Jill Stein looped into widening investigation of Russia and Trump Jr. connections

[Jim Lane]

85. I'm getting it from the OP.

The OP included false statements about Jill Stein, as I pointed out in #11. That's the context in which this arose. In #26, still_one, responding to my #11, indicated a lack of concern about whether Stein might have been maligned unfairly. It was in response to still_one that I said "go high." I don't like Stein but I am concerned about maligning her unfairly.

I thought your reference to "their bottom-dwelling level" might mean that you agreed with still_one. I wasn't sure, though, so I asked. I'm very glad to hear that you agree with me that toughness with bullies doesn't call for telling lies about them. I agree with you that there's plenty of room for toughness within the bounds of law and ethics.

You write:

Also, I am still curious about your "wide net" Jill Stein theory. Where exactly do you get that?

I got it from my own experience. That's how I frame document demands. When I'm the lawyer receiving the document demands, that's usually how the other lawyer has framed them.

In this instance, if I were on the Senate committee's staff, I would say, "We've already seen all kinds of surprising things about Don, Jr. and other people connected with Trump. I wonder if he had any communications with Stein? I've seen nothing to indicate that he did, but he might have. Might as well take a few seconds to add her name to the list of people we're asking him about. Can't hurt."

Of course, they might have something more concrete. All I'm saying is that we can't infer that they have anything just because they made the request. Stein called it a witch hunt. I'd call it a fishing expedition. In civil litigation, the courts won't allow discovery demands to cast too wide a net, but a Congressional investigation isn't under the direct supervision of any court and can stray farther afield.