Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
varwoche said:
Just today, Trumps's lawyer referred to Flynn as a "former Obama official".
Click to expand...


I'll bet he didn't mention that Flynn got kicked out by the Obama administration, and that Obama warned Trump that having anything to do with him was a bad idea.

(I wonder if he did that just to ensure that Trump would welcome him onto his team. Diabolical. )
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
Just today, Trumps's lawyer referred to Flynn as a "former Obama official".
Click to expand...

Makes it harder to reassure Flynn, 'don't worry, Donnie's the pardon man'. That may be a good thing. Mueller is not subject to the same lies Trump's base is.
 
Flynn is not just under the bus, he is out the other side and into the opposite lane of traffic.
 
jimbob said:
Putting the timeline on here for starters

Adding events pertaining to Roger Stone / Podesta:

My additions in Red
Mar 19| Podesta email hacked
Apr 19| DCLeaks.com registered
May 3| Trump becomes presumptive nominee
June 3| Goldstone contacts Trump Jr. to setup meeting which promises to discuss Clinton June 7 17:16 | Don Jr. confirms meeting w/ Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya June7 21:13 | Trump promises press conf the next week with Clinton dirt
June 8| Trump posts link to DCLeaks
June 9| Trump Jr, Kushner, Manafort meet with Russian operative
June 12| Assange announces Clinton emails
June 27| Hacked emails posted to DCLeaks
July 11| Trump/Manafort nix pro-Ukranian plank in GOP platform (and lie about it)
Late July | Malware researchers spot unusual server activity between Trump server and Alfa Bank**
Aug 21| Roger Stone writes "it will soon be Podesta's time in the barrel"
Oct -7 | Pussygate video released
Oct 7| Wikileaks releases Podesta emails (an hour later)
2017 - May| DOJ drops money laundering case against client of Natalia Veselnitskaya***
2017-12-07| Democrats ask questions about the DoJ dropping the money lanudering case
Click to expand...

Oh. My. Word. THAT is what you consider to be "evidence"?! Please invest in a critical thinking class and learn about basic logic fallacies.

Meanwhile, everyone is still waiting for one shred of substantive, credible evidence that Trump or any of his senior people colluded with the Russians to try to tamper with the election.
 
Last edited:
bobtaftfan said:
Oh. My. Word. THAT is what you consider to be "evidence"?! Please invest in a critical thinking class and learn about basic logic fallacies.

Meanwhile, everyone is still waiting for one shred of substantive, credible evidence that Trump or any of his senior people colluded with the Russians to try to tamper with the election.
Click to expand...
Does that not include the various US intelligence agencies?

Perhaps “everyone” in this case means people who are predisposed to not accept evidence and conclusions no matter what?
 
Last edited:
bobtaftfan said:
Oh. My. Word. THAT is what you consider to be "evidence"?! Please invest in a critical thinking class and learn about basic logic fallacies.

Meanwhile, everyone is still waiting for one shred of substantive, credible evidence that Trump or any of his senior people colluded with the Russians to try to tamper with the election.
Click to expand...

I consider most of it to be circumstantial evidence. The email correspondence about the meeting between Don Jr, Kushner and Veselnitskaya is proof of intent. The colours were just to show the latest information.

Any of the items of circumstantial evidence on their own would not be very interesting, taken together and with solid evidence of attempted wrongdoing in the email suggest that the meeting was not as innocent as the proven liars said.
 
bobtaftfan said:
Oh. My. Word. THAT is what you consider to be "evidence"?! Please invest in a critical thinking class and learn about basic logic fallacies.
Click to expand...

Speaking of critical thinking classes, here's a free lesson: circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

Meanwhile, everyone is still waiting for one shred of substantive, credible evidence
Click to expand...

By everyone, you mean right wingers, and by substantive and credible, you mean a standard of evidence that no one on the planet could ever meet.
 
bobtaftfan said:
Oh. My. Word. THAT is what you consider to be "evidence"?! Please invest in a critical thinking class and learn about basic logic fallacies.

Meanwhile, everyone is still waiting for one shred of substantive, credible evidence that Trump or any of his senior people colluded with the Russians to try to tamper with the election.
Click to expand...
This post makes me cringe with embarrassment on your behalf. It's bad enough that you don't appreciate that circumstantial evidence is evidence -- a hallmark of having learned about the justice system via TV dramas -- but you lecture others about critical thinking!? What a joke.

And this is so fantastically fact-challenged that it doesn't merit a substantive response. Critical thinking. Yah sure.

But I do have a question. What specifically are the fallacies you refer to? Inquiring minds want to know how it's possible for a simple timeline of events to be fallacious.
 
Last edited:
bobtaftfan said:
Oh. My. Word. THAT is what you consider to be "evidence"?! Please invest in a critical thinking class and learn about basic logic fallacies.

Meanwhile, everyone is still waiting for one shred of substantive, credible evidence that Trump or any of his senior people colluded with the Russians to try to tamper with the election.
Click to expand...

Argumemnon said:
Speaking of critical thinking classes, here's a free lesson: circumstantial evidence is still evidence.



By everyone, you mean right wingers, and by substantive and credible, you mean a standard of evidence that no one on the planet could ever meet.
Click to expand...

varwoche said:
This post makes me cringe with embarrassment on your behalf. It's bad enough that you don't appreciate that circumstantial evidence is evidence -- a hallmark of having learned about the justice system via TV dramas -- but you lecture others about critical thinking!? What a joke.

And this is so fantastically fact-challenged that it doesn't merit a substantive response. Critical thinking. Yah sure.

But I do have a question. What specifically are the fallacies you refer to? Inquiring minds want to know how it's possible for a simple timeline of events to be fallacious.
Click to expand...

Add to this, the post to which bobtaftfan was responding was posted in July.

I would argue that there is significant new evidence that has come to light since then.

For example two people so far have pleaded guilty and these are explicitly plea bargains - which means that they have sufficient evidence to make it worthwhile charging them only with lesser crimes. In the case of Flynn, we know that there is evidence to charge him with crimes upto planning a kidnapping, so his evidence must be pretty significant.
 
jimbob said:
For example two people so far have pleaded guilty
Click to expand...


One to having made up junk about "Putin's niece" he told to the FBI and the other to having "lied to the FBI" about post-election stuff that wouldn't turn an eye if it were about Israel, not Russia (oops, it is). Nothing about your great Trump-Putin conspiracy that stole the presidency from Killary. Nothing plus nothing remains nothing, and I don't even have to use colourful fonts. ;)
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
Speaking of critical thinking classes, here's a free lesson: circumstantial evidence is still evidence.
Click to expand...

Yep, and in fact, circumstantial evidence is very often much stronger than direct testimony. If you come in the door with a dripping umbrella, I'm going to believe it's raining outside. If you say it isn't but don't have a convincing alternative explanation for the evidence, I'm going to continue to believe it's raining.

Bobtaftfan is in denial; it's definitely raining.
 
Childlike Empress said:
One to having made up junk about "Putin's niece" he told to the FBI and the other to having "lied to the FBI" about post-election stuff that wouldn't turn an eye if it were about Israel, not Russia (oops, it is). Nothing about your great Trump-Putin conspiracy that stole the presidency from Killary. Nothing plus nothing remains nothing, and I don't even have to use colourful fonts. ;)
Click to expand...

Mueller could have thrown the book at Flynn, just based on what was already publicly known, and since we don't know the details of the plea bargain, he might still do that. But I see you don't quite get this American concept of a plea bargain. Stay tuned; I'm pretty sure it will become clear. Remember, Flynn must know why Trump was so anxious to protect Flynn that he committed obvious obstruction of justice, and he must know why everyone in TrumpCo including himself had been lying about their Russian contacts.
 
Stacko said:
It's confession time:
He asked his FBI Director to let his National Security Advisor off the hook for committing the crime of lying to the FBI. When Comey refused, he was fired. Seems like he's confessing to obstruction of justice, again.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, we now know that "because he lied to the Vice President" is abject BS -- they knew he was lying.
 
Childlike Empress said:
One to having made up junk about "Putin's niece" he told to the FBI and the other to having "lied to the FBI" about post-election stuff that wouldn't turn an eye if it were about Israel, not Russia (oops, it is). Nothing about your great Trump-Putin conspiracy that stole the presidency from Killary. Nothing plus nothing remains nothing, and I don't even have to use colourful fonts. ;)
Click to expand...

Since you never thought they conspired, and had a different baseline, what do you think of what has been learned? I would certainly fire a CEO like trump for these management choices.
 
Childlike Empress said:
One to having made up junk about "Putin's niece" he told to the FBI and the other to having "lied to the FBI" about post-election stuff that wouldn't turn an eye if it were about Israel, not Russia (oops, it is). Nothing about your great Trump-Putin conspiracy that stole the presidency from Killary. Nothing plus nothing remains nothing, and I don't even have to use colourful fonts. ;)
Click to expand...

The colourful fonts were just to show what was new... think of it as a courtesy there was nothing beyond that.

As for the rest.

  • We know from emails that Trump Jr agreed to meet Veselnitskaya about getting dirt on Clinton.
  • Within four hours of Jr confirming the meeting, Trump Sr promises a press conference with dirt on Clinton.
  • The next day Trump Sr posts a link to DC Leaks (before there is any dirt in it)
  • The day after that, there is the meeting.
  • Three days after the meeting Assange announces Clinton emails

We also know that Trump Jr had previously lied about this meeting, and who attended it. He now denies that he was successful in getting any dirt. However the timing looks suspiciously as though there was a quid pro quo.

Of course, none of this is proof, except of the Trump campaign's intent to contact what they thought was a foreign government representative, without informing the FBI, but there is plenty of reason to suppose it was more.
 
jimbob said:
The colourful fonts were just to show what was new... think of it as a courtesy there was nothing beyond that.

As for the rest.

  • We know from emails that Trump Jr agreed to meet Veselnitskaya about getting dirt on Clinton.
  • Within four hours of Jr confirming the meeting, Trump Sr promises a press conference with dirt on Clinton.
  • The next day Trump Sr posts a link to DC Leaks (before there is any dirt in it)
  • The day after that, there is the meeting.
  • Three days after the meeting Assange announces Clinton emails

We also know that Trump Jr had previously lied about this meeting, and who attended it. He now denies that he was successful in getting any dirt. However the timing looks suspiciously as though there was a quid pro quo.

Of course, none of this is proof, except of the Trump campaign's intent to contact what they thought was a foreign government representative, without informing the FBI, but there is plenty of reason to suppose it was more.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you actually have a reason to suppose more.

What is your reason for taking the action of forming assumptions?
 
BobTheCoward said:
Since you never thought they conspired, and had a different baseline, what do you think of what has been learned? I would certainly fire a CEO like trump for these management choices.
Click to expand...


The main question is why on earth Flynn thought it was a good idea to lie about these trivial things.

Some think it's a conspiracy to lock up Clinton in the end, but that's a rather convoluted theory. But at least it is an attempt to explain it.
 
Did trump admit
a. he knew he lied to the FBI
b. he thought that was no big deal
c. he tried to solve the problem by firing Comey

Does that amount to Obstruction of Justice?
 
WilliamSeger said:
Furthermore, we now know that "because he lied to the Vice President" is abject BS -- they knew he was lying.
Click to expand...

OK adding those to the timeline


My additions in Red
Mar 19| Podesta email hacked
Apr 19| DCLeaks.com registered
May 3| Trump becomes presumptive nominee
June 3| Goldstone contacts Trump Jr. to setup meeting which promises to discuss Clinton June 7 17:16 | Don Jr. confirms meeting w/ Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya June7 21:13 | Trump promises press conf the next week with Clinton dirt
June 8| Trump posts link to DCLeaks
June 9| Trump Jr, Kushner, Manafort meet with Russian operative
June 12| Assange announces Clinton emails
June 27| Hacked emails posted to DCLeaks
July 11| Trump/Manafort nix pro-Ukranian plank in GOP platform (and lie about it)
Late July | Malware researchers spot unusual server activity between Trump server and Alfa Bank
Aug 21| Roger Stone writes "it will soon be Podesta's time in the barrel"
Oct -7 | Pussygate video released
Oct 7| Wikileaks releases Podesta emails (an hour later)
Dec- 29 | Flynn Consults With Transition Team, Then Calls Kislyak*
Dec 30 | Putin Declines to Retaliate
2017 |
Jan 15 | Pence Says He Is Unaware of Flynn’s Discussions**
Feb 9| Flynn’s Conversation Is Revealed by WaPo
Feb 13 | Flynn fired
Feb 14 | White House Says Flynn Violated President’s Trust***
Feb 14| Trump asks FBI Director Comey to drop investigation into Flynn
May 9| Comey is fired
May| DOJ drops money laundering case against client of Natalia Veselnitskaya
May 11| Trump tells NBC he considered "this Russia thing" before firing Comey
May 12| Democrats ask questions about the DoJ dropping the money lanudering case


*On the same day that President Barack Obama announced new sanctions against Russia in retaliation for interference in the 2016 election, Mr. Flynn called a senior member of the presidential transition team who was with other members of the team at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort.

Mr. Flynn and the senior transition official discussed what Mr. Flynn should relay to Mr. Kislyak about the new sanctions and what effect they could have on Mr. Trump’s foreign policy agenda.

“Immediately” after his call with the senior transition official, Mr. Flynn called Mr. Kislyak, according to court documents made public Friday 2017-12-01.

Mr. Flynn told the ambassador that Russia should not retaliate in response to the sanctions. In a subsequent call, Mr. Kislyak told Mr. Flynn that “Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of his request.”

The following day, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia announced that Moscow would not retaliate against the United States for its latest round of sanctions, surprising some in the Obama administration who had expected an aggressive response from Mr. Putin.

In response to Mr. Putin’s announcement, Mr. Trump praised the Russian president.

----------------------

**Mike Pence, the Vice President-elect who was the head of the transition team, has said repeatedly that he did not know that Mr. Flynn had discussed sanctions on the calls with Mr. Kislyak.

-----------------------------------------
*** Sean Spicer, then the White House spokesman, said that Mr. Flynn had been fired for misleading Mr. Pence and other officials about what transpired on the phone calls with Mr. Kislyak.

"We’ve been reviewing and evaluating this issue with respect to General Flynn on a daily basis for a few weeks, trying to ascertain the truth,” he said.

"We got to a point not based on a legal issue, but based on a trust issue, where a level of trust between the President and General Flynn had eroded to the point where he felt he had to make a change. The President was very concerned that General Flynn had misled the Vice President and others.”

( Which looks misleading in light of what we know from December 29/30, where Flynn's actions seem to have informed both the actions of the Transition team and Putin).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom