Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

[Emily's Cat]

Ok EC, let's try this again. I think there are parallel "threads" here, please feel free to clarify.

1. Do you acknowledge that leaks about an investigation don't necessarily come from Mueller?

Sure, it's *possible* that leaks about what Meuller's team are doing are coming from somewhere other than Meuller's team. Who do you suggest would have knowledge of the secret inner workings of Meuller's investigation, but are not considered part of that investigation? Where would they get such information?

And that the target might be the source of the leak?

Sorry, I don't know what this means. Can you elaborate?

2. What do you mean when you say...?

If there are particular mainstream news stories concerning Trump+Russia investigation that you claim are illegitimate, can you please cite one or more so we can examine? Especially any such stories that have been shown to be false since publication.

I didn't claim they were illegitimate; I claimed that they were anonymous and unverified.

It goes back to here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11991953#post11991953

Well, tehcnically it goes back to prior to that. It goes back to me dismissing several vague news articles about how "someone in the know" suggested that "this might indicate" something or other. A whole pile full of speculative language, with no identifiable source, that we're asked to take on faith. Such articles *frequently* end up being presented in this thread as if they are fact. "Might indicate" gets presented as "is", and "someone in the know" gets presented as "expert with direct knowledge". I've been long complaining about that particular bar for "evidence".

So... My post was that given the number of anonymous leaks, I'm not sure it's valid to say that Mueller runs a tight ship. At which point, I was roundly smacked down as a hypocrite because *gasp* I can consider more than one hypothetical scenario on their own merits simultaneously!

So... 1) The information comes from people who actually DO know things, which implies they're getting that information from Meuller's investigative team. Hence, the ship is not tight.

Alternatively... 2) The information comes from people who know nothing but say some pretty spectacular stuff that gets media ratings up through the roof. Hence the information is BS.

Both of these are hypotheses. Neither of these is fact. But the two are pretty near mutually exclusive - you can't really have it both ways: Either Meuller's investigation leaks a lot (which is how the stories end up in the media all anonymous and such) or the information isn't legitimate and is speculative at best.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Get a room.

plague311 already admitted error, so let's move on. Why is this still being argued about?

Did you just bump two posts from three days ago and up on the previous page to ask this question?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Leaked Documents Show Wilbur Ross Concealed Ties to Putin Cronies

What the holy hell? Seriously? This really reads like six degrees of Kevin Bacon!

Ross — a billionaire industrialist — retains an interest in a shipping company, Navigator Holdings, that was partially owned by his former investment company. One of Navigator’s most important business relationships is with a Russian energy firm controlled, in turn, by Putin’s son-in-law and other members of the Russian president’s inner circle.

So let me get this straight:

1) Ross has interest in a shipping company.
2) The shipping company is owned by an investment company.
3) The investment company has a business relationship with a Russian energy firm.
4) The Russian energy firm is partly controlled by Putin's son-in-law and other Russians in power.

And Ross is accused of *concealing* this four-steps-removed relationship? How does this make sense to you?

FFS, I have interest in an international stock trading concern regarding high-cap energy stocks. Part of my 401-K is invested there . I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the investment company that hosts this protfolio has a business relationship with a Russian energy firm.

Therefore, I have concealed a tie to Putin! Woot!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Did you just bump two posts from three days ago and up on the previous page to ask this question?

Yeah, didn't realize how far the thread had moved.

 

[phiwum]

Well... not necessarily.

What we've got is someone who wasn't involved in this particular instance opining that they're only supposed to do that sort of thing after they've corroborated the intel.

It's a case of outlining how the process is supposed to work... which doesn't imply that this is how the process actually worked this time. It's a reasonable starting point... but it's not by itself evidence that proper procedure was followed.

Quite right.

What a nice example of skepticism. I saw a guy walk up to the counter with a bottle of milk. I then saw him walk out with a bottle of milk. Now, normally, I would have decided that (given his calm demeanor and how these things usually go), he paid for the milk, but then I asked, what would the Cat think? And of course, she wouldn't have considered this any evidence that he paid for the milk, because even though that's how these things usually go, I mean how can you know?

That's deep. That's totally deep. Merely because there are rules in place for how these things ought to go, we shouldn't imagine that the outcome produces literally any reason for thinking that's how it went. Whoa.

Sorry, EC, but this is not your best stuff.

 

[Aber]

Sure, it's *possible* that leaks about what Meuller's team are doing are coming from somewhere other than Meuller's team. Who do you suggest would have knowledge of the secret inner workings of Meuller's investigation, but are not considered part of that investigation? Where would they get such information.

Earlier in this thread a link was posted to an article about likely sources of leaks, which highlighted that defence lawyers were often the most likely leakers, especially if they were identified as 'sources familiar with the investigation' or similar.

Your suggestion that the choices are between leaks from the investigating team or simply made up, misses a lot of other potential sources.

 

[phiwum]

What the holy hell? Seriously? This really reads like six degrees of Kevin Bacon!


So let me get this straight:

1) Ross has interest in a shipping company.
2) The shipping company is owned by an investment company.
3) The investment company has a business relationship with a Russian energy firm.
4) The Russian energy firm is partly controlled by Putin's son-in-law and other Russians in power.

And Ross is accused of *concealing* this four-steps-removed relationship? How does this make sense to you?

FFS, I have interest in an international stock trading concern regarding high-cap energy stocks. Part of my 401-K is invested there . I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the investment company that hosts this protfolio has a business relationship with a Russian energy firm.

Therefore, I have concealed a tie to Putin! Woot!

Nah, I'll give you this one. This isn't anything like a smoking gun.

 

[quadraginta]

Well... not necessarily.

What we've got is someone who wasn't involved in this particular instance opining that they're only supposed to do that sort of thing after they've corroborated the intel.

It's a case of outlining how the process is supposed to work... which doesn't imply that this is how the process actually worked this time. It's a reasonable starting point... but it's not by itself evidence that proper procedure was followed.

And since there seems to be exactly zero evidence that proper procedure was not followed, it's the only evidence you have. So actually, it really is evidence of just that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Quite right.

What a nice example of skepticism. I saw a guy walk up to the counter with a bottle of milk. I then saw him walk out with a bottle of milk. Now, normally, I would have decided that (given his calm demeanor and how these things usually go), he paid for the milk, but then I asked, what would the Cat think? And of course, she wouldn't have considered this any evidence that he paid for the milk, because even though that's how these things usually go, I mean how can you know?

That's deep. That's totally deep. Merely because there are rules in place for how these things ought to go, we shouldn't imagine that the outcome produces literally any reason for thinking that's how it went. Whoa.

Sorry, EC, but this is not your best stuff.

That's weak.

I see a guy walk out of a store with a bottle of milk. Someone next to me says "They're only supposed to leave the store if they've paid". Does that allow me to conclude that they've paid?

The answer is no. Someone leaving the store with a bottle of milk is not by itself evidence that they paid. It's very likely that they did pay - it's the most reasonable starting point. But it isn't evidence that they did pay.

FFS, I haven't offered an opinion on whether or not they paid! All I said is that someone saying that they're only supposed to leave if they've paid isn't evidence that they did pay!

It's like you people don't even know wtf evidence is! I'm really getting tired of this BS.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

What the holy hell? Seriously? This really reads like six degrees of Kevin Bacon!

So let me get this straight:

1) Ross has interest in a shipping company.
2) The shipping company is owned by an investment company.
3) The investment company has a business relationship with a Russian energy firm.
4) The Russian energy firm is partly controlled by Putin's son-in-law and other Russians in power.

And Ross is accused of *concealing* this four-steps-removed relationship? How does this make sense to you?

Because as nominee for Commerce Secretary, he was supposed to disclose these types of business interests. He didn't. Why not ?

FFS, I have interest in an international stock trading concern regarding high-cap energy stocks. Part of my 401-K is invested there . I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the investment company that hosts this protfolio has a business relationship with a Russian energy firm.

Therefore, I have concealed a tie to Putin! Woot!

Yeah, that's exactly the same.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...s-business-links-putin-family-paradise-papers
The involvement of Ross and Shamalov in the shipping venture dates back to 2011. That year, Ross’s investment firm, WL Ross, began buying into Navigator with an investment that gave him two seats on the company’s board. Meanwhile, in Moscow, Shamalov began investing in Sibur, which was formerly state owned.

By January 2012, having built up his holding in the Russian company, Shamalov, then 29, was made its deputy chairman. That summer, WL Ross took control of Navigator by buying a further $110m stake from the collapsed Lehman Brothers bank.

Shamalov is the son of Nikolai Shamalov, one of Putin’s oldest friends from St Petersburg, where Putin worked in the mayor’s office. He married Katerina in a secret ceremony in February 2013.

Later that year, two ships from Ross’s company began transporting liquefied gas out of Russia for Putin’s son-in-law’s firm under a decade-long contract initially worth $226m.


"six degrees of Kevin Bacon" *giggle* *snort*

 

[Emily's Cat]

Earlier in this thread a link was posted to an article about likely sources of leaks, which highlighted that defence lawyers were often the most likely leakers, especially if they were identified as 'sources familiar with the investigation' or similar.

Your suggestion that the choices are between leaks from the investigating team or simply made up, misses a lot of other potential sources.

That's great.

Whose defense lawyers knew of the investigation's proceedings when the investigation hand't yet moved against anyone? Or are we assuming that the lawyers of anyone who had been interviewed in any fashion seemed to think it was a great idea to go forth and expose that information so that Meuller's team stayed front and center in the news? Because none of the 'leaked' information was particularly critical of the investigation, and none of it weakened the investigation.

So why exactly would defense attorneys be leaking this sort of information? Can you explain to me what their reasoning would be?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Sure, it's *possible* that leaks about what Meuller's team are doing are coming from somewhere other than Meuller's team. Who do you suggest would have knowledge of the secret inner workings of Meuller's investigation, but are not considered part of that investigation? Where would they get such information?

Earlier in this thread a link was posted to an article about likely sources of leaks, which highlighted that defence lawyers were often the most likely leakers, especially if they were identified as 'sources familiar with the investigation' or similar.

Your suggestion that the choices are between leaks from the investigating team or simply made up, misses a lot of other potential sources.

EC, why don't you simply give us examples of these leaks that could only have come from Mueller )or his team), and let's see if another explanation could be feasible ?

That makes much more sense to me than you simply claiming things about "all the leaks" but not using examples.

 

[PhantomWolf]

What the holy hell? Seriously? This really reads like six degrees of Kevin Bacon!


So let me get this straight:

1) Ross has interest in a shipping company.
2) The shipping company is owned by an investment company.
3) The investment company has a business relationship with a Russian energy firm.
4) The Russian energy firm is partly controlled by Putin's son-in-law and other Russians in power.

And Ross is accused of *concealing* this four-steps-removed relationship? How does this make sense to you?

FFS, I have interest in an international stock trading concern regarding high-cap energy stocks. Part of my 401-K is invested there . I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the investment company that hosts this protfolio has a business relationship with a Russian energy firm.

Therefore, I have concealed a tie to Putin! Woot!

If you want to get it straight, then it's best to actually get it straight, instead of making mistakes.


Try this instead.

* Along with his Investment Company, Ross bought a large stake in a Shipping Company, Navigator, gaining two seats on the board and then later control of the company.
* Ross retained his holdings in the company when he left to become Commerce Secretary
* One of Navigator's primary customers is a Russian gas company called Sibur.
* Putin's Son-in-law, Kirill Shamalov, owned a large chunk of Sibur (over 20% until he sold it early this year).

It's still a stretch, but a much closer relationship since the contract with Sibur directly effects Ross' holdings in Navigator.

 

[Emily's Cat]

EC, why don't you simply give us examples of these leaks that could only have come from Mueller )or his team), and let's see if another explanation could be feasible ?

That makes much more sense to me than you simply claiming things about "all the leaks" but not using examples.

No.

FFS, I made a comment dozens of pages ago. If you're determined to hang on to it, go find my posts on your own. It was relevant when I made the initial comment. Now we're a few weeks further along. It's not really relevant, and I'm not the one hanging on to it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If you want to get it straight, then it's best to actually get it straight, instead of making mistakes.


Try this instead.

* Along with his Investment Company, Ross bought a large stake in a Shipping Company, Navigator, gaining two seats on the board and then later control of the company.
* Ross retained his holdings in the company when he left to become Commerce Secretary
* One of Navigator's primary customers is a Russian gas company called Sibur.
* Putin's Son-in-law, Kirill Shamalov, owned a large chunk of Sibur (over 20% until he sold it early this year).

It's still a stretch, but a much closer relationship since the contract with Sibur directly effects Ross' holdings in Navigator.

Okay, specify and be explicit as much as you like. Still not seeing where there's any *reasonable* case to say he was "concealing" his ties to the Russian government

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Okay, specify and be explicit as much as you like. Still not seeing where there's any *reasonable* case to say he was "concealing" his ties to the Russian government

Eyeroll as much as you like, your posts are weak sauce.

Ross, as nominee for Commerce Secretary, was supposed to disclose these types of business interests.
He didn't.
Why not ?

 

[NoahFence]

Okay, specify and be explicit as much as you like. Still not seeing where there's any *reasonable* case to say he was "concealing" his ties to the Russian government

Other than them asking and him not disclosing it?

I'm not sure where your confusion lies.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No.

FFS, I made a comment dozens of pages ago.

...
Then brought it up again TODAY

Sure, it's *possible* that leaks about what Meuller's team are doing are coming from somewhere other than Meuller's team. Who do you suggest would have knowledge of the secret inner workings of Meuller's investigation, but are not considered part of that investigation? Where would they get such information?

If you're determined to hang on to it, go find my posts on your own. It was relevant when I made the initial comment. Now we're a few weeks further along. It's not really relevant, and I'm not the one hanging on to it.

Sure fooled me.

If you don't want to support your claims, suits me. Makes them easier to dismiss.

 

[Emily's Cat]

...
Then brought it up again TODAY

Okay - that's just outright BS. I only brought it up as a response to someone who refused to let it lie! You act as if I voluntarily reintroduced it all by myself.

If you don't want to support your claims, suits me. Makes them easier to dismiss.

Oh bloody hell. If I ignore the whinging posts berating me for not responding to something 10 pages ago... then I'm not supporting my position, and you can dismiss it. If I DO actually respond, then I'm the one hanging on to it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Eyeroll as much as you like, your posts are weak sauce.

Ross, as nominee for Commerce Secretary, was supposed to disclose these types of business interests.
He didn't.
Why not ?

I would guess because he didn't know. Do you know all of the business partners of any of the companies your 401-K is invested in? Do you know who the largest shareholders of those business partners are?

Is there any really good reason to expect that Ross should know 1) who the largest owners of a company that a company that Ross owns some interest in sometimes does business with and 2) the names of all of Putin's extended family?