Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Big Dog said:
He cites no one who has literally ever said that. A "contract"? Is he really claiming that someone asserted that if there is no direct contract there is no direct evidence. That is profoundly specious and idiotic strawman the likes of which I cannot believe anymore.
Click to expand...
Yet time and time again we hear Trump supporters claim "No evidence of collusion", despite the fact that there is a significant amount of evidence (from the Trump tower meeting, to various lies and changing stories various characters have used.)

If Trump supporters see all this evidence and still say "no evidence", then you have to wonder what exactly they would accept as proof. A note from Putin saying "I.O.U. One Election"? A video of Trump doing oral sex on Putin while he personally hacks into the democrat's servers (while Assange lovingly looks on)? It seems to me that by rejecting all the evidence that has been found, that its the Trump supporters who are actually suggesting that the level of evidence demands personal and public confessions or signed contracts.

Perhaps before you start complaining about what Seth says about evidence, you should look at Trump supporters and question why THEY keep saying there's "no evidence".
 
Segnosaur said:
Perhaps before you start complaining about what Seth says about evidence, you should look at Trump supporters and question why THEY keep saying there's "no evidence".
Click to expand...

Hi, time for a basic course in logic:

Telling me to "look at Trump supporters and question why THEY keep saying there's "no evidence" does not in any way, not even in the slightest tiny bit, contradict nor even address the detailed objections I have laid out to the Seth grift I have posted in this thread.

Seriously, the left's ability to even address a simple post is profoundly broken. it appears they believe that an assertion that can be summed up as "But Trump" replaces the need to even address what I have just written.
 
Donald J. Trump Retweeted

Dan Bongino
@dbongino
I don’t feel an ounce of empathy for all of the imbeciles who bought into the Russian collusion hoax now that it’s been entirely debunked. You were warned for over a year about this scam & you fell for it anyway. You did this to yourself.
 
Segnosaur said:
Yet time and time again we hear Trump supporters claim "No evidence of collusion", despite the fact that there is a significant amount of evidence (from the Trump tower meeting, to various lies and changing stories various characters have used.)

If Trump supporters see all this evidence and still say "no evidence", then you have to wonder what exactly they would accept as proof. A note from Putin saying "I.O.U. One Election"? A video of Trump doing oral sex on Putin while he personally hacks into the democrat's servers (while Assange lovingly looks on)? It seems to me that by rejecting all the evidence that has been found, that its the Trump supporters who are actually suggesting that the level of evidence demands personal and public confessions or signed contracts.

Perhaps before you start complaining about what Seth says about evidence, you should look at Trump supporters and question why THEY keep saying there's "no evidence".
Click to expand...

The simple answer is that in a quid pro quo that is alleged, you would need a "pro". Take the tower meeting. You have no evidence that it was discussed there.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Donald J. Trump Retweeted

Dan Bongino
@dbongino
I don’t feel an ounce of empathy for all of the imbeciles who bought into the Russian collusion hoax now that it’s been entirely debunked. You were warned for over a year about this scam & you fell for it anyway. You did this to yourself.
Click to expand...

A gross display of willful ignorance.

Someone here may have pointed me to it, but this New York Times article and graphic tell a convincing story of over 100 contacts with Russians during the Trump campaign. To anyone with eyes to see.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-contacts-russians-wikileaks.html

46168493715_0bb250514f_c.jpg


On the site, it’s an interactive chart where you can click on each contact or denial to see specifics.

Trump must be counting on plausible deniability. But the big question is whether it’s plausible that he knew nothing of any of this Russian involvement. Seems like a mountain of at least circumstancial evidence that he knew. We’ll see what Mueller has soon enough.
 
When Republicans controlled the House, they didn't want to find anything on Trump/Russia and left it to Mueller to catch people lying to them.
It's astounding that the Senate would make the same mistake now, given that it is highly probable that there will be some big Mueller news at the end of the month.
Quite likely, they are under pressure to provide a counter-narrative to cushion the impact of the Mueller Report that will find the Trump Campaign guilty as hell of collusion.
 
Trump Tweets

The Senate Intelligence Committee: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA!
 
Trump Tweets

The Senate Intelligence Committee: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA!
 
The Great Zaganza said:
When Republicans controlled the House, they didn't want to find anything on Trump/Russia and left it to Mueller to catch people lying to them.
It's astounding that the Senate would make the same mistake now, given that it is highly probable that there will be some big Mueller news at the end of the month.
Quite likely, they are under pressure to provide a counter-narrative to cushion the impact of the Mueller Report that will find the Trump Campaign guilty as hell of collusion.
Click to expand...
I think they're under pressure for a counter-narrative to cushion the now, but don't want to lie outright and be shown to be fools later. Hence the technically correct but easily misquoted statement of there being no direct evidence, which doesn't mean a whole lot of anything.
 
The Big Dog said:
Hi, time for a basic course in logic:

Telling me to "look at Trump supporters and question why THEY keep saying there's "no evidence" does not in any way, not even in the slightest tiny bit, contradict nor even address the detailed objections I have laid out to the Seth grift I have posted in this thread.

Seriously, the left's ability to even address a simple post is profoundly broken. it appears they believe that an assertion that can be summed up as "But Trump" replaces the need to even address what I have just written.
Click to expand...

Lol, no lesson in logic there, except possibly "don't let this happen to you." Once again, all you've done is make a naked assertion: "That is profoundly specious and idiotic strawman the likes of which I cannot believe anymore." The claim that you've never heard anyone make that argument doesn't make it a strawman, but as usual, you take that as an excuse to completely ignore the actual substance of what he was saying. Since you apparently stopped reading when you found that lame excuse, what he is saying is that direct evidence like a confession or a signed contract is not necessary to convict people of crimes. Abramson is right: circumstantial evidence is good enough when a conclusion can be reached "beyond a reasonable doubt," especially when people reveal their intent to commit a crime by lying about what they did.

And a secondary point is that, even if there is direct evidence like a signed contract somewhere, the Senate committee is not likely to discover it since all they've done is interview people, many of whom have lied. The logical thing to do at this point is to wait to see what Mueller has collected in his many raids of some very shady characters. So, professor, what should we conclude about people who don't do that?
 
Last edited:
WilliamSeger said:
Lol, no lesson in logic there, except possibly "don't let this happen to you." Once again, all you've done is make a naked assertion: "That is profoundly specious and idiotic strawman the likes of which I cannot believe anymore." The claim that you've never heard anyone make that argument doesn't make it a strawman, but as usual, you take that as an excuse to completely ignore the actual substance of what he was saying. Since you apparently stopped reading when you found that lame excuse, what he is saying is that direct evidence like a confession or a signed contract is not necessary to convict people of crimes. Abramson is right: circumstantial evidence is good enough when a conclusion can be reached "beyond a reasonable doubt," especially when people reveal their intent to commit a crime by lying about what they did.

And a secondary point is that, even if there is direct evidence like a signed contract somewhere, the Senate committee is not likely to discover it since all they've done is interview people, many of whom have lied. The logical thing to do at this point is to wait to see what Mueller has collected in his many raids of some very shady characters. So, professor, what should we conclude about people who don't do that?
Click to expand...

That is fantastic, you went to all that trouble to type out that response, which had absolutely nothing at all whatsoever with my post that you quoted!

Plus asserting that it wasn't a strawman because some uncited someone might have made the argument is amazingly laughable.

The truly scary thing about Seth is how successful he's been at treating people like they're stupid. When he's gone, the stupid will remain.
 
WilliamSeger said:
The truly scary thing about Trump is how successful he's been at treating people like they're stupid. When he's gone, the stupid will remain.
Click to expand...

Quite true!

There was a good article about this very issue in Slate Magazine about how the stupid Trump lovers continue to believe Trump over the facts.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/trump-followers-believe-lies-wall.html

Trump’s Followers Believe His Lies About the Wall

No evidence—not even from Fox News—can shake their faith.

On Monday night, President Donald Trump held a rally in El Paso, Texas. He chose the location based on his claim, delivered in last week’s State of the Union address, that a border wall had rescued the city from rampant crime. By the time Trump arrived, fact-checkers had demolished this lie, pointing out that the wall had no effect. But Trump told his followers to dismiss the numbers and trust him instead. And they did, because this is a measurable fact about Trump supporters: They’re willing to reject all other sources of information—crime statistics, intelligence agencies, even conservative media—when the president tells them to do so.

...

Trump told the attendees to disbelieve news organizations and public officials who cited the data. “I don’t care whether a mayor is a Republican or a Democrat,” he scoffed, referring to El Paso Mayor Dee Margo, a Republican who had tried to correct the president. “They’re full of crap when they say it hasn’t made a big difference.” He went on: “I heard the same thing from the fake news. They said, ‘Oh, crime actually stayed the same.’ Didn’t stay the same! It went way down. … These people, you know, you’d think they’d want to get to the bottom of a problem … not try and pull the wool over everybody’s eyes.”

...

Despite Trump’s torrential dishonesty—nearly 8,500 false or misleading statements, at last count—close to half of his supporters say he has never lied. Last May, an Economist/YouGov survey asked, “Do you think Donald Trump has or has not ever lied to the American people?” Nineteen percent of U.S. adults said he had never lied. Among Trump voters, 40 percent said he had never lied. That’s more than the 31 percent of Trump voters who were willing to say he had lied even once.

...
 
The Big Dog said:
That is fantastic, you went to all that trouble to type out that response, which had absolutely nothing at all whatsoever with my post that you quoted!

Plus asserting that it wasn't a strawman because some uncited someone might have made the argument is amazingly laughable.

The truly scary thing about Seth is how successful he's been at treating people like they're stupid. When he's gone, the stupid will remain.
Click to expand...

Woof! "Owning the libs" like a big dog!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom