Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1082725310452371456
Click to expand...
Why would Manafort share 2016 polling data with a Russian intelligence operative? One could draw the conclusion that the Kremlin had a stake in the outcome of the election or that Manafort sought aid to the campaign from the Kremlin.
Click to expand...

Here you have the campaign chairman for the Trump campaign sharing polling data with a Russian Intelligence operative.

Can anyone say COLLUSION? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
 
carlitos said:
The documents don't say when. He was named as campaign strategist before becoming chair. He only became chair after Lewandowski blew up, months leading up to the convention. If not the Madrid meeting, maybe the second meeting, wherever that was, was during his chairmanship. Prague is lovely that time of year...

Remember, as soon as he got the campaign strategist role, and started getting press for being in the Trump campaign, that's when he tried to "get whole" on his debt with Deripaska by providing internal campaign info via KK.
Click to expand...

Certainly sounds like collusion to me! This witch hunt is remarkably good at finding witches.
 
If you believe that Trump himself is innocent of collusion, you declare him to be a hapless stooge in the hands of Russian and Russian-backed operatives.
Trump is either too corrupt or too stupid - take your pick.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
If you believe that Trump himself is innocent of collusion, you declare him to be a hapless stooge in the hands of Russian and Russian-backed operatives.
Trump is either too corrupt or too stupid - take your pick.
Click to expand...

It's kinda like Bush and the WMDs all over again, you either have to believe that Bush was a total rube to those around him such as Dick "I shoot them in the face" Cheney, or you need to accept that Bush was a willing and knowledgeable participant in the deceiving of both Congress and the US People.

It doesn't look good either way.
 
acbytesla said:
Here you have the campaign chairman for the Trump campaign sharing polling data with a Russian Intelligence operative.

Can anyone say COLLUSION? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Click to expand...

Since Mueller has not presented the evidence for his argument, the skeptical answer is he has not met the burden of proof to not reject his argument. I reject the claim that the chairman have polling data to a Russian operative.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Since Mueller has not presented the evidence for his argument, the skeptical answer is he has not met the burden of proof to not reject his argument. I reject the claim that the chairman have polling data to a Russian operative.
Click to expand...

You do understand that this information comes directly from the documents that Paul Manafort's lawyers filed under seal with the courts yesterday. And that it was improperly redacted so someone with expertise with the word processing software could actually eliminate the black boxes that were hiding this information.

Ooops!
 
acbytesla said:
You do understand that this information comes directly from the documents that Paul Manafort's lawyers filed under seal with the courts yesterday. And that it was improperly redacted so someone with expertise with the word processing software could actually eliminate the black boxes that were hiding this information.

Ooops!
Click to expand...

They unredacted a claim. Claims come with a burden of proof to be accepted. That burden of proof is satisfied with evidence. There isn't evidence presented by Mueller that it is true.

ETA: manafort would also have to present evidence on his claim that he gave polling data.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
They unredacted a claim. Claims come with a burden of proof to be accepted. That burden of proof is satisfied with evidence. There isn't evidence presented by Mueller that it is true.

ETA: manafort would also have to present evidence on his claim that he gave polling data.
Click to expand...

A claim? This was Paul Manafort admitting to sharing polling data with Russian Intelligence operatives. Are you saying that the Trump campaign manager was lying?
 
acbytesla said:
A claim? This was Paul Manafort admitting to sharing polling data with Russian Intelligence operatives. Are you saying that the Trump campaign manager was lying?
Click to expand...

I reject claims that he did or didn't do it until he presents evidence for his claim that he did it.

Admitting to doing something is just another claim. Claims come with a burden of proof.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I reject claims that he did or didn't do it until he presents evidence for his claim that he did it.

Admitting to doing something is just another claim. Claims come with a burden of proof.
Click to expand...

I claim that George Clooney is not actually an alligator that was genetically modified by aliens to infiltrate Hollywood as part of their grander scheme to buy several square miles of land near downtown LA.

Since I have provided no evidence, do you therefore reject that claim and, consequently, believe that Clooney is, in fact, a mutant alligator?
 
Something of note while being bobbed.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/09/asia/thailand-saudi-teen-options-intl/index.html

Our little tinpot dictatorship apparently has a bigger pair than the leader of the free world. The head of immigration who goes by the nickname of "Big Joke" actually got the other generals to go along and refused to return a Saudi who'd renounced Islam and feared for her life. I, to be frank, was astonished. They purportedly allowed a Saudi official into the bonded area of the airport and he and a Kuwaiti Airlines guy took away her passport. Saudi now claims they were not at the airport; can't say whether true or not.

She's been handed over to the UNHRC who promise she is not being returned to Saudi. Dad and brother came to get her and she won't see them.



ETA: Ooops. I thought I was in the generic Trump thread. Unintentional derail. Sorry 'bout that.
 
Last edited:
dasmiller said:
I claim that George Clooney is not actually an alligator that was genetically modified by aliens to infiltrate Hollywood as part of their grander scheme to buy several square miles of land near downtown LA.

Since I have provided no evidence, do you therefore reject that claim and, consequently, believe that Clooney is, in fact, a mutant alligator?
Click to expand...

Rejecting a claim does not mean accepting the opposite. You simply reject both claims.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I reject claims that he did or didn't do it until he presents evidence for his claim that he did it.

Admitting to doing something is just another claim. Claims come with a burden of proof.
Click to expand...

I gotta love how ridiculously purely you apply principles. Never mind that it makes them incompatible with reality, but somehow you always manage to make the principle look stupid, almost as if that's your whole point.
 
Belz... said:
I gotta love how ridiculously purely you apply principles. Never mind that it makes them incompatible with reality, but somehow you always manage to make the principle look stupid, almost as if that's your whole point.
Click to expand...
It is. I think he's said as much in the past. He only keeps doing it because people keep biting.
 
Belz... said:
I gotta love how ridiculously purely you apply principles. Never mind that it makes them incompatible with reality, but somehow you always manage to make the principle look stupid, almost as if that's your whole point.
Click to expand...

If there is an exemption to the principle of a claim having a burden of proof, you don't seem to be articulating it.
 
BobTheCoward said:
If there is an exemption to the principle of a claim having a burden of proof, you don't seem to be articulating it.
Click to expand...

Every principle has exceptions. Principles are complex things that are made more complex by their interactions and interlocking hierarchies. You know this, of course, since you seem to be otherwise functional in real life. The only way you can make the claims that you make here is by deliberately ignoring that, which makes your contributions dishonest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom