Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

[Belz...]

The actual quote:

Notice the difference?

Oops.

 

[phiwum]

The actual quote:

Notice the difference?

In defense of part of Sunmaster's point, Trump also said, "By the way, if they hacked, they probably have her 33,000 emails. I hope they do." So, I agree with Sunmaster that Trump didn't encourage the Russians to engage in new hacking.

Of course, the claim he was supposed to rebut was about meddling, not hacking.

Note also that Trump begins by phrasing it as a conditional (if they hacked), though later treats it as likely they did so. This is just his usual incoherence, but it does support Emily's Cat's paraphrase.

He looked right in the camera after having said he didn't believe russia had hacked the DNC server anyway... then said that if they had, then they probably have Clinton's missing 30000 emails, and it would be great if they released those, because that's where the real dirt is.

Trump told reporters last year that he had no idea who was responsible for the DNC and Podesta leaks. He also said that whoever was responsible for hacking into those accounts also likely had access to the thousands of messages previously stored on Clinton's private and unauthorized home brew State Department email server, including the 33,000 she deleted instead of turning over to the appropriate officials when she exited Foggy Bottom in 2013.

"By the way, if they hacked, they probably have her 33,000 emails. I hope they do," Trump said in that July news conference. "They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted."

He added, "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you can find the 33,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."

EC's paraphrase is reasonable enough (depending on how we read the word "doubted").

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Why would defense lawyers be privy to various strategies of the Mueller team?

Because they know when he talks to their clients, and what he talks them about , documents he requests, etc?

Sorry, but that's beyond obvious.

 

[Cabbage]

Opinions are informed by evidence. At least mine are.

There are news articles almost every week about how Mueller is putting pressure on this guy or that, or focusing on this area or that. Or working with the NY attorney general to pin a state crime on Manafort so that Trump can't pardon him. This information must be coming from somebody on Mueller's team, unless you think the reporters are making it up out of whole cloth.

Mueller's team doesn't know everything...that's why the investigation is ongoing. Even if they DID leak everything they knew, that does not rule out the possibility of more damning evidence being uncovered in the future.

And we don't always know the source of the leaks. For how many leaks do we have SOLID evidence that it came from Mueller's team (rather than pure speculation that it did)? Many leaks have come from inside the White House itself.

And what is the motive for these leaks? To sway public opinion? To influence/intimidate Trump? Purely financial gain? Without knowing these motivations and sources, your claim that "Everything is leaked" is laughably naïve, and in no way measures up to your, "We also have far stronger and more plentiful evidence that nobody in the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to affect the election" claim.

Actually, I think it's the opposite. A conspiracy involving so many people is almost impossible to keep well-hidden.

Sure, and we're seeing it leak out over time. They managed to keep the Trump Tower meeting secret for a year.

 

[Stacko]

If you want to know why this stuff is continually leaking out, President Goldfish did not hire the best and brightest as promised.

White House special counsel Ty Cobb engaged in a lengthy email exchange in which he defended his decision to join President Donald Trump's legal team and appeared to refer*to himself and White House chief of staff John Kelly as the "adults in the room."

The exchange on Tuesday night was with Jeff Jetton, the owner of a popular ramen restaurant in Washington, DC who has made himself known to reporters by digging into Trump's alleged ties to Russia — partly as an unabashed troll.

Jetton sat down with Carter Page, an early Trump campaign foreign-policy adviser, and Sergei Millian, a reported source in the dossier alleging Trump-Russia ties, earlier this year for separate on-the-record interviews. Jetton also once wrote Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, to give him fashion advice.

Cobb, a partner at Hogan Lovells, responded to Jetton's obscenity-laden emails using his official White House email account. Jetton provided Business Insider with the exchange that followed, in which Cobb sheds light on his*motivations for joining the White House in July.

 

[sunmaster14]

The claim you were responding to spoke about meddling, not hacking. Releasing previously hacked emails would have counted as meddling in my book.

Not in my book. Regardless, I may have confused NoahFence with varwoche with respect to that claim. NoahFence has never shied away from claiming that Trump asked Russia to hack Hillary's emails, and I doubt he would try to take cover in a nuanced distinction between a criminal activity and a merely obnoxious one (although in the case of Hillary's emails, I think if Russia were to release them, it would be a noble and good thing - oh noes, have I committed treason?).

 

[sunmaster14]

Because they know when he talks to their clients, and what he talks them about , documents he requests, etc?

Sorry, but that's beyond obvious.

They wouldn't know about investigative strategy. They might try to speculate of course, but in that case I would expect the articles to be written with less certain language. Also, most of the reporting implies that these leaks are coming from people connected to the investigation. Either they're people on the team, or support people who happen to be privy to some of the strategy just though proximity and osmosis.

 

[sunmaster14]

If you want to know why this stuff is continually leaking out, President Goldfish did not hire the best and brightest as promised.

Except for his grammar, I think Cobb came across fairly well. Also, the headline and first paragraph are misleading. They imply that Cobb claimed that he and Kelly were the only adults in the room. He didn't write that. In fact, he wrote that there were other adults in the room.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

They imply that Cobb claimed that he and Kelly were the only adults in the room. He didn't write that. In fact, he wrote that there were other adults in the room.

Nope. he didn't say there were any adults in the room.

Cobb said he “can say assertively [that] more adults in the room will be better. Me and Kelly among others.”

 

[Emily's Cat]

Doomsaying? Nah. Just preparing you and sunmaster for the eventuality that he will be caught and none of this "fake news" crap you people swallow is actually fake.

Who you callin 'you people'?

Seriously though, what 'fake news' have I swallowed? That's a crap accusation with no meat to it. I'm busy pretty much rejecting a whole huge pile of speculation and allegation and rumor-mongering that doesn't have solid evidence backing it. So please, go ahead and elaborate on exactly what "fake news" I've followed, because your claim here is baloney.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Speak for yourself, Emily. There's nothing Trump would do to convince you to admit that he's done something wrong. You're commited to defending him on this issue, Yog-Sothoth knows why.

You're interpretation is wrong, my friend.

I won't be the least bit surprised if Trump is found guilty of a whole host of things. But I will wait for actual evidence and the judgement of someone with more complete knowledge.

And it's hardly defending the asshat to take issue with such obvious spin. I mean, seriously, the news articles being referenced in most cases are so blatantly full of opinion and someone else's bias that it's impossible to miss unless you have already accepted the speculation as fact.

Trump is an ass. He's a bad leader. He's unqualified.
But at present, there's been no solid evidence to support the accusations laid at his feet. When that evidence shows up, I'll very happily accept the conclusion. Until then, the pile of "skeptics" who accept obviously shoddy journalism as unquestionable truth simply because it agrees with their belief is seriously shocking.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The actual quote:

Notice the difference?

Oh ffs. The ACTUAL actual quote:

"By the way, if they hacked, they probably have her 33,000 emails. I hope they do," Trump said in that July news conference. "They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted."

He added, "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you can find the 33,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."

Do you notice the difference?

I really love how that leading statement seems to always get snipped out whenever someone wants to frame it as Trump urging or begging Russia to hack Clinton

 

[Childlike Empress]

So those mails sit at the NSA just as Binney and the VIPs and everybody with expertise and independence told us from the beginning, and Comey didn't want them.

EXPOSED: NSA has Hillary Clinton’s “lost” emails, but FBI did not want to see them

 

[Emily's Cat]

Anyone who's ever interacted with a human being ought to be able to read the "hidden" message.

Like, if someone looks at you and says "Yeah, you're really smart!" in a sarcastic tone and winks at you afterwards, you understand that they didn't mean it, and actually meant the opposite. But they did say you were smart. According to you, you'd have to take them at their word unless you claim to have psychic powers!

Sure, in cases of clear sarcasm. But that's not the case here.

Seriously, how many times has someone with whom you've interacted a LOT on ISF tried to tell you what you 'really' meant about something you said? How often were they correct?

 

[Belz...]

You're interpretation is wrong, my friend.

Your grammar is worse.

I won't be the least bit surprised if Trump is found guilty of a whole host of things. But I will wait for actual evidence and the judgement of someone with more complete knowledge.

You've ignored all the evidence presented so far, so you'll forgive me if I conclude that you'll never admit to having seen evidence, no matter what it is. This amounts to what I said: nothing will convince you that Trump has done something wrong.

 

[Belz...]

Sure, in cases of clear sarcasm. But that's not the case here.

Of course it's not the case. In this case it's even more obvious, because he's clearly saying what he wants. But since I'm sure you understand the point of analogies, I'm sure you know exactly what I meant.

 

[Stacko]

Except for his grammar, I think Cobb came across fairly well.

You're aware he was responding to an internet troll, right?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In defense of part of Sunmaster's point, Trump also said, "By the way, if they hacked, they probably have her 33,000 emails. I hope they do." So, I agree with Sunmaster that Trump didn't encourage the Russians to engage in new hacking. [snipped quibble]

How does Trump's imprecise off-the-cuff stumbling negate: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you can find the 33,000 emails that are missing," then-candidate Donald Trump said in July. "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press?"

We can agree to disagree, I think anymore belaboring of this quibble is unnecessary.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Your grammar is worse.

Lol, yes, that was pretty atrocious, wasn't it?

You've ignored all the evidence presented so far, so you'll forgive me if I conclude that you'll never admit to having seen evidence, no matter what it is. This amounts to what I said: nothing will convince you that Trump has done something wrong.

No, I haven't ignored it all. There are a handful of things that I've accepted, although I don't always agree with all of the follow-on ifs.

For example, I accept that Comey felt he was being pressured by Trump with respect to loyalty. I also accept that Trump Jr. went to that meeting expecting to receive information that would paint Clinton in a bad light.

What I don't agree with is that Trump Jr. solicited such information. I also don't agree that it's open-and-shut evidence of collusion. From an objective point of view, it is possible, of course, but it's a weak case on its own.

There are a large number of facts that I accept as facts. I don't necessarily accept that they paint he picture being portrayed, and I definitely don't accept the massive pile of speculation, and "this thing might mean something else" and "a person said that this thing might mean another thing" constitute evidence of anything at all other than a fairly widespread hatred of Trump.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Of course it's not the case. In this case it's even more obvious, because he's clearly saying what he wants. But since I'm sure you understand the point of analogies, I'm sure you know exactly what I meant.

I want France to send me a puppy!

Is my expression of what I want reasonably interpreted as me actually and seriously asking the government of France to send me a puppy?