Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #4501  
Old 05-17-2018, 05:55 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 2,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
All it means is that they met some Russians who promised info and here's an article about Russians having info. Interesting that in this case it was actually the Russians getting damaging info about Trump himself. (Though you could argue it was of value to Trump to know what the Democrats had on him.)
This is a truly bizarre interpretation.
  #4502  
Old 05-17-2018, 08:17 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
All it means is that they met some Russians who promised info and here's an article about Russians having info. Interesting that in this case it was actually the Russians getting damaging info about Trump himself. (Though you could argue it was of value to Trump to know what the Democrats had on him.)

On a related note, see an email from Ike Kaveladze on that same day (June 14), stating "meeting was boring. The Russians did not have any bad info in [sic] Hillary". (link, page 15).

[Of possible minor interest: the recipient's name is redacted, but I belief the time stamps of the email exchange indicates that this person's time zone was 10 hours ahead of Kaveladze.]
I doubt that anything short of your having been a fly on the wall of the meeting will ever convince you that your Blessed Savior and his get aren't anything but as pure as the driven snow.

Just another Trump apologist. Moving along, nothing to see here.

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 05-17-2018 at 08:19 PM.
  #4503  
Old 05-17-2018, 08:45 PM
digs digs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of Wauwatosa
Posts: 8,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
This is a truly bizarre interpretation.
Then why does everyone keep acting like these are serious points? You're just encouraging this behavior.

Last edited by digs; 05-17-2018 at 08:46 PM.
  #4504  
Old 05-17-2018, 10:22 PM
digs digs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of Wauwatosa
Posts: 8,055
Trump planning to prep for Mueller interview... but not diligently.

I'm encouraged and amused by this sentence:
Quote:
The planning meetings — to be held during off-hours at the White House and perhaps over rounds of golf at Trump’s private courses, Giuliani said — will mirror the then-GOP nominee’s 2016 debate preparation, in which aides briefed an impatient Trump in several brief sessions over many weeks.
So they're going to work just as hard as they did during the debates? And Trump'll be just as focused and prepared? Good.
  #4505  
Old 05-18-2018, 01:41 AM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 19,262
I don't think it's going too far out on a limb to say that the "secret" informant / mole in the Trump campaign was in fact Felix Sater:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...t-informant-is

https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-...p-tower-moscow

We've been waiting to hear from the dude for a year now and suddenly he's on the record with the press, talking about bringing in Osama bin Laden for the CIA, right when the House Intelligence Committee is trying to track down who was talking to the FBI? Mkay.
  #4506  
Old 05-18-2018, 01:58 AM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 19,262
Very scummy of them to not mention it, but this talks about the Democratic member report from the Senate Judiciary Committee (NOT a bipartisan report, as the link implies):

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kremli...ence-committee

Minus the underlying intel, it's hard to say how believable we should consider the document.

Though, to note, it doesn't mince words and does directly and boldly state that Russia and team Trump were in cahoots, behind the scenes. It doesn't state that Trump was necessarily aware of everything that Russia was doing for him, but that raises the question of what exactly his team and Russia were talking about in the 10 or so "just establishing a back-channel" conversations.

It does not take 10 tries to figure out how to communicate in secret.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 05-18-2018 at 02:01 AM.
  #4507  
Old 05-18-2018, 08:03 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by digs View Post
Then why does everyone keep acting like these are serious points? You're just encouraging this behavior.
I agree with this.

It's not enough that you're in a forum where the vast majority are predisposed to agree with you, where about 99% of the posts are in accordance with your position, and where you can bolster your confidence by joining together in mocking the Infidels. Because if you let even the slightest amount of Dissent in, that might lead to Doubt, and who knows what comes next.

It's always important to be on guard against any form of Heresy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
I don't think it's going too far out on a limb to say that the "secret" informant / mole in the Trump campaign was in fact Felix Sater:
IMO that's a pretty good guess as guesses go. Considering that Sater is known to be a long term FBI informant, who in addition to his Trump ties is also connected to various foreign governments, businesses, and criminal enterprises. An interesting guy.

One thought that occurred to me is that when the Senate (or whoever) releases some partially redacted documents, the people involved would typically know whose name is being redacted. For example, in the email exchange cited earlier involving Ike Kaveladze, the name of the other party is redacted but Kaveladze himself would obviously know who that person is and could share it with whoever else, with whatever implications that has. I wonder how that's dealt with.
  #4508  
Old 05-18-2018, 08:38 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 20,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
I agree with this.

It's not enough that you're in a forum where the vast majority are predisposed to agree with you, where about 99% of the posts are in accordance with your position, and where you can bolster your confidence by joining together in mocking the Infidels. Because if you let even the slightest amount of Dissent in, that might lead to Doubt, and who knows what comes next.

It's always important to be on guard against any form of Heresy.
It would have been much quicker and just as substantive to just call us all "sheeple".
  #4509  
Old 05-18-2018, 08:40 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,255
You have your style, I have mine. If that "sheeple" shtick works for you, go for it.
  #4510  
Old 05-18-2018, 09:34 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 20,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
You have your style, I have mine. If that "sheeple" shtick works for you, go for it.
But it's not my shtick.

If 99% of people say X and I'm saying Y, I either make sure my evidence for Y is as solid as I think it is or I consider whether there is merit to X; I don't just accuse people saying X of groupthink. If a media source that aligns with me politically says X and the other 99% say Y, I take what the minority are saying with a grain of salt and look for corroboration; I don't loudly claim that the 99% are just biased against me and therefore all lying. And if 97% of the world's scientists in a particular field are saying something I wish weren't true I don't claim they're all just in it for the sweet, sweet non-military government funding and that the remaining 3% are the bold, completely unbiased tellers of truth without some strong evidence.

Admittedly it would be easier to just claim that everyone disagrees with me for partisan reasons, but that's no way to educate oneself or to test the validity of one's beliefs.

Last edited by Gyrate; 05-18-2018 at 09:36 AM.
  #4511  
Old 05-18-2018, 09:45 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,255
You're confusing one board whose membership has a known political lean with "97% of the world's scientists" and similar. This is an elementary logical error.

[Which is even besides for the fact that my comment was made in a completely different context, which seems to have eluded you.]

Last edited by Fotheringay-Phipps; 05-18-2018 at 09:46 AM.
  #4512  
Old 05-18-2018, 09:50 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 20,920
I wasn't confusing you with anyone. I was talking about me in my last post, albeit with references to commonly-made arguments by many other people.
  #4513  
Old 05-18-2018, 09:54 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,255
Oh, OK, so you're now saying that your prior post was a non sequitur and was not in reference to the preceding discussion? A strange claim to make.
  #4514  
Old 05-18-2018, 10:08 AM
JohnT JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 19,449
My daughter gets reduced to arguing about the argument as well, commonly before declaring her infallibility and giving opinions about the quality of her opponents arguments and personalities. I usually take this as a good sign, one that she conceded the overall point but can't voice that concession (not even to herself).

You've switched the order of operations, usually starting with the insults, but it's still the same losing tactic. Keep on Phippin'!

Last edited by JohnT; 05-18-2018 at 10:10 AM.
  #4515  
Old 05-18-2018, 10:10 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,255
You weren't clear, but I assume that was addressed to digs and perhaps a few others ...
  #4516  
Old 05-18-2018, 10:22 AM
digs digs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of Wauwatosa
Posts: 8,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
You weren't clear, but I assume that was addressed to digs and perhaps a few others ...
But, see, I didn't even notice, much less care, because I'm not engaging... oh, crap, did it again, forget I even posted, k thx bye.
  #4517  
Old 05-18-2018, 11:57 AM
Moriarty Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
But even if we were to speculate that DTjr somehow assumed that this was related to hacked emails, that only relates to what his expectations were going into the meeting. The point is that once that meeting started it seems to be agreed upon by all participants (Americans, Russians, translator) that nothing was said about hacked emails, and there was just some vague stuff about Russian funding. So unless there was a "cleverly coordinated campaign of deception" in which all participants coordinated their story on this point (though they were inconsistent in some other more minor areas) then it seems unlikely that the topic actually came up.
I think, given everything we know about the participants, that it's perfectly plausible that they coordinated their stories after the meeting, all agreeing that it was "useless". I also think that it is entirely plausible that, while nothing was actually exchanged at the meeting, the promise to exchange was made.

See, I think the Trump people think they are smart enough to be technically correct and still cagey. That's why they once said that the meeting was about "adoption", because it was (in the sense that references to adoptions are references to sanctions against Russia). And they can also say that they Russians didn't give them anything, because they didn't. But it can also be true that there was something along the lines of "If you agree to drop the sanctions, we will make very useful information available to you. Think about it and let us know."
  #4518  
Old 05-18-2018, 12:15 PM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 11,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
If I were DTjr and I was offered "official documents and information" from someone connected to the Russian government, which purported to "incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia", my assumption would be that these were Russian government documents that the person had acquired via their government connections, and not hacked DNC emails.

But even if we were to speculate that DTjr somehow assumed that this was related to hacked emails, that only relates to what his expectations were going into the meeting. The point is that once that meeting started it seems to be agreed upon by all participants (Americans, Russians, translator) that nothing was said about hacked emails, and there was just some vague stuff about Russian funding. So unless there was a "cleverly coordinated campaign of deception" in which all participants coordinated their story on this point (though they were inconsistent in some other more minor areas) then it seems unlikely that the topic actually came up.
You aren't making reasonable inferences from the evidence, which is what people do when they try to make a neutral decision. Instead, you're arguing like a defense lawyer. That's fine, but those of us trying to judge the evidence don't have to sit in that posture.

In particular, it is a totally reasonable inference that Papadopoulos told the campaign about the hacked emails. That is what almost any campaign staffer would do with such explosive information. Maybe it didn't happen, of course. But if we don't know either way, the natural assumption is that it did.

Similarly, the idea that DJT is told that Russia has dirt on Hillary and he doesn't naturally think of the hacked emails, just because the offer (which is on its face badly translated with reference to crown prosecutor, etc.) uses the word "official," is not a reasonable supposition about how human minds work.

What you call speculation and suggest is wild speculation is actually just the kind of reasonable inferences from known facts that people make all the time.

ETA: None of that requires that the hacked emails were discussed at the meeting. Instead, what appears to have been discussed was the quid and not the quo.

Last edited by Richard Parker; 05-18-2018 at 12:18 PM.
  #4519  
Old 05-18-2018, 12:28 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
I think, given everything we know about the participants, that it's perfectly plausible that they coordinated their stories after the meeting, all agreeing that it was "useless". I also think that it is entirely plausible that, while nothing was actually exchanged at the meeting, the promise to exchange was made.

See, I think the Trump people think they are smart enough to be technically correct and still cagey. That's why they once said that the meeting was about "adoption", because it was (in the sense that references to adoptions are references to sanctions against Russia). And they can also say that they Russians didn't give them anything, because they didn't. But it can also be true that there was something along the lines of "If you agree to drop the sanctions, we will make very useful information available to you. Think about it and let us know."
Anything is technically possible. I should note that it's not just them saying that nothing was exchanged but the apparent frustration at the meeting (which is also consistent with its short duration) and also - as noted earlier - at least one email sent by a participant (Kaveladze) about 5 days after the meeting asserting that it was boring and that the Russians had nothing.

Further than that, even if you continue to believe that this really was a meeting at which something significant happened, there's nothing that's emerged from the Senate investigation which has supported that. At a minimum, the Senate investigated this and failed to come up with anything to support that version of events. Understood that there's no way to put these things to rest, and in all these types of issues there will always be people willing to speculate about this and that, based on tantalizing bits of info and speculative theories, but to this point there's apparently been nothing concrete at all to support it, at least in the case of that meeting.

I realize that many here are of the belief/hope that Mueller is sitting on the mother-lode and he will blow this open in due course. Got that. But that hasn't happened yet, and the only reason to believe it will happen is the belief that such evidence actually exists (Mueller himself has given no indication at all). So to this point all we have is the Senate investigation which haven't produced anything, and in that sense, that meeting hasn't panned out as a big deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
You aren't making reasonable inferences from the evidence, which is what people do when they try to make a neutral decision. Instead, you're arguing like a defense lawyer. That's fine, but those of us trying to judge the evidence don't have to sit in that posture.
Or, conversely, you're thinking like a prosecutor, and "those of us trying to judge the evidence" would be me. Everyone likes to think that they're the unbiased ones. Nothing in this line of argument, IMHO.

Quote:
In particular, it is a totally reasonable inference that Papadopoulos told the campaign about the hacked emails. That is what almost any campaign staffer would do with such explosive information. Maybe it didn't happen, of course. But if we don't know either way, the natural assumption is that it did.
Papadopoulus wasn't a campaign staffer in the conventional sense, in that he wasn't a full time (or paid) member of the campaign. That said, I agree that the natural assumption is that he would have told them, especially as he also told some Australian diplomat so it's not like he was keeping it a secret. The reason to assume that he may not have told them is that from what I've read (in the NYT, IIRC, or some similar source) he communicated with the campaign by email and no emails have been found containing this info.

Quote:
Similarly, the idea that DJT is told that Russia has dirt on Hillary and he doesn't naturally think of the hacked emails, just because the offer (which is on its face badly translated with reference to crown prosecutor, etc.) uses the word "official," is not a reasonable supposition about how human minds work.
I disagree.

Last edited by Fotheringay-Phipps; 05-18-2018 at 12:29 PM.
  #4520  
Old 05-18-2018, 12:34 PM
JohnT JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 19,449
By denying the validity of any truth, all of it must be true, ergo, no collusion.
  #4521  
Old 05-18-2018, 02:16 PM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 19,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
By denying the validity of any truth, all of it must be true, ergo, no collusion.
As I have noted before, F-P is in active pursuit of finding as many reasons to doubt things as he can possibly find. In his mind, he's pointing out logical gaps that others have made and is just "making sure that everyone is considering all sides", with the belief that people are not aware when they're making overly broad generalizations or just stating a hope, not a belief.

But, F-P, while some people are overly believing of some of the more Liberal content, I will say that most of the posters here are aware of it when they're painting with a broad brush and when they're being too hopeful. They do not need you to point it out for them. And, as I have said before, I do not believe that you are doing this for "their sake".

All evidence for a thing can be insufficient evidence. It's the aggregate of all data that makes a case. Smoking guns, while nice, are not the end-all and be-all of proof. Simply finding reason to doubt everything does not change anything. Denialism may be fun, but it's also a worse logical gap than those that you accuse everyone else of, all of the time.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 05-18-2018 at 02:17 PM.
  #4522  
Old 05-18-2018, 02:46 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
But, F-P, while some people are overly believing of some of the more Liberal content, I will say that most of the posters here are aware of it when they're painting with a broad brush and when they're being too hopeful. They do not need you to point it out for them. And, as I have said before, I do not believe that you are doing this for "their sake".
I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself on this. I've been as explicit as possible that I'm not doing this for anyone else's sake. This is all for my own entertainment, and nothing else.

I mean, naturally I think people should profit from my posts, but that's incidental at most. I'm well aware of the nature of this board, and I don't think many people are persuadable on matters of this sort. So I would never make that a goal of mine - that would only lead to frustration.

Quote:
All evidence for a thing can be insufficient evidence. It's the aggregate of all data that makes a case. Smoking guns, while nice, are not the end-all and be-all of proof. Simply finding reason to doubt everything does not change anything. Denialism may be fun, but it's also a worse logical gap than those that you accuse everyone else of, all of the time.
I agree with the general point here.

The problem is that if you take a lot of things which are ultimately little or nothing and combine them all, you don't get much more than nothing. There are people who write at great lengths arguing cases which are built on numerous facts each of which is in itself little to nothing, and all of which are in total also nothing.

And the problem is that it feeds on itself in a circular and self-fulfilling manner. If you have an overall view of events then this overall view influences your interpretation of every piece of evidence, and when you look at the picture you naturally see a much more compelling case than actually exists if you stripped out that view. And this is something which might well be invisible to you yourself.

For example, in this case, if you have an overly sinister view of the Trump people and begin with the assumption that they're probably guilty of every conceivable crime (an attitude shared by many people here, as it just happens) then this will influence your interpretation of every individual incident or piece of evidence, and you're likely to interpret each one in a manner which is consistent with your overall view. Then, when you think you're looking at the big picture comprised of "the aggregate of all data" you're really not. You're really looking at the aggregate of all data as interpreted by your view of the big picture.

So I get where many of you are coming from. You're seeing things like the Trump Tower meeting and thinking "hey, who are you trying to fool? Yeah, if you really want to twist things you can say there's no real proof from this, but do you really think these Trump people weren't conspiring some sort of collusion, probably email related? I mean, we're talking about the Trump people who have done all these other suspicious things and who have all these other Russia connections etc. etc." But this ignores the fact that most or all one of those other things are similarly being made more suspicious based on the same type of reasoning.

Most conspiracy theories are based on this same type of reasoning. 100 inconclusive pieces of evidence but once you have so many of them you think "hey, what's the likelihood that every one of these are all wrong, and you're naïve if you try to explain them all away ..." But in life, the supply of inconclusive pieces of evidence is virtually infinite, and this reasoning is not valid.

Last edited by Fotheringay-Phipps; 05-18-2018 at 02:48 PM.
  #4523  
Old 05-18-2018, 03:58 PM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 19,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself on this. I've been as explicit as possible that I'm not doing this for anyone else's sake. This is all for my own entertainment, and nothing else.
Either you're hoping to learn someone or dissuade yourself of something by interacting with others. If your sole purpose in your interactions are for "entertainment" then there is a specific term for that.

Are you sure that you want to stay with this argument?

Last edited by Sage Rat; 05-18-2018 at 03:58 PM.
  #4524  
Old 05-18-2018, 04:05 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,255
I believe you mean trolling.

I don't think what I do counts as trolling by the definition applied on this board. But that's a call for the mods.

Either way, it is what it is. I've been pretty clear in the past and I repeat again here that this is about entertainment, for me, and is not about "learn someone or dissuade yourself of something by interacting with others". (Can't say that (what I assume this garbled phrase means) never happens but that's not what it's about, for me.)

Last edited by Fotheringay-Phipps; 05-18-2018 at 04:06 PM.
  #4525  
Old 05-18-2018, 04:26 PM
pdhenry pdhenry is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: PA
Posts: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
Anything is technically possible. I should note that it's not just them saying that nothing was exchanged but the apparent frustration at the meeting (which is also consistent with its short duration) and also - as noted earlier - at least one email sent by a participant (Kaveladze) about 5 days after the meeting asserting that it was boring and that the Russians had nothing.
In my book intent (get dirt on Hillary from the Russians) and action (attend the meeting) is sufficient, just as if Junior was planning and acting to meet a ten dollar hooker, regardless of whether the end encounter was with a prostitute or a cop.
  #4526  
Old 05-18-2018, 04:34 PM
Mr. Duality Mr. Duality is offline
Just some guy.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The High Plains
Posts: 1,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
I believe you mean trolling.
He may have meant trolling, but I think 'mental masturbation' would be a more accurate description of what you do.
__________________
America- Fuck yeah!
  #4527  
Old 05-18-2018, 04:38 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,255
Either way ...

  #4528  
Old 05-18-2018, 05:10 PM
jayjay jayjay is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 36,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdhenry View Post
In my book intent (get dirt on Hillary from the Russians) and action (attend the meeting) is sufficient, just as if Junior was planning and acting to meet a ten dollar hooker, regardless of whether the end encounter was with a prostitute or a cop.
Exactly. Isn't just attempting to get in contact with a hit man to contract a killing still a crime even if the client and the hit man don't come to an agreement?

Last edited by jayjay; 05-18-2018 at 05:10 PM.
  #4529  
Old 05-18-2018, 05:15 PM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,105
The Moderator Speaks

That’s enough, all of you. Any more personal cracks and it’ll be warning time.
  #4530  
Old 05-18-2018, 05:29 PM
Sherrerd Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay View Post
Exactly. Isn't just attempting to get in contact with a hit man to contract a killing still a crime even if the client and the hit man don't come to an agreement?
Someone on one of the cable shows made the point, recently, that if the news of the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting (with the Russian government-connected lawyer and Don, Jr. and Manafort and Jared Kushner) had just broken now, it would be a major blow to Trump---one that even congressional Republicans might have to do something about. Talk of impeachment would be almost impossible to dismiss.

Instead, people have gotten numb to the fact that the meeting itself (and the surrounding emails and phone calls to blocked numbers, etc) is pretty close to being a smoking gun, conspiring-with-Russia-wise.
__________________
__________________

Self-correction is the secret strength of freedom. ---George W. Bush, 19 October 2017
  #4531  
Old 05-18-2018, 11:57 PM
Robot Arm Robot Arm is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 22,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdhenry View Post
In my book intent (get dirt on Hillary from the Russians) and action (attend the meeting) is sufficient, just as if Junior was planning and acting to meet a ten dollar hooker, regardless of whether the end encounter was with a prostitute or a cop.
I also find myself wondering what sort of information Team Trump thought they could get from Russia. I mean, is there anyone whose life has been more examined and picked over than Hillary Clinton? Is there a day of her life in the last 25 years that isn't accounted for? Republicans had Hillary Clinton in their sights to some degree since her health care proposal in 1993, or at the very least since her Senate campaign in 2000. If the Russians had anything on her that wasn't already publicly known, seems to me it had to come from some clandestine source. Would the Trumpists have accepted and used information that came from a foreign government spying on a U.S. citizen?
  #4532  
Old 05-19-2018, 09:31 AM
DesertDog DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 3,915
Maybe they were hoping for a piss tape with Russian boy-toys. After all...
  #4533  
Old 05-19-2018, 10:56 AM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,023
F-P is sitting in a house choking with smoke and still denying that there is in any way fire. Until the hair on his ass is burning off, and I think he'll just ascribe it to friction even then.

And I'm sure his so-called objectivity would drop away in a nanosecond if it were President Hillary who were accused of a tiny fraction of this shit.

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 05-19-2018 at 10:59 AM.
  #4534  
Old 05-19-2018, 11:57 AM
Jack Batty Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The Astral Plane.
Posts: 14,512
We've already established that the "smoke" to which you're alluding is actually vapor and so any and all analysis of any of said "smoke" is there for null and void. The obvious fact that you just can't comprehend this, despite the facts being clearly laid in front of you tells me that that we can no longer take your opinion seriously. Good day, sir. I said, Good day.




Not bad, huh? I call it FothPhippese.
  #4535  
Old 05-19-2018, 12:07 PM
bobot bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 5,844
This is about goddamn time:
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecur...-issued-russia

"A trio of key Democratic senators is calling on agency watchdogs to investigate why the Trump administration has not fully implemented mandated sanctions on Russia.The lawmakers sent a letter Friday asking the inspectors general of the State Department, Treasury Department and the intelligence community to examine the administration's failure to impose the financial penalties on Russia."


It'll probably end up being ignored by Republicans like any other issue bearing the word Russia.
  #4536  
Old 05-19-2018, 01:58 PM
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 13,715
It was all a setup
DJT tweet:
Reports are there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president. It took place very early on, and long before the phony Russia Hoax became a “hot” Fake News story. If true - all time biggest political scandal!
Put aside for a moment whether it is actually scandalous for the FBI to use an informant to uncover evidence of criminal conduct. The argument is that the clear purpose of this maneuver was to influence the 2016 election. … Here’s where the sinister plot was going:

Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections. The job of any good swamp operator is to gin up a fatal October surprise for the opposition candidate. And what could be more devastating than to paint a picture of Trump-Russia collusion that would provoke a full-fledged FBI investigation?

This sounds like a genius plan: Plant a spy to launch an investigation, and then spring the “fatal October surprise.”
That sure worked.
  #4537  
Old 05-19-2018, 02:06 PM
jasg jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 4,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
It was all a setup
DJT tweet:
Reports are there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president. It took place very early on, and long before the phony Russia Hoax became a “hot” Fake News story. If true - all time biggest political scandal!
Put aside for a moment whether it is actually scandalous for the FBI to use an informant to uncover evidence of criminal conduct. The argument is that the clear purpose of this maneuver was to influence the 2016 election. … Here’s where the sinister plot was going:

Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections. The job of any good swamp operator is to gin up a fatal October surprise for the opposition candidate. And what could be more devastating than to paint a picture of Trump-Russia collusion that would provoke a full-fledged FBI investigation?

This sounds like a genius plan: Plant a spy to launch an investigation, and then spring the “fatal October surprise.”
That sure worked.
i like the last sentence:

"But there’s a reason the trick is called “October surprise” and not “January After the Election surprise.”"
  #4538  
Old 05-19-2018, 06:13 PM
JohnT JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 19,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
F-P is sitting in a house choking with smoke and still denying that there is in any way fire. Until the hair on his ass is burning off, and I think he'll just ascribe it to friction even then.

And I'm sure his so-called objectivity would drop away in a nanosecond if it were President Hillary who were accused of a tiny fraction of this shit.
In some ways, it's like watching an 18th-century "natural philosopher" spend untold amounts of effort defending phlogiston theory. Everyone has, over time, realized the theory is full of shit, but this one guy who has a lifetime dedicated to it... well, he has a lifetime dedicated to phlogiston! Whaddya expect him to do? Say he dedicated his life to a lie, one looking increasingly silly as the evidence pours in? Admit he was wrong and the overwhelming evidence correct?

Of course not - Phlogiston-Phipps here has gotta double-down on that shit.

Last edited by JohnT; 05-19-2018 at 06:17 PM.
  #4539  
Old 05-19-2018, 10:16 PM
Ann Hedonia Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
It was all a setup
DJT tweet:
Reports are there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president. It took place very early on, and long before the phony Russia Hoax became a “hot” Fake News story. If true - all time biggest political scandal!
Put aside for a moment whether it is actually scandalous for the FBI to use an informant to uncover evidence of criminal conduct. The argument is that the clear purpose of this maneuver was to influence the 2016 election. … Here’s where the sinister plot was going:

Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections. The job of any good swamp operator is to gin up a fatal October surprise for the opposition candidate. And what could be more devastating than to paint a picture of Trump-Russia collusion that would provoke a full-fledged FBI investigation?

This sounds like a genius plan: Plant a spy to launch an investigation, and then spring the “fatal October surprise.”
That sure worked.
And if Felix Sater was the informant, as has been speculated, then wouldn’t he have been inserted into Trump’s circle in 2005 or so, in the Trump Soho days? Which is “very early on” indeed. Because the feds have known that Trump is dirty for a very long time. Which is why they all freaked out when he decided to run for President and started surrounding himself with other criminals, like something out of a Batman reunion episode. I don’t blame them for using the tactics that they use when investigating organized crime. Because, technically, that’s what we have here although “organized” may be a bit of a misnomer
.
One of the downsides of believing in conspiracy theories is that these people - like Trump - genuinely believe that people get away with outrageous stuff, like staging mass shootings and faking 9/11 with holograms. Which leads them to believe that they can get away with outrageous stupid stuff. Which is how we got to stupid Watergate. Now it doesn’t seem that anyone but Trump is putting much effort into pretending to be innocent anymore —mostly they’re just screaming about how the cops that caught them were out to get them ( Duh, law enforcement IS usually “out to get” criminals, that’s what they do) and not playing fair.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 05-19-2018 at 10:18 PM.
  #4540  
Old 05-19-2018, 10:46 PM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,105
The Moderator Speaks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
F-P is sitting in a house choking with smoke and still denying that there is in any way fire. Until the hair on his ass is burning off, and I think he'll just ascribe it to friction even then.

And I'm sure his so-called objectivity would drop away in a nanosecond if it were President Hillary who were accused of a tiny fraction of this shit.
What part of 'no more personal cracks' was I unclear on?

Warning issued. Don't do it again.
  #4541  
Old 05-19-2018, 10:48 PM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,105
The Moderator Speaks

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
In some ways, it's like watching an 18th-century "natural philosopher" spend untold amounts of effort defending phlogiston theory. Everyone has, over time, realized the theory is full of shit, but this one guy who has a lifetime dedicated to it... well, he has a lifetime dedicated to phlogiston! Whaddya expect him to do? Say he dedicated his life to a lie, one looking increasingly silly as the evidence pours in? Admit he was wrong and the overwhelming evidence correct?

Of course not - Phlogiston-Phipps here has gotta double-down on that shit.
What part of 'no more personal cracks' was I unclear on?

Warning issued. Don't do it again.
  #4542  
Old 05-19-2018, 10:54 PM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,843
Moderating

JC probably missed this one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Batty View Post
We've already established that the "smoke" to which you're alluding is actually vapor and so any and all analysis of any of said "smoke" is there for null and void. The obvious fact that you just can't comprehend this, despite the facts being clearly laid in front of you tells me that that we can no longer take your opinion seriously. Good day, sir. I said, Good day.




Not bad, huh? I call it FothPhippese.
This is a warning for failure to follow moderator instructions. Specifically those in post #4529.

[/moderating]
  #4543  
Old 05-19-2018, 11:02 PM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,105
Ain't teamwork grand, Bone?

Don't make us close this thread, people.
  #4544  
Old 05-19-2018, 11:57 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 57,750
"Good news, Mr. President! There was a typo in the original warrant, so those videos of you sacrificing illegal immigrant children to your Dark Lord are not admissible!

'Course, it ls all over the interwebs....so that's kind of a kick in the pants...."
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 07:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017