlets. [My bold] Courts have dismissed the vast majority of its lawsuits."​

I was simply using them to quoteinformation not for their conclusions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[highfigh]

Well, when your employees are slaves, you can afford to forgo a salary.

On a more serious note, real Congressional salaries appear to have been steadily dropping over the last couple of decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress
https://www.thoughtco.com/salaries-and-benefits-of-congress-members-3322282

Unless you would like to be governed by a plutocracy, salaries for our elected officials should be commensurate with their duties and responsibilities. We often dump on politicians, but it can be a truly thankless and demoralizing job.

As for AOC, I may not agree with everything she says, but "reasonable, informed and polite" are apt descriptors, IMO. And, no, I don't need any help...

AFAIK, not all members of the first Congresses were slave owners- you don't need to generalize to that extent.

WRT their salary- what happened to 'public service'? It was never supposed to be a damn career!

If they don't want their service to be thankless, the least they could do is try for higher than 17% approval rating (as of Aug, 2018).

Re: AOC- "just pay for it..." when she says we should have Medicaid for all? How? "If it's not broken, don't mess with it", said when discussing the VA. Her Green New Deal is a pipe dream, not close to realistic or possibility.

I'm all for clean everything- the two things we need the most- water and air, are in bad shape, but not everywhere. The US has cleaned its act up a lot but it definitely needs to keep going. China has a helluva long way to go to even approach the US when it was at its worst. I go to the local marinas to work and for boating and it's full of garbage. Totally disgusting. The local air is pretty darned clean, though. Big change from 30-50 years ago. I have changed to LED lighting, and try to conserve as much energy as possible, but the problem is that the cost never seems to go down much, for long. The local power company is a monopoly, owned by shareholders. They don't give a rat's butt if the price goes up- they make money on the stock. If I could stand it, I might buy some, but that would make me a whore.

People could clean up after themselves, but that takes effort and it's something that appears to be beneath them, even if they don't have a job. KEW was in MKE (may still be here)- I'll ask for his impression of the condition of the city. It disappoints me, terribly. Cleaning up on a huge scale is so much harder that I don't see it happening in my lifetime.

 

[markw]

I just couldn't resist this one!

 

[GO-NAD!]

AFAIK, not all members of the first Congresses were slave owners- you don't need to generalize to that extent.

WRT their salary- what happened to 'public service'? It was never supposed to be a damn career!

If they don't want their service to be thankless, the least they could do is try for higher than 17% approval rating (as of Aug, 2018).

The slave owner remark was just tongue-in-cheek, but I'm probably not too far off the mark. As for what constitutes a fair salary - that's a question that I don't have an answer for. But, seeing it shrink over the past couple of decades? And, whether it should or shouldn't be a career, isn't that for the voters to decide?

It's easy for us to say that public service demands sacrifice in time and money, but if you want to avoid a plutocracy, we need a good cross-section of society in public office. If we leave it to the independently wealthy, God help us all.

 

[TankTop5]

As for what constitutes a fair salary - that's a question that I don't have an answer for. But, seeing it shrink over the past couple of decades? And, whether it should or shouldn't be a career, isn't that for the voters to decide?.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[highfigh]

The slave owner remark was just tongue-in-cheek, but I'm probably not too far off the mark. As for what constitutes a fair salary - that's a question that I don't have an answer for. But, seeing it shrink over the past couple of decades? And, whether it should or shouldn't be a career, isn't that for the voters to decide?

It's easy for us to say that public service demands sacrifice in time and money, but if you want to avoid a plutocracy, we need a good cross-section of society in public office. If we leave it to the independently wealthy, God help us all.

$174K minimum isn't enough? They only work part of the year and if they're on a committee, they make more. I know DC is notoriously expensive WRT real estate, but many live outside of the city, or commute- the trains and flights aren't terribly expensive if they live in a neighboring state. Hell, I had a college professor who commuted to MKE from DC since his wife worked at the Smithsonian.

I don't know anyone who said or thinks only independently wealthy should be in Congress but I don't want them to become too comfortable, either. Complacency leads to bad things when the person in question is in a position of power. Could be corruption or laziness, but that's no place to just go through the motions.