The War Room Bet Thread v2

[kpt018]

I thought you were quoting the 10 year one and was about to flip shit at you guys. Well done.

Also, it's on.
#25. @waiguoren v @HomerThompson
1. Trump is removed from office on or before December 31st, 2019
2. @HomerThompson- for, @waiguoren- against
3. 01/01/2020
4. Sig bet
5. Six months
6. Death and physical illness would result in a null bet. Mental illness and subsequent removal would count.

@HomerThompson is the angle for you here that Dems will flip both chambers this year? Even if they do there are significant hurdles to impeach Trump and if they only flip one or none you're going to be rocking @waiguoren's signature of choice for six months. I just don't have any confidence Republicans would impeach him regardless of any possible findings, do you?

 

[HomerThompson]

@HomerThompson is the angle for you here that Dems will flip both chambers this year? Even if they do there are significant hurdles to impeach Trump and if they only flip one or none you're going to be rocking @waiguoren's signature of choice for six months. I just don't have any confidence Republicans would impeach him regardless of any possible findings, do you?

I'm going all in on the blue wave. Or possibly, but unlikely, a hail Mueller.

 

[Fawlty]

@waiguoren

Dems will flip the House in the midterm. Put your balls on the table.

 

[kpt018]

I'm going all in on the blue wave. Or possibly, but unlikely, a hail Mueller.

Well, I'm hoping you win so good luck, but I think you're going to need it haha.

 

[waiguoren]

He was confident that Nunes would deliver something meaningful, and I knew he wouldn't. But we couldn't come to terms because he was being weaselly.

People can easily see that this is a mischaracterization. It seems like you're counting on people not going back and re-reading the exchange. To summarize it: we had the broad outlines of a bet in place. I told you to draft the terms. You demurred and told me to draft the terms. I moved on to other matters.

 

[Lead]

Well, I'm hoping you win so good luck, but I think you're going to need it haha.

We needed a PotWR with this much conviction.

 

[Jack V Savage]

People can easily see that this is a mischaracterization. It seems like you're counting on people not going back and re-reading the exchange.

??? In what way is it a mischaracterization?

 

[waiguoren]

??? In what way is it a mischaracterization?

We had the broad outlines of a bet in place. I told you to draft the terms. You demurred and told me to draft the terms. I moved on to other matters.

There was no weasel behavior on my part. Also, has the Carter Page FISA application even been released? I haven't been keeping up, but I suspect that determining whether impropriety occurred would be difficult at this point.

 

[Jack V Savage]

We had the broad outlines of a bet in place. I told you to draft the terms. You demurred and told me to draft the terms. I moved on to other matters.

There was no weasel behavior on my part. Also, has the Carter Page FISA application even been released? I haven't been keeping up, but I suspect that determining whether impropriety occurred would be difficult at this point.

Well, we know for a fact that the memo didn't show any improper behavior. If you want to talk about any FBI agent acting inappropriately, however and whenever it is found out, that's a different bet.

 

[waiguoren]

Well, we know for a fact that the memo didn't show any improper behavior.

I don't think you know that.

@Quipling and I went back and forth on this a while back and I'm not sure we reached a conclusion. I think he and I agreed that failing to disclose to the FISA judge the funding source of the Steele dossier might indicate impropriety on the part of the Justice Department, but that we wouldn't want to pass judgment until the FISA application was available.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't think you know that.

@Quipling and I went back and forth on this a while back and I'm not sure we reached a conclusion. I think he and I agreed that failing to disclose to the FISA judge the funding source of the Steele dossier might indicate impropriety on the part of the Justice Department, but that we wouldn't want to pass judgment until the FISA application was available.

It seems that it actually was disclosed, but even if not, why would the funding source of the Steele dossier even matter?

 

[waiguoren]

It seems that it actually was disclosed, but even if not, why would the funding source of the Steele dossier even matter?

My understanding is that, before approving the wiretap, the FISA judge must determine that "probable cause" exists that the target is an "agent of a foreign power". If a major component of the evidence submitted with the FISA application to surveil an associate of a political campaign is funded by the rival campaign, that's definitely something that an ethical judge would consider carefully.

 

[waiguoren]

Also, if Justice Department or FBI officials involved in the warrant application were aware that parts of the dossier were untrue and failed to disclose that on the application, that would certainly qualify as impropriety.

 

[waiguoren]

I think it's very likely that there will be incriminating evidence. Would you be willing to bet against that?

Could you be more specific? What kind of incriminating evidence, against who?

 

[Jack V Savage]

My understanding is that, before approving the wiretap, the FISA judge must determine that "probable cause" exists that the target is an "agent of a foreign power". If a major component of the evidence submitted with the FISA application to surveil an associate of a political campaign is funded by the rival campaign, that's definitely something that an ethical judge would consider carefully.

Again, why? It would be a problem if they got a tip from a rival campaign and then the surveillance request was immediately granted on the basis of just the tip, but if the tip caused them to look into it and they found enough to justify a warrant, it doesn't seem to be a problem at all. We know that Steele wasn't just pulling shit out of his ass, anyway, though he also was providing findings that he didn't have the resources to full investigate.

Could you be more specific? What kind of incriminating evidence, against who?

I don't know what exactly. I'm not privy to the investigation findings. Against Trump. I'm saying that the final report will include evidence of at least a crime by the president himself. I feel confident about that. Do you disagree?

 

[waiguoren]

Again, why? It would be a problem if they got a tip from a rival campaign and then the surveillance request was immediately granted on the basis of just the tip, but if the tip caused them to look into it and they found enough to justify a warrant, it doesn't seem to be a problem at all. We know that Steele wasn't just pulling shit out of his ass, anyway, though he also was providing findings that he didn't have the resources to full investigate.

Your post here didn't distinguish between the Department of Justice and the FISC judge. When you wrote, "if the tip caused them to look into it and they found enough to justify a warrant", it seems the "them "you're referring to the FISC. My understanding is that the FISC doesn't "look into it" that way. They look only at what the petitioner presents and decide if it's convincing enough to justify a wiretap. Also, they are known to be rubber-stamp court, which is a huge civil rights issue in general even apart from the Page surveillance question.

 

[waiguoren]

I'm saying that the final report will include evidence of at least a crime by the president himself. I feel confident about that. Do you disagree?

What's your standard for "evidence of a crime" here? Would Bill Clinton's behavior during the Starr investigation qualify?

 

[Jack V Savage]

What's your standard for "evidence of a crime" here? Would Bill Clinton's behavior during the Starr investigation qualify?

Oh, for fuck's sake...

You tell me. How clean do you think Trump is?

 

[waiguoren]

Oh, for fuck's sake...

You tell me. How clean do you think Trump is?

I'm trying to understand your position. No need for profanity.

 

[waiguoren]

You tell me. How clean do you think Trump is?

I don't think Mueller will uncover any definitive evidence that Trump knew of a Russian government plan to hack the DNC e-mail system prior to that system being hacked.