Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:02 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
1) Lying or pleading the fifth does not make hard evidence go away.

2) If there was coordination between the Russian govt and the Trump campaign there would be hard evidence.

3)If there was hard evidence, the US spy apparatus would have captured it since they were spying on the campaign for quite a while.

4) If the spy apparatus captured hard evidence, Mueller would have disclosed it or it would have leaked through a Trump-hating spook.

Which of these do you dispute?

I do note an authoritarian tendency to denounce the act of pleading the fifth as ďobstructionĒ. Very sad.
I dispute there would be hard evidence, or enough to make it sufficient for any indictments. It's easy enough to avoid using electronic communications. We know that the campaign met with some Russians, but if no one recorded what was said, then there would be no hard evidence even if the campaign said, "we want to collude with you to disrupt Hilary Clinton's campaign. What can we do to help you?"

So, I dispute 2, making the rest of it irrelevant.

I didn't mean to conflate a fifth pleading with obstruction. I meant for those to be two different things -- pleading the fifth can restrict the ability of investigators to gather evidence, as can being willing to go to jail by lying and straight up obstruction. Sorry if I worded that poorly. Thanks for your totally unnecessary accusation of authoritarian tendencies -- it was very helpful to our conversation. Why not just ask if that's what I meant?
  #52  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:28 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I dispute there would be hard evidence, or enough to make it sufficient for any indictments. It's easy enough to avoid using electronic communications. We know that the campaign met with some Russians, but if no one recorded what was said, then there would be no hard evidence even if the campaign said, "we want to collude with you to disrupt Hilary Clinton's campaign. What can we do to help you?"

So, I dispute 2, making the rest of it irrelevant.

I didn't mean to conflate a fifth pleading with obstruction. I meant for those to be two different things -- pleading the fifth can restrict the ability of investigators to gather evidence, as can being willing to go to jail by lying and straight up obstruction. Sorry if I worded that poorly. Thanks for your totally unnecessary accusation of authoritarian tendencies -- it was very helpful to our conversation. Why not just ask if that's what I meant?
I think that question was already answered above:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Have you met Will?
The underlying premises of his entire argument are fundamentally flawed anyway, and 4) is outright ludicrous. Mueller didn't carry out his investigation by "spying" in any meaningful way, the Mueller investigation was notoriously leakproof and the imaginary "Trump-hating spook" is part of the wider paranoid fantasy.

Meanwhile, the Mueller report contained substantive descriptions and evidence of multiple interactions between the Trump campaign and high-level Russian individuals, and six Trump associates were literally convicted of felony perjury for hiding their meetings with Russians. This is what certain people consider "no evidence".
  #53  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:31 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I dispute there would be hard evidence, or enough to make it sufficient for any indictments. It's easy enough to avoid using electronic communications. We know that the campaign met with some Russians, but if no one recorded what was said, then there would be no hard evidence even if the campaign said, "we want to collude with you to disrupt Hilary Clinton's campaign. What can we do to help you?"

So, I dispute 2, making the rest of it irrelevant.

I didn't mean to conflate a fifth pleading with obstruction. I meant for those to be two different things -- pleading the fifth can restrict the ability of investigators to gather evidence, as can being willing to go to jail by lying and straight up obstruction. Sorry if I worded that poorly. Thanks for your totally unnecessary accusation of authoritarian tendencies -- it was very helpful to our conversation. Why not just ask if that's what I meant?
I didnít realize that the conflation was a mistake. Iíve seen it done several times, so I thought it was worth it to point out here.

Thank you for specifying where we disagree. For me, I see these political actors as clownishly incompetent. All sorts of personal communications have surfaced that point to a high level of incompetence being pervasive in the American political class.

They are not careful with their communications. If I was to make a claim that Obama was involved in a Putin conspiracy, I would have more hard evidence than you have with Trump. That hot-mic event where he implied that he would change his position on Russia after the voters had a chance to evaluate his position on Russia was the hard evidence Russia hawks are looking for with Trump.

No I donít think Obama was engaged in a conspiracy with Russia. The point is that if I made the same claims that Trump haters make about another politician the claims would be considered a conspiracy theory.
  #54  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:37 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
I think that question was already answered above:


The underlying premises of his entire argument are fundamentally flawed anyway, and 4) is outright ludicrous. Mueller didn't carry out his investigation by "spying" in any meaningful way, the Mueller investigation was notoriously leakproof and the imaginary "Trump-hating spook" is part of the wider paranoid fantasy.
Never said Mueller did the spying. A bold-faced mischaracterizarion.

Never said there were leaks from Mueller. Another ...misinterpretation.

John Brennan is just one Trump-hating spook. He is certainly convinced of a conspiracy, if he had evidence it would be out. Iím sure there are others working under Trump that would love to hammer him. Probably the same with all presidents. They simply have found nothing, despite much effort.

Quote:
Meanwhile, the Mueller report contained substantive descriptions and evidence of multiple interactions between the Trump campaign and high-level Russian individuals, and six Trump associates were literally convicted of felony perjury for hiding their meetings with Russians. This is what certain people consider "no evidence".
Evidence of interactions is not evidence of collusion/conspiracy/coordination/collaboration/cooperation. Mueller agrees.
  #55  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:39 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
The point is that if I made the same claims that Trump haters make about another politician the claims would be considered a conspiracy theory.
If I made the same claims about you that others made about Harold Shipman, that would be considered a ridiculous conspiracy theory. But Shipman was still actually guilty of the things he was accused of.
  #56  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:52 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,976
Key thing missing is evidence. There has been no hard evidence brought forth. What we have are meetings and innuendo.
  #57  
Old 05-16-2019, 11:00 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Never said Mueller did the spying. A bold-faced mischaracterizarion.

Never said there were leaks from Mueller. Another ...misinterpretation.
Perhaps if you'd stop mashing together the "spying" accusations with the Mueller investigation, others wouldn't assume you were treating them as one and the same.

Quote:
John Brennan is just one Trump-hating spook. He is certainly convinced of a conspiracy, if he had evidence it would be out. Iím sure there are others working under Trump that would love to hammer him. Probably the same with all presidents. They simply have found nothing, despite much effort.
To be clear - which "they" are we talking about now? Mueller? Brennan? Shadowy faceless Deep State figures? Again - clarity of writing is your friend.

I mean, the Mueller investigation certainly found multiple attempts to obstruct the investigation. They found evidence of campaign funding violations. They found sufficient evidence to indict and convict several key members of Trump's campaign staff and other close associates.

As for Brennan, your portrayal of his motives appears to also be a "mischaracterization". You treat Brennan as if his opposition to Trump and his actions was due to his innate hatred of Trump, rather than his hatred of Trump arising from Trump's actions. This is the same argument that Trump attempted to make against a judge in California, claiming that the judge must hold a grudge against Trump because Trump had repeatedly insulted him first. It's a fundamentally flawed argument.

Quote:
Evidence of interactions is not evidence of collusion/conspiracy/coordination/collaboration/cooperation. Mueller agrees.
But it was evidence of Russian interference in the election, which is what Mueller and his team were actually investigating. Another mischaracterization.

And what we have are meetings and innuendo and documentation and communications and testimony. Courts don't hand out perjury convictions for "innuendo".
  #58  
Old 05-16-2019, 12:20 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
What doesn't make sense is for Bo to say I'm wrong for saying Clinton helped pay for the russia investigation
That's not what you said. Now you're spreading a false narrative about what you wrote. Please stop doing that.
  #59  
Old 05-16-2019, 02:05 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
That's not what you said. Now you're spreading a false narrative about what you wrote. Please stop doing that.
I'm just going to assume that you're gaslighting at this point and not looking for an actual discussion. Nothing you're saying makes any sense at this point.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #60  
Old 05-20-2019, 07:39 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by furt View Post
2) The claim that Trump or his surrogates cooperated, wittingly or unwittingly with the Russians, which at this point no reasonable and informed person can claim actually occured.
There is absolute 100% proof that this occurred. We had proof that this occurred before the Mueller report was released and there are numerous instances detailed in the Mueller report.

Reasonable and informed person indeed.

Just one example.

Quote:
Second, Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump Campaign and Manafort’s plan to win the election. That briefing encompassed the Campaign’s messaging and its internal polling data. According to Gates, it also included discussion of “battleground” states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.

Last edited by Lance Turbo; 05-20-2019 at 07:43 AM.
  #61  
Old 05-20-2019, 08:28 AM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Yes Trump and the gang are master criminals who can cover tracks and keep secrets from the most powerful and invasive spying apparatus in world history.
One of the patterns apparent from what we've seen of the Mueller Report is that the Russians had the good sense to run the election-tampering operation themselves and relegate the Trumpkins to the role of supporting mooks (still complicit, but in less glaring ways than the core operatives on the Russian side).
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #62  
Old 05-20-2019, 10:18 AM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,843
For clandestine operations, paranoia is a positive. "Need to know" is the standard, you don't include any more knowledgeable conspirators than absolutely necessary. As a result, I don't believe it is at all likely the Il Douche, himself, was an actual conspirator. Putin is a veteran KGB spook, no way, no how, does he willingly include a shit-for-brains motormouth as a co-conspirator!
  #63  
Old 05-20-2019, 11:10 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,596
The term "useful idiot" is itself a Russian invention.
  #64  
Old 05-20-2019, 05:50 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Evidence of interactions is not evidence of collusion/conspiracy/coordination/collaboration/cooperation. Mueller agrees.
You don't get to have it both ways on, "Collusion is not a crime."
  #65  
Old 05-21-2019, 10:41 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,892
Hey furt, can I trouble you to return to the thread and address this.

You posted this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by furt View Post
2) The claim that Trump or his surrogates cooperated, wittingly or unwittingly with the Russians, which at this point no reasonable and informed person can claim actually occured.
I responded with this excerpt from the Mueller report...

Quote:
Second, Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump Campaign and Manafortís plan to win the election. That briefing encompassed the Campaignís messaging and its internal polling data. According to Gates, it also included discussion of ďbattlegroundĒ states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.
Is it your contention that this interaction not only is not cooperation, but that no reasonable person could view this as cooperation?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017