Dnc, The Russians, Intrigue, Suspense!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by neonspectraltoast, Jan 17, 2017.

  1. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,783
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    Everyday I call my father to remind him to take his pills, even though he knows he needs to take them.
     
  2. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,783
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    Whatever.
     
  3. pensfan13

    pensfan13 Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,192
    Likes Received:
    2,776
    Damn I thought you were like 75.
    I guess that is still possible but just unlikely now.
     
  4. storch

    storch banned

    Messages:
    5,293
    Likes Received:
    717
    If there is something in those links you provided that indicates that the public was made aware of the questions that would be asked at the hearing, then please point them out.

    From one of your links:

    The talking point of “public information” applies to Kadzik’s mention of a House Judiciary Committee hearing, which was publicly announced before he sent the email. However, the FOIA development was not public information. Other Wikileaks emails show that an unnamed Justice Department employee leaked a document with this information to the Clinton campaign’s press secretary Brian Fallon — just a day before Kadzik’s “heads up.”
    ​____________________________________________________________________

    ​You didn't explain what business Kadzik, the Assistant Attorney General, had emailing a heads-up to the presidential candidate's campaign chairman when that candidate was under an FBI investigation, or why on earth Kadzik would give a heads-up to Podesta concerning information that, according to you, was public knowledge anyway. What would be the point of that? Of course, we now know that Kadzik and Podesta were good friends, and that Kadzik contributed to Clinton's campaign in 2008.

    Define conflict of interest.
    __________________________________________________________________________

    Who is Kadzik? We have learned in WikiLeaks emails that he is a very good friend of Clinton campaign chair Podesta. Here’s how the Daily Caller reported their relationship last month.

    The day after Hillary Clinton testified in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi last October, John Podesta, the Democrat’s campaign chairman, met for dinner with a small group of well-connected friends, including Peter Kadzik, a top official at the Justice Department. The dinner arrangement, revealed in hacked Podesta emails released by WikiLeaks, is just the latest example of an apparent conflict of interest between the Clinton campaign and the federal agency charged with investigating the former secretary of state’s email practices.


    https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/did-wikileaks-just-uncover-clintons-mole-within-the-doj
     
  5. storch

    storch banned

    Messages:
    5,293
    Likes Received:
    717
    INDEED!
     
  6. I'll accept as proof all of the things you mentioned before, but I would actually have to see the evidence firsthand. I'm not just going to take the CIA's word for it that the intermediaries who gave WikiLeaks the leaks were Russian.

    But regardless of whether or not it was the Russians, I'm still not going to forget what the DNC did, which is pretty much my whole point.

    I think WikiLeaks is what real journalism is all about. If I was a journalist I'd be digging up the dirt on everybody, and I wouldn't care where my information came from.

    I caught the woman's march, but how is that going to get money out of politics? In a way the people control the USA, but in another way they really don't. I suppose there are two USAs, or just one schizophrenic USA.
     
  7. 6-eyed shaman

    6-eyed shaman Sock-eye salmon

    Messages:
    10,378
    Likes Received:
    5,149
  8. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,783
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    I'm 65+, my father is 94
     
  9. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,783
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    Read the others yourself....I'm tired of looking this stuff up for you
     
  10. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,783
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    We all accept a very large amount of information, or truth, on authority. For example, I accept the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun on authority, I have no idea how to verify that fact and I accept it in spite of my common sense that tells me otherwise. I accept it on authority.

    You have lost faith in the authority of your own government, in total, it seems to me. Seeing things you don't like in some areas, or committed by some individuals, you throw the baby out with the bathwater. In my opinion, and please don't take offense, you have lost the capacity to discriminate. Trump preys on that lack of discrimination.

    Now you say you must see the evidence of the Russian hacks yourself. Just how are you going to do that? Are you a cyber warfare expert? Do you have access to all the information our intelligence agencies have? You have no trust in your own government. Nothing I say in this thread will change that, I can't offer you any proofs you will believe, as I don't have first hand information, and I'm assuming you won't be able to understand it in full if I did offer it to you...and neither would I. I accept what the intelligence authorities say with the understanding that I may, at some point, change my mind based on additional information that comes to light from other sources that I also trust.

    You don't seem to trust any sources at all. In your own words you have to verify everything first hand.
    I do not. I believe the authorities that tell me that if I jump out of a 10 story building onto a concrete street, I will die...although I have never verified it myself.
    I believe the authorities that tell me that Lincoln wrote The Gettysburg Address...although I have never verified it myself.
    I believe the authorities that tell me the size of the recent demonstrations...although I have never verified it myself.

    And so on...I rely on the word of authorities...until they are proven wrong by other authorities or myself.
    As in the example of the Earth revolving around the Sun...I also realize that I will never verify certain things myself and have to rely on certain authorities even when they contradict my senses.
    That is what society is based on.

    You seem to lost respect for any and every governmental agency in existence and you rely on the words of someone like Assange, which by the way you also can't verify first hand.

    That is the way to anarchy and chaos, in my opinion.
    You are free to have your own opinions.
     
    1 person likes this.
  11. storch

    storch banned

    Messages:
    5,293
    Likes Received:
    717
    Your claim was that the questions concerning emails that would be asked at the hearing was public knowledge. You have provided nothing to substantiate that claim. Nor have you explained why Kadzik would offer a heads-up to Podesta concerning questions about emails when the information was, as you said, already made public.

    I'm asking you to provide the pertinent excerpt that would prove your claim that the public was made aware that questions concerning emails were going to be an issue at the hearing. It appears that, so far, you are unwilling or unable to do so.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________

    "A Justice Department spokesman, though, downplayed the significance of Kadzik’s 2015 email, saying it was “about public information” and sent “in his personal capacity, not during work hours.”

    “He wasn’t communicating via official channels because it wasn’t official business,” Kevin Lewis told FoxNews.com. “He wasn’t emailing as ‘Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik."

    The talking point of “public information” applies to Kadzik’s mention of a House Judiciary Committee hearing, which was publicly announced before he sent the email.

    And it seems the Clinton camp already was well aware of the State Department FOIA case filing. ~ Breitbart news
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________

    The above does not prove your claim. The fact that someone tried to downplay the significance of Kadzik's email to Podesta shows that something needed to be downplayed. And the idea that there was no conflict of interest because Kadzik waited until after work hours to send it is ridiculous. If such were the case, then insider trading would be legal as long as the one divulging information does so after working hours. And having someone say that it SEEMS that the Clinton camp was already aware of the State Department FOIA case filing is hardly proof.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________

    From your link:

    "It's unclear how Kadzik learned of the FOIA filing, which was submitted by Department of Justice attorneys representing the State Department in ongoing lawsuits."
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________

    So, how did Kadzik learn of this?
     
  12. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Well he does seem to trust Julian Assange--almost blindly. And he trusts Pizzagate!
     
    1 person likes this.
  13. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Yes, mustn't upset the Russians. Let them have their way in the Crimea, the Ukraine, Syria, etc. BTW, Redpanels seems crudely drawn and really unfunny, in a stolid Russian way. Who put it out? FSB? Naw, I'd guess reddit. Huffman probably draws it himself.
     
    1 person likes this.
  14. Wu Li Heron

    Wu Li Heron Members

    Messages:
    1,391
    Likes Received:
    268
    The cartoon should show Trump attempting to play with a bear and getting mauled, while congress can't decide whether to shoot the bear first.
     
  15. 6-eyed shaman

    6-eyed shaman Sock-eye salmon

    Messages:
    10,378
    Likes Received:
    5,149
    Mustn't upset the Chinese or the Saudis either.
     
    1 person likes this.
  16. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,783
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    Well you got me...I can't find the original public report...but I can find numerous, plentiful media reports..including right wing sites.
    I realize you will not accept any sites I offer as proof such as CNN, Briebart, or any other....and you would probably reject a government site also as it's...the government.
    As to the rest of your post..I'll not going to comment on it any further, as I already have and you have also not accepted any of that.

    Now moving on...what you are attempting to do is shift the burden of proof to me, I have played along for awhile, pointed out the reports that show nothing illegal was done, but you refuse to accept them.

    So now I'll stop playing your game as I really don't have to prove anything.
    I don't have to prove that Kadzik and Podesta were in collusion about anything.
    I don't have to explain the contents of Podesta's email, or why he gave a "heads up", or if there was a conflict of interest.

    You have to prove your claims. That's how it works in the U.S. You have made an allegation, now you have to prove it. Until you do..there is no conflict of interest, period.
    Now explain to me what the conflict of interest was....and show me proof of Podesta's, Kadzik's, Clinton's, or anyone else's financial gain, or the influence of a decision, a political benefit, or any other reward that resulted from this email.

    In your words, substantiate your claim.
    Give me pertinent information that proves Kadzik's guilt such as the specific legal conflict of interest charge, the court date and jurisdiction of the hearing on the charge, the name of the lawyer and or firm who proved the conflict of interest charge in a court of law, the court ruling, and the penalty for the violation.

    Please do not include any opinions as to whether there was a conflict of interest as those are a dime a dozen.
     
    1 person likes this.
  17. storch

    storch banned

    Messages:
    5,293
    Likes Received:
    717
    Putting faith in media reports is all fine and well, but what use are they to you when they leave you holding an empty bag?


    Now moving on, concerning your feeling that I am shifting the burden of proof onto you, how can that be, when I've simply asked you to provide a source for your claim that it was public knowledge that questions concerning Clinton's emails would be an issue at the hearing. Long story short, you failed to do so. You made the claim. I asked you to prove it. And when you couldn't, you tell me that the problem is that I shifted the burden of proof onto you. Right . . .


    And you're right about you not having to explain what business an Assistant Attorney General--a government employee--has emailing a presidential candidate's campaign manager to give him a heads-up concerning who will be testifying at the hearing, and what he will be asked to testify about; to say nothing of the fact that these two characters are old buddies and that Kadzik has contributed to Clinton's campaign fund in the past.


    You also revert back to your old default position when it comes to what makes something true. With the Clinton email issue where it was proven that classified information which the FBI had assessed fell into the hands of hostile actors by passing through her unprotected server, you determined that unless she is charged for her gross negligence, it never happened, and she did no wrong. And here you are again, falling to the same default position when a conflict of interest is pretty much in your face.


    From your own link, it is stated: "It's unclear how Kadzik learned of the FOIA filing, which was submitted by Department of Justice attorneys representing the State Department in ongoing lawsuits."


    So to sum up: A government employee who has contributed to Clinton's campaign fund in the past decides to email his long-time buddy who just happens to be Clinton's campaign chairman, and he gives him a heads-up as to who will be testifying at the hearing and what he will be asked to testify about. But because he did so after working hours, it cannot be said that an Assistant Attorney General provided information to a campaign chairman of a presidential candidate who is under investigation. Right
     
  18. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,783
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    ...and where is the conflict of interest?
    You claim a conflict of interest and then tell me I have to disprove it.

    Yes, I'll fall back on the Constitution...I don't have to prove anything, you made the accusation of a criminal act..so prove it.

    It's all well and good to make an accusation, but what does it get you when your caught holding an empty bag?

    Cherry picking, misconstruing, exaggerations, etc......nothing was ever found wrong with Podesta or Hillary's emails despite numerous investigations and millions spent.

    Get over it.
     
    1 person likes this.
  19. storch

    storch banned

    Messages:
    5,293
    Likes Received:
    717
    When I was on jury duty, the lawyer for the defendant had to ask if any of us knew the defendant. A woman raised her hand and said that she was the defendant's high school teacher, and in the past, friends with his mother. She was dismissed from the jury. The reason for her dismissal was that there would be a conflict of interest. Surely you are aware of such things.

    So here we have Kadzik, the friend of Clinton's campaign chairman, who has contributed to Clinton's presidential campaign fund in the past, and whose son had asked Podesta for a job on the Clinton campaign, and who had sent Podesta an email giving him a heads-up on who would be testifying at the hearing and what they would be testifying about. And this is the guy in charge of the probe into Clinton. Hmmm . . .

    From Zero Hedge:

    The day after Hillary Clinton testified in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi last October, John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chairman met for dinner with a small group of well-connected friends, including Peter Kadzik, who is currently a top official at the US Justice Department serving as Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs.

    The post-Benghazi dinner was attended by Podesta, Kadzik, superlobbyist Vincent Roberti and other well-placed Beltway fixtures. The first mention of personal contact between Podesta and Kadzik in the Wikileaks dump is in an Oct. 23, 2015 email sent out by Vincent Roberti, a lobbyist who is close to Podesta and his superlobbyist brother, Tony Podesta. In it, Roberti refers to a dinner reservation at Posto, a Washington D.C. restaurant. The dinner was set for 7:30 that evening, just one day after Clinton gave 11 hours of testimony to the Benghazi Committee.
    Podesta and Kadzik met several months later for dinner at Podesta’s home, another email shows. Another email sent on May 5, 2015, Kadzik’s son asked Podesta for a job on the Clinton campaign.

    Kadzik represented Podesta during the Monica Lewinsky investigation. And in the waning days of the Bill Clinton administration, Kadzik lobbied Podesta on behalf of Marc Rich, the fugitive who Bill Clinton controversially pardoned on his last day in office. That history is cited by Podesta in another email hacked from his Gmail account. In a Sept. 2008 email, which the Washington Free Beacon flagged last week, Podesta emailed an Obama campaign official to recommend Kadzik for a supportive role in the campaign. Podesta, who would later head up the Obama White House transition effort, wrote that Kadzik was a “fantastic lawyer” who “kept me out of jail.”


    If you don't see a conflict of interest with Kadzik--who has contributed to Clinton's presidential campaign fund in the past--heading the probe into Clinton and giving Clinton's campaign chairman a heads-up concerning who will be testifying at the hearing, and what they will be testifying about, then I guess you're not going to see it. I understand that your argument is that there is no conflict of interest unless the properly designated officials say that there is. And you hold to that argument despite having these facts put before your eyes. This is no different from Clinton's gross negligence where you were shown in no uncertain terms that she allowed classified information to pass through her own private server, and that the State Department made clear that those emails were classified at the time they were sent. And how did you respond to those facts? You basically declared that unless the properly designated official--in that case, Comey--calls it what it definitely is, then it's not what it definitely is. Ironically, you have accused others in this thread of not believing something because of their predisposition to distrust government. But there you were, and here you are again, denying the obvious because of your predisposition to trust the government even when that government fails to call a conflict of interest a conflict of interest.
     
  20. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,783
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    I can find nothing that states that Kadzik headed the investigation into Clinton, please cite your source. He was involved, but I see nothing that tells me he led the investigation.

    Congressman Chuck Grassley asked for an investigation of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Peter Kazik, Andrew McCabe, and "unusual immunity agreements" over this matter back on Nov. 2, 2016...nothing was found.

    Conflict of interest in jury selection is different than determining Kadzik's conflict of interest when sending an email about subjects that are already public knowledge.

    And before you ask me to produce the original public records that Kadzik was referring to..I have already acknowledged my failure to find them on the net.
    However, you can not claim they don't exist because I didn't find them. Let me remind you that the internet does not yet contain the sum knowledge or record of the entire human race.
    My failure may be due to the fact that they are not on the net...but do exist, just as many records that do exist are not on the net.
    Or they may be on the net but my research skills are somewhat lacking.

    In either case they have been reported to exist by many media outlets, some reputable, some not, which tends to confirm their existence.
    Further it doesn't matter as to whether they exist or not, as there has been no court that has convicted Kadzik of any conflict of interest, he has not been forced to resign, nor has he been denied participation in any legal procedure (such as jury duty) because of a conflict of interest.

    He is innocent yet you claim guilt, so you are the one that must prove that guilt. Neither he nor I have any obligation, legal or otherwise, to prove his innocence.
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice