Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am looking forward to Benedict Donald's reaction now that a grand jury will be looking into Putingate......
 
Emily's Cat said:
Yes, he went expecting to get dirt on Clinton. Whether it is deemed to constitute attempted collusion is a matter for the courts to determine. That opinion isn't really universal, and collusion probably isn't the appropriate word.
Click to expand...

You know, this super-skepticism routine is wearing thin. First it was, there's no evidence. Then it was, there's no solid evidence. Then it was, yeah but it's circumstantial. And now that it's impossible to ignore, yes there's evidence but it probably doesn't fit the definition of collusion.

Face it, you're committed to not accepting that conclusion.
 
Checkmite said:
A namby-pamby whiney-baby?

"Oh, you can't tell the press Mexico won't pay for the wall! I've been saying you will for years, it'll make me look like a loser! Waaaaa!"

"Oh please take back the refugee arrangement - after all I've been saying, if I have to admit we're bound to this agreement I'll look weak and ineffectual in my very first week in office! Waaaaaaa!"
Click to expand...

George Will nailed it beautifully with his comment on Trump's Boy Scout Speech:

"The Alpha Male As Crybaby".

I had forgotten I already posted this Will quote,but it just is so perfect for Trump's whining it bears repeating.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
A nice summary of Russian history.
Click to expand...
Things were obviously bad under the communists, but those leaders at least pretended to have an ideology. The current leaders are literally only there to enrich themselves. At this point, nationalizing a company in Russia means transferring all its assets and profits directly to the pockets of Putin and his buddies...while murdering anyone who questions the process.

ETA: Yeah, dudalb. Putin is a Tsar in everything but title. There will be another reckoning in Russia, and it will be a real bummer for the people when they try to get what they've earned.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
A namby-pamby whiney-baby?

"Oh, you can't tell the press Mexico won't pay for the wall! I've been saying you will for years, it'll make me look like a loser! Waaaaa!"

"Oh please take back the refugee arrangement - after all I've been saying, if I have to admit we're bound to this agreement I'll look weak and ineffectual in my very first week in office! Waaaaaaa!"
Click to expand...

Cognitive biases are very strong and very hard to overcome. They will rationalize away facts as a matter of normal course.
 
rwguinn said:
Grand Juries have Subpoena power...
Click to expand...

Yep, but Mueller already had a grand jury in Northern Virginia for subpoenas. Some think that the new one in DC implies there may be more specific crimes being investigating involving some branch of government.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Let's check these, shall we?


Yes, he went expecting to get dirt on Clinton. Whether it is deemed to constitute attempted collusion is a matter for the courts to determine. That opinion isn't really universal, and collusion probably isn't the appropriate word.
Politico had a pretty good article on this:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366


What's the source for the claim that POTUS crafted the message? So far as I can tell, all sources lead back to this WaPo article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-dictated-sons-misleading-statement-on-meeting-with-russian-lawyer/2017/07/31/04c94f96-73ae-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.82eb8392ffe8
That article states it as fact, but provides no supporting evidence. They don't even reference an anonymous source for this. They reference anonymous sources saying it was unnecessary, but they don't cite where they got that information in the first place. But that WaPo article is cited as the source for all the other articles on the topic that I could find. The closest thing to confirmation we've got is Sanders saying that Trump "weighed in" on the issue...

I think it's entirely likely and plausible that Trump added his own suggestions to Jr's approach. But the claim that Trump personally dictated the response isn't confirmed.


There's a lot of that other information there that isn't confirmed in any way, and is still speculative. Some of it represents interpretation and opinion layered on top of very sparse fact in order to paint it as significant. For example, it is a fact that some of the people had meetings with Russian people and didn't properly disclose them on their security forms. What is not fact is whether any of those meetings involved any impropriety.

So far, we've got failure to disclose meetings, and very likely some false statements made to the government. The false statements are actually crimes. Whether they are charged is up to Mueller.


I would not lament seeing the back side of Trump.
Click to expand...

Evidence that Trump senior crafted Junior's response

A quick Google took me to a load of stories

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-statement-idUSKBN1AH533




WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said on Tuesday that U.S. President Donald Trump had a role in producing a statement in which his son denied that a meeting he had with a Russian lawyer was related to the 2016 presidential campaign, comments later shown to be misleading.
White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told a briefing that Trump "certainly didn't dictate (the statement), but ... he weighed in, offered a suggestion like any father would do."
Click to expand...


The Washington Post and New York Times have consistently broken stories on this administration baswd on anonymous sources and the White House has *eventually* confirmed them all, even if they adf a half hearted spin. And even if they initially denied them.
 
Where is the EVIDENCE that Russia interfered in the American election apart from the opinions of TV journalists and TV and film technicians and the Clintons and Cocaine Importation Agency and New York Times and Washington Post? The Russians might have had a preference for Trump, and even who won the election in France, but America has interfered in Syria and Venezuela and Brazil and Argentina and Central America and Ukraine.
 
Henri McPhee said:
Where is the EVIDENCE that Russia interfered in the American election apart from the opinions of TV journalists and TV and film technicians and the Clintons and Cocaine Importation Agency and New York Times and Washington Post? The Russians might have had a preference for Trump, and even who won the election in France, but America has interfered in Syria and Venezuela and Brazil and Argentina and Central America and Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Don't you worry your sweet little head about evidence. Mueller will present it when he's good and ready. For now, you can go ahead and believe what you want and be bliss.
 
Henri McPhee said:
Where is the EVIDENCE that Russia interfered in the American election apart from the opinions of TV journalists and TV and film technicians and the Clintons and Cocaine Importation Agency and New York Times and Washington Post? The Russians might have had a preference for Trump, and even who won the election in France, but America has interfered in Syria and Venezuela and Brazil and Argentina and Central America and Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Keep it up. This argument will start working anytime now. :rolleyes:
 
Henri McPhee said:
Where is the EVIDENCE that Russia interfered in the American election apart from the opinions of TV journalists and TV and film technicians and the Clintons and Cocaine Importation Agency and New York Times and Washington Post? The Russians might have had a preference for Trump, and even who won the election in France, but America has interfered in Syria and Venezuela and Brazil and Argentina and Central Ame.erica and Ukraine.
Click to expand...
It's a Jewish conspiracy to distract attention away from Pizzagate.
 
Babbylonian said:
Keep it up. This argument will start working anytime now. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If you are a skeptic, it works the exact opposite. The argument works now as there hasn't been a process that involves the fair presentation of all the evidence. Until that time, it is you who is choosing to believe something without all the evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom