Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
jimbob said:
Which is that Trump Jr suddenly started telling the truth about the meeting and that it genuinely was all about adopting orphans, and it was just a coincidence that Trump Sr had posted a link to DCleaks just after the meeting had been arranged, and this was exactly the sort of thing that the email exchanges about the meeting were describing?

Or do you have a different alternative?

I know that you have ... highly "exacting"... standards for proof, but this is not proof but simply an assessment of the most likely explanation.
Click to expand...

Hadn't Trump been informed of Assange's intent to disclose the emails prior to their posting? Or am I mis-remembering things?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Why do you think it's unlikely? We already knew that the DNC had been hacked, prior to that meeting being initiated in June. It had already been reported that Russia was the suspected hacker of the DNC servers, and that emails had been stolen.
Click to expand...

No, the DNC didn't announce the hack until June 14.
 
Emily's Cat said:
ETA: TL-DR - This whole mess is also explainable by a hostile foreign entity (not even necessarily Russia) exploiting superficial associations and coincidences in order to weaken the US position and distract us from... whatever.
Click to expand...

I suppose the question is - if Trump's team didn't do anything illegal, why did they risk prison time by lying to the FBI about what they actually did?
 
Emily's Cat said:
What raises more skepticism in me is the double standard in play here. Democrats literally paid a foreign intelligence operative to dig up dirt about Trump = somehow not soliciting something of value from a foreign government = no problems, perfectly acceptable.
Click to expand...

EX-foreign intelligence operative; a significant difference.
 
No one has posted anything about Flynns text ?

http://www.newsweek.com/mike-flynns-secret-messages-show-trump-colluded-russia-experts-740246

According to the whistleblower, Flynn also wanted U.S. sanctions against Russia lifted in order to complete an international energy project he was working on. The whistleblower said Flynn texted his former business associate on the day of Trump’s inauguration to say that the project was “good to go.”

The information was given to Representative Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, who published an open letter on Wednesday to the committee’s chairman, Trey Gowdy, explaining the revelations.

“General Michael Flynn—within minutes of Donald Trump being sworn in as president—was communicating directly with his former business colleagues about their plans to work with Russia to build nuclear reactors in the Middle East,” the letter reads.

"Our committee has credible allegations that President Trump's national security advisor sought to manipulate the course of international nuclear policy for the financial gain of his former business partners,” Cummings continued. “These grave allegations compel a full, credible and bipartisan congressional investigation.”
 
Emily's Cat said:
The problem (for me anyway) is that much of the circumstantial evidence being floated this past year isn't even really circumstantial evidence - it's speculative inference...
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

cir·cum·stan·tial
ˌsərkəmˈstan(t)SH(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
(of evidence or a legal case) pointing indirectly toward someone's guilt but not conclusively proving it.
synonyms: indirect, inferred, deduced, conjectural; More

In the (near) future when Mueller presents evidence of obstruction and collusion, all I can picture is that your response will be "I never said it wasn't all true, I was just being a true skeptic and saying none of you could have actually made a reasonable case that this was all coming .....
 
TheL8Elvis said:
:rolleyes:

cir·cum·stan·tial
ˌsərkəmˈstan(t)SH(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
(of evidence or a legal case) pointing indirectly toward someone's guilt but not conclusively proving it.
synonyms: indirect, inferred, deduced, conjectural; More

In the (near) future when Mueller presents evidence of obstruction and collusion, all I can picture is that your response will be "I never said it wasn't all true, I was just being a true skeptic and saying none of you could have actually made a reasonable case that this was all coming .....
Click to expand...

But that is true. Even if you are right after the fact doesn't mean you are right to make your inferences now.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
:rolleyes:

cir·cum·stan·tial
ˌsərkəmˈstan(t)SH(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
(of evidence or a legal case) pointing indirectly toward someone's guilt but not conclusively proving it.
synonyms: indirect, inferred, deduced, conjectural; More

In the (near) future when Mueller presents evidence of obstruction and collusion, all I can picture is that your response will be "I never said it wasn't all true, I was just being a true skeptic and saying none of you could have actually made a reasonable case that this was all coming .....
Click to expand...

To defend Emily's Cat, who I often disagree with on these matters, I sure as heck don't know what's coming from the investigation, aside from what we've seen thus far. I'm content to wait and see.

Do I think that Trump's family did something illegal? I'm no lawyer, but Jr. sure seemed to be fishing for dirt from a Russian who had ties to the government (and he knew it). That sounds pretty bad to me. Do I think Trump did something illegal? Seems kinda likely, because the campaign was not so astute to insulate him from bad decisions. But I sure don't know either of these things.

So, I'll wait and watch.
 
phiwum said:
To defend Emily's Cat, who I often disagree with on these matters, I sure as heck don't know what's coming from the investigation, aside from what we've seen thus far. I'm content to wait and see.
Click to expand...

I think we've seen this investigation go in a steady direction that most investigations go. Up the ladder.

Is this going towards some myth that only true skeptics wait until all the evidence is in? That may be true when making a conclusion, but there's plenty here to make an educated guess. Denying that is the opposite of skepticism. There are mounds of evidence pointing to collusion on varying levels, and has been pointed out ad nauseum, circumstantial evidence is still evidence. If you don't agree with it, or it's not enough, then fine. Others are able to make what they feel is an informed decision. Neither is "wrong" or even needs defending.

phiwum said:
Do I think that Trump's family did something illegal? I'm no lawyer, but Jr. sure seemed to be fishing for dirt from a Russian who had ties to the government (and he knew it).
Click to expand...

I'm positive they did something illegal. I have no idea if it's related to Russia, money laundering, or what it will point to, but I know they did something illegal. Trump and co. have been linked, or accused, of almost everything in the book. Paying off attorneys, misuse of donations, he lies almost constantly, he even went as far as to have a fake ass doctor write a ******** health diagnosis for absolutely no reason. There is nothing at all that leads me to believe the opposite.

phiwum said:
That sounds pretty bad to me. Do I think Trump did something illegal? Seems kinda likely, because the campaign was not so astute to insulate him from bad decisions. But I sure don't know either of these things.

So, I'll wait and watch.
Click to expand...

Sweet. I think there's more than enough to establish a pattern of behavior and the evidence is piling on.
 
plague311 said:
I think we've seen this investigation go in a steady direction that most investigations go. Up the ladder.

Is this going towards some myth that only true skeptics wait until all the evidence is in? That may be true when making a conclusion, but there's plenty here to make an educated guess. Denying that is the opposite of skepticism. There are mounds of evidence pointing to collusion on varying levels, and has been pointed out ad nauseum, circumstantial evidence is still evidence. If you don't agree with it, or it's not enough, then fine. Others are able to make what they feel is an informed decision. Neither is "wrong" or even needs defending.



I'm positive they did something illegal. I have no idea if it's related to Russia, money laundering, or what it will point to, but I know they did something illegal. Trump and co. have been linked, or accused, of almost everything in the book. Paying off attorneys, misuse of donations, he lies almost constantly, he even went as far as to have a fake ass doctor write a ******** health diagnosis for absolutely no reason. There is nothing at all that leads me to believe the opposite.



Sweet. I think there's more than enough to establish a pattern of behavior and the evidence is piling on.
Click to expand...

Skepticism is characterized by a willingness to say that I don't know and by careful reasoning.

In this case, I can't say that even a preponderance of the evidence points to illegalities by Trump himself. There's some suggestive stuff out there, but not enough for me to think the odds are greater than 50/50 yet.

So I'll wait and see. If I had any practical role in the investigation, perhaps I wouldn't have the luxury of waiting, but I don't. I don't have to have an opinion on these things, so waiting and seeing seems the best option to me.

None of this is to suggest that Trump is a respectable man or anything close to a reasonable choice for President. He's one of the least likeable public figures I've seen, an incompetent egotist with not any interest in actual policy or principles, a boob who lies just as soon as blink.
 
logger said:
My my my!
The Dems little ruse is continuing to unravel.
https://theconservativetreehouse.co...-the-origin-of-the-fisa-warrants/#more-143111
Click to expand...

Or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier

Steele, the author, was MI6 between 1987 and 2009 and was a specialist on Russia. He has stated that he believes that 70-90% of the dossier is true. He had and still has a very good reputation -- far, far better than Trump's.

Former British ambassador to Moscow Sir Andrew Wood has vouched for Steele's reputation. He views Steele as a "very competent professional operator ... I take the report seriously. I don't think it's totally implausible." He also stated that "the report's key allegation – that Trump and Russia's leadership were communicating via secret back channels during the presidential campaign – was eminently plausible".

On August 22, 2017, media reported that Steele had met with the FBI and had provided them with the names of his sources for the allegations made in the dossier.​
So, they can check out Steele's sources and see if the document has any validity. Maybe it doesn't. However:
In his testimony, Page admitted he met with high ranking Kremlin officials. Previously, Page had denied meeting any Russian officials during the trip. His comments appeared to corroborate portions of the dossier.​
But this isn't biggest problem. If you follow the rather long and twisted logic of the article, the entire investigation into Trump is based on a fictitious document paid for by Clinton. In other words, poor little Donny is the innocent victim of master criminal, Hillary. Unfortunately for this claim:

Robert S. Litt, a former lawyer for the Director of National Intelligence, wrote that the dossier "played absolutely no role" in the intelligence community's determination that Russia had interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.​
 
Last edited:
barehl said:
Or not.



Steele, the author, was MI6 between 1987 and 2009 and was a specialist on Russia. He has stated that he believes that 70-90% of the dossier is true. He had and still has a very good reputation -- far, far better than Trump's.
Click to expand...

Lol
Far better according to you.

Former British ambassador to Moscow Sir Andrew Wood has vouched for Steele's reputation. He views Steele as a "very competent professional operator ... I take the report seriously. I don't think it's totally implausible." He also stated that "the report's key allegation – that Trump and Russia's leadership were communicating via secret back channels during the presidential campaign – was eminently plausible".
Click to expand...

Lol eminently plausible



Robert S. Litt, a former lawyer for the Director of National Intelligence, wrote that the dossier "played absolutely no role" in the intelligence community's determination that Russia had interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Click to expand...
Lol
Yeah sure, mind if we find out the truth?
 
logger said:
Lol
Yeah sure, mind if we find out the truth?
Click to expand...

And if the truth is exactly as stated? Would you be willing to accept it or would you hide behind more claims of conspiracy? How would you react if it did play a minor role in helping direct attention towards some of the things mentioned in it that did little more than further confirm the intelligence community's determination after separate verification, for that matter?
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
The problem (for me anyway) is that much of the circumstantial evidence being floated this past year isn't even really circumstantial evidence - it's speculative inference.
Click to expand...

varwoche said:
Hard stop, and I expect you may know where I'm heading... Can you please cite one or more examples?
Click to expand...
Yet again, the sound of crickets. When you can't cite one lonely, solitary example, I'm left to assume that your claim is fact-free.

By all means, prove me wrong.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Just because a guess turns out to be true doesn't mean the initial guess was justified based on the available evidence.
Click to expand...

You are wrong again.

You, me, 'TheL8Elvis', or anyone else is quite at liberty to issue his opinion about the Flynn case regardless of the accuracy of that opinion.
 
Crossbow said:
You are wrong again.

You, me, 'TheL8Elvis', or anyone else is quite at liberty to issue his opinion about the Flynn case regardless of the accuracy of that opinion.
Click to expand...

That would be without justification. Im calling it out as unjustified. Of course you are free to make unjustified claims, but you will be called out on them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom